Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Golubac Fortress/1
Golubac Fortress edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: More than a week, no stated intention of fixing article nor effort to do so. Delisted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
One of the GAs from the 2023 GA Sweeps listing. This 2007 promotion last formally reviewed in 2008 contains some uncited material, but more importantly, as I noted on the article's talk page in March, many of the web sources used are of questionable reliability. Hog Farm Talk 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delist: in addition to the issues above, which are serious enough in themselves, it also blanket-cites two Wikipedia pages with an editorial note. This is suboptimal practice on a number of levels and means that it now fails the citation requirements of the GA criteria. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delist: for the reasons stated by Hog Farm and UndercoverClassicist. Not only are there sources of dubious reliability, most sources are foreign language sources. I think it is safe to assume that there are only a few users who can access, understand and determine the reliability of the sources. Unless someone objects and will make an effort to improve the article in the near future, I doubt that deficiencies in the article will be remedied. It may have potential but I think it is not up to current GA standards in its current state. Donner60 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.