Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/CobraNet/1

CobraNet edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: delist 19:04, 21 January 2016 Graeme Bartlett

This article clearly does not fulfill the GA criteria. It's lede is not a well-written summary and includes text which is not introduced in anyway in the body and one paragraph is unsourced. This article used peacock terms in recent revisions, which I have now removed. This article shouldn't have been promoted to GA class in the first place. Furthermore, it has original research and was written like an advertisement, more like a portfolio page, which I've fixed to some extent. There's original research on this article and many citations are unreliable. I've revamped this article over the last couple of days, but it doesn't deserve GA yet. Now, I'd have done an individual reassessment but there was a full-scale row at ANI over this article and I think a second opinion would genuinely help. Thank you. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 13:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks QEDK for your recent improvements to the article.

I have some experience with GA trying to bring Ethernet and Moore's law articles back up to these standards after being delisted. I would assess CobraNet as lower quality than these two articles which have not yet regained their GA status. It does appear that there is quite a bit variation in how GA criteria are applied in different situations and by different assessors. I'm not in a position to make anything but an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here so I'll trust others to make an accurate assessment. ~Kvng (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar, SilkTork, Imzadi1979, Dr. Blofeld, and Cirt: Guys, I'm sorry for pinging any of you. But, it's almost impossible to get a community reassessment (or so, it seems). Five of you seem to be quite credible in the GA field and it'd be good to have your opinion about this reassessment as well as this RfC about the same article. I wouldn't do this but everything was coming to a standstill here and there and I like to wrap up whatever I do. Thank you for any help that you provide.

--QEDK (T ❄ C) 16:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a reviewer's point of view I would say that half of this article needs a re-write in order to meet the "well written" part of the criteria. Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead doesn't need to be sourced and would be better off being merged into two paragraphs. The prose of the history section needs to be copyedited slightly as three paragraphs begin with "CobraNet". The latter half of the article (especially the Hardware and software section) comprises of long lists, which are discouraged in GAs usually. I'm not well versed in this subject but I would say it's quite comprehensive. Despite this, numerous citation needed tags and fears of original research would result in a quick-fail. JAGUAR 16:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed User:QEDK Horrible lists and formatting and unsourced material in places. Definitely shouldn't have been promoted. As Jaguar says, we'd have quick failed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting delisting per comments above. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 13:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.