Talk:Byzantine–Seljuk wars/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I wrote this on the talk page a five months ago

"There are a lot of references to about.com and answers.com, which have been marked as unreliable. I am pretty sure most editors would agree that these are not good enough. Would someone who watches this article be able to replace them (the have been here for a while). Otherwise this will probably need to be delisted as a Good article."

They are still in the article so I am opening this reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this needs lots of work. I am in, but won't be able to do much for a few days. I am also notifying the most relevant projects. Constantine ✍ 08:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As well as the tags there are quite a few uncited statements that fall under the criteria of "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". For example "The battle was tactically indecisive with both leaders keen to seek peace." Also some informal writing, e.g. "It must also be said that...". You are right, even from a superficial review it looks like a lot of work will be needed. I will probably hold off a full review until, or if, most of the glaring issues are dealt with as I imagine it will change a lot from its current version. I am willing to keep it open as long as work is being done on the artices, but practically if you think you can get it up to scratch within a month it is worth keeping open, otherwise it is probably easier to delist and let you and others work on it at your own pace. AIRcorn (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

While the article needs some fine tuning and style polishing it does appear to be an essentially good-quality piece of work. Certainly the subject is one of real importance. I hope that you can give interested editors (including myself) time to iron out the crinkles. Buistr (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That is why I opened this. A month is a generous amount of time I think (a week is the general standard for reviews) and if it is close after that then a few more weeks won't hurt. I have seen these reviews stretch for two to three months in some cases, which is not a length of time I wish to invest in a single article. If it was just style and fine tuning I would have done it myself, the issue is referencing and that is not an easy fix and needs some subject knowledge. Also note that had this meets the quickfail criteria, so if it was not already a GA it could have been quickfailed. Let me know when you have it up to scratch and I will review that version against the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Delisting No attempt to address the issues here, at the article or the talk page. Once the sourcing is sorted out feel free to re-nominate at WP:GAN. AIRcorn (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)