Talk:Johnny Appleseed/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   It relies far to heavily on lengthy quotes, rather than summarising various sources into original prose. The lede is too short, and the language is not sufficiently encyclopaedic (see point 4 below).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is a good amount of references, but the sources are of dubious reliability. Some are simply too old, and might not reflect current scholarship, others are blogs or other forms of unreliable sources. Further, many of the references are poorly formed, with naked URLs, and there are external links in the text.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The lower part of the article (" Legacy", "In modern culture") has filled up with excessive cruft.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The style is highly anecdotal, probably because of the sources used, and does not come across as NPOV.

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:

   Lampman (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have found only two fairly recent sources written for adults (a bio from the mid 1950s and a book on folklore from the 1990s. I have asked Lampman twice if these would be OK (before I start a lot of work on this) but have had no reply. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with your assessment that, as it currently is, this article does not meet the Good Article criteria. I do hope someone has the time to fix it up to prevent it from being delisted. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to put in the work, but if I do all the work and the new sources are not good enough, that would be a shame. Hence my question. Lampman asked for more detail, which I provided on his talk page. Now I am waiting to hear his opinion of the new sources. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that those are both good enough sources. You might also check out "Indiana Legends" and "Legendary Hoosiers", I beleive (if memory serves me) there is chapter about him in those books. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip - both are on Google books and each has a short chapter on him. I already posted this on Lampman's talk page, but I will not have access to the long bio for about a week. I will work on the other issues in the meanwhile, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite a while has passed now without any significant improvements to the article, so I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)