Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Akita (dog)/1

Akita (dog) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Citation needed tags are relevant and yet to be fixed. AIRcorn (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs serious reference work. There are [citation needed] tags all over the place, and many of the refs are dead. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was tag bombed by one editor a short time age (an earlier version). I don't have time to check right now, but I suspect that many of the surrounding refs support the statements. I would give some of the regular authors time to remove the unneeded {{cn}} tags or fix any that are justified. AIRcorn (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of the {{citation needed}} tags were placed by Tikuko on 5 March 2013. However, their placement is spread amongst so many edits of this editor's that they cannot be undone all at once; that, and some of the information that this editor added during these edits was constructive. Steel1943 (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as I have started checking refs, it appears that the tags Tikuko (TKK) placed are quite correct. Out of almost half a dozen that I checked, information given prior to the reference (tagged by TKK) was not supported by the reference in every single one of the cases. If there is someone interested in working on the article, I can continue checking references, but it appears that I'm duplicating work already done by TKK as they placed the tags. There are also a significant number of unreliable sources and dead links, the latter leading to even more unverifiable information. TPH (and TKK, through their tags) are correct in saying that this article needs a complete re-referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs some serious work and unfortunately probably should not be listed as a GA in it's present state despite some of the {{cn}} tags being removed today - I don't have access to the sources to check whether removing the tags was valid or not. TKK is an excellent editor and has done a tremendous amount of sterling work on dog articles so I would trust her judgement; it's unlikely she would have just undertaken a drive-by tag bombing without valid reasons. She hasn't been around much lately but I have pinged her talk page in case she wants to add further comment here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys! I indeed have had to cut back a bit on the Wiki because I'm now working nearly an 80 hour week. I do occasionally drive-by tag temperament sections as they tend to be loaded with unsourced, breed-promoting bs, but with this article I actually opened up the cited sources and backchecked. Everything I tagged was not to be found in the given source. I intended to come back to the article and do some work on it myself, but picking up a second job has nearly put a halt to my wiki adventures. I can throw the list of sources I accumulated at anyone who's interested, however. --TKK ^{bark !} 12:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did not mean to assume bad faith on your part, it was just from a first glance it looked like a tag bomb had been dropped. I too have now checked some of the sources and come to the same conclusions as Dana above. AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - There have been very few edits to the article since this review started, and none that made substantial moves towards addressing the issues raised by TKK and TPH. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]