Talk:Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia/GA1

GA Review

Just want to say that it's appalling to see this article might be considered for some sort of award ... it's a clear WP:SYN violation, not to mention non-notable navel-gazing. It should have been deleted, not nominated for good article status. Just my two cents; I'm not the person who was asked to review it. csloat (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This article does not meet the Good Article criteria and will not be listed. While Wikipedia articles discussing the topic of Wikipedia itself can and have been considered for Good Article status in the past (see Essjay controversy, a current GA), they nonetheless must adhere to the same GA standards as any other article. This one falls quite far short of that bar.

First, the lead is too short and doesn't adequately summarize the article. Secondly, what's with the use of NINE citations on the very first sentence?!?! You think that's just a tad excessive?

The included sections of information are individually very short, with little content, and mostly bits and pieces of random facts pieced together from several sources. There are many individual paragraphs within sections that are single sentences, and sections themselves do not connect very well with each other. Overall, the article looks like an indiscriminate collection of information, probably just above being a trivia section.

The screenshot of a deletion review (Image:Deletion review.png) is very difficult to read, and doesn't really appear to bring anything useful to the article. The image of Simon Pulsifer is only connected to the text by a single sentence. How can you justify an image if you only refer to the incident by just one sentence?!?! The image of the Mzoli's incident does have some text in the article, and the incident is described, somewhat. But the image is very poor quality and could probably be tweaked in a photo editor.

There are lots of external links included throughout the article text, and these should only be found in the 'external links' section.

Reading the article again, I should reiterate the fact that this article appears to just be a random collection of isolated facts, not tied together very well, and I draw huge gaping question marks over the 'completeness' of this article. Therefore, it cannot meet the Good Article criteria at this time. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In what way is the article incomplete? Please indicate significant omissions so that they may be addressed. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)