Talk:Derek and the Dominos/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria edit

  To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of September 12, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Reference #3 [1] is anot a reliable source; ref #16 [2] is not RS; ref #13 [3] is not RS; ref #5 [4] is not RS; I have placed citation needed tag, there is also a long outstanding one in the infobox, relating to lack of sourcing of the group's origins.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Referencing issues above need to be addressed on hold for seven days. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No attempt has been made to address these points so de-listing. The notice at the top of this reassessment lists possible courses of action. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply