Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Out of Reach/1

Out of Reach edit

Article (Edit · History) · Article talk (Edit · History) · Watch article · Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delist Geometry guy 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for GA almost a year ago. My main concern is that it fails criterion 2 (b) - particularly reliable sources. The use of George Starostin [1], Mark Prindle [2] and this website suggest that the article is using opinion pieces as though they were fact. The main problem is this - can Mark Prindle and George Starostin be considered professional music reviewers? That's what it comes down to. From the style of Prindle's writing, you'd think not, although he appears to be notable as a person (although that's distinct from making him a reliable source). Starostin's writing is much more coherent but he's notable as a lingustics professor and not for his amateur music reviews, despite being prolific at them.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Even though this is a short article (which is fine), the lead is rather short: it doesn't cover, for example, the critical reception. Geometry guy 09:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom and per G-guy's observation. The article has issue both with RS and Lead. Majoreditor (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per all the above. The references, regardless of quality, also lack retrieval dates and would be best formatted using the templates on WP:CITET. EyeSerene^TALK 10:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]