Talk:Adelaide Rams/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The article in current state does not meet criterion 2 for good Articles for verifiable. It contains a lot of uncited statements. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Other comments

It is standard for individual GA reassessments in the GAR space to have a more thorough explanation of the issues with the article, and also to notify the WikiProjects associated with the article so they can attempt to bring the article back into compliance with the GA criteria. If there are no responses within a certain period of time, or those responses do not address the issues, the reassessment is closed with the article being delisted; however, the desired result of any GAR is that the article's shortcomings will be addressed and the article remain a good article.

A quick examination of the article shows two significant issues in terms of the criteria:

• The article has an inadequate lead section per WP:LEAD, both in the length (should be two to three solid paragraphs given its 20,000 character prose size), and in what is covered—it should touch on material from all major sections and subsections in the body of the article. (This requirement is from the "Well-written" criteria: it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections.)
• As LibStar notes, the article is woefully undercited. There are currently nine "citation needed" templates, and in addition many of the paragraphs have no citations at all and need to. It significantly fails to meet the "Verifiable, with no original research" criteria.

These need to be addressed if the article is to remain a good article. Should they be addressed, then this reassessment should move on to examine the other GA criteria. But for now, let's deal with these. I'll be notifying the various WikiProjects, and hoping to attract interest over the next seven days to work on the articles issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks I set this up in February then forgot about it. In my opinion it clearly is no longer a GA. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing comments

There have not been any significant edits to the article in the past week—a couple of minor corrections and a single added source only, and no interest expressed here in doing the significant upgrades needed. I am therefore closing this reassessment and delisting the article. Anyone is welcome to make the necessary improvements to the article and then nominate it to become a good article again at WP:GAN. Best of luck with the article in future! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)