Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Nawa-I-Barakzayi District/1

Nawa-I-Barakzayi District 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 I have looked at this article thoroughly and I feel that the concerns raised by Ravichandar84, regarding its broadness, are justified - I commented on these myself when doing the GA review and suggested some possible sources. Nothing has really happened in the subsequent two years and the last edit was made over four weeks ago, so I determine that the article should be de-listed now and that it may be nominated at WP:GAN when it is suitable for scrutiny. As per note 1 above,(Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; reviewers are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment) I consider myself to be an uninvolved editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No information on the pre-civil war history of the district as if the area did not exist on the face of the earth prior to the event. No images from the pre-Enduring Freedom era. Fails GA criteria 3 and 6.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 18:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the primary editor of this article. This place isn't London: it is a small third-world community in the middle of nowhere with an extremely high illiteracy rate; consequently few things are written down. I'm am not making this up when I say that many locals think 9/11 was a response to the US invasion of Afghanistan: that's how terrible the local knowledge of history is. Everything I was able to find from before the civil war is in the Climate and Geography section. While I did interview some the older locals about the history of the area, putting it here would violate WP:NOR. There are no free images from before the civil war for the same reason. If you are aware of some hidden repository of central Helmand Province history, I would be more than happy to include it. Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of books on the history of Afghanistan. Even a sentence or two on the pre-civil war history of the district would do. Unfortunately nothing is mentioned here.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 04:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to check this out. I am sure you might find other sources, too.-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 04:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll switch sections. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is this going? It sounds like an agreement is being reached. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I contend that for images, I used what was available. For earlier content, I moved some material from elsewhere in the article to the beginning, but we clearly have a lot more history even before the 1950s. Obviously just the beginning of a fix. Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not an issue. If there are no suitable or free ones available then you don't need to provide any. Broadness is a valid concern regarding early history. Have you included any information from the above Helmand Valley link? AIRcorn (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to a weak keep here. Still pretty low on pre-modern history, but it probably just scrapes by the broadness category to mine mind. AIRcorn (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not too happy with it either, but have had another project going for the past few months. Good news is we've got Scott's Helmand Valley Archives (which has an in-depth section on Nawa from before the civil war), plus the information from the Helmand Province page. If/when I ever finish my other project, updating it shouldn't take too long. Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original GA reviewer and I see that little has been added to address the points in the peer review and the GA review about broadness. I should perhaps not have passed it two years ago - I do feel the lack of context and pre-modern history mean that this does not meet the criteria and that it should be de-listed until this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2012 (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.