Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1

Al-Kindi edit

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

Result: Delisted by Gun Powder Ma per consensus below. Geometry guy 22:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was arbitrarily de-listed by William M. Connolley with this comment at Talk:Al-Kindi#Not a GA. I am nominating for reassessment here and hope that the editor will join the discussion. Notifying other interested editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: maintaining GA status while at the same being tagged for neutrality issues for ten months is a contradiction in terms. With around 130 edits, Jagged 85 is the main contributor to the article and "He was a pioneer in..." etc. sounds to me like the usual diction with which grandiosely hollow claims are introduced. There are also a number of individual statements tagged so I don't see how this article can be GA given how good real GA article actually are. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note a lot of tags which need addressing. I brought this here as I don't think that removing the GA icon, and removing from the list of GAs is the right way of going about addressing GA status concerns. I have notified major contributors, the original nominator, the reviewer and the projects listed on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delay I'm looking through the recently added tags now and will try to address as many as I can, although I admit I don't have much knowledge regarding al-Kindi. Has a notice been given to the article's main contributor(s)? If they (or he/she) are still active, I think they would be able to address any concerns quicker and more knowledgeably. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the note immediately above about notificatiuons. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- For citation #24, I don't see much reason this source should be deemed unreliable. Actually it reads neutrally in an encyclopedic manner (although that's not a requirement for an RS) and the source itself is well-sourced. If you click on the "Home" section of the reference it is very clear that this source is indeed reliable. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article states in the infobox and its categories that al-Kindi adhered to Shia Islam, but there doesn't seem to be a source backing that information and nothing on his stated adherence to Shia Islam is mentioned in the body of the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken care of the issue with the camera obscura quote. Since I couldn't find it anywhere in google books nor the regular web except in wikipedia mirror articles, I removed it. I replaced it with important info regarding his involvement with the camera obscura using two reliable book sources with links for anyone to verify. However, I have no objection to reinstating the quote if we decide to accept the reliable source that had been used originally in good faith. Al Ameer son (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you didn't. I've removed the text to talk for repair William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified of this, but I note that I haven't edited the article or previously participated, except to ask a GA reviewer 1 question: why he had requested for a 3rd opinion without specifying why he had difficulty deciding whether to pass/fail. I'm not going to comment further except to say the following: if there is a dispute over neutrality (which is a content dispute), I don't think criterion 5 is satisfied (and a neutrality tag which hasn't been removed after a reasonable period of time is considered as prima fascie evidence of a content dispute). That dispute would need to be resolved in order for that criterion to be satisfied, and upon that resolution, the tag would need to be removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delist - no article with an unresolved POV tag on its header for the past 6 months should be a GA. If you care to address the tag, consider for relisting later William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The good article process is broken. Articles are only judged on form not content. This is a good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) example. —Ruud 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we bored yet? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After one week of inactivity here and the article itself (Jezhotwells's last edit was on 22 March), it is clear that the Good article reassessment was negative, that is the article should be delisted immediately. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]