Talk:Gunfight at the O.K. Corral/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am quickfailing this upon noticing that there are many entire paragraphs that have no citations. Since a well-formed article presents distinct ideas in new paragraphs any paragraph without a citations is a problem. At a glance the article otherwise seems to be of reasonable quality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a GA review. Assuming good faith, it would have been considerate to allow me to add the necessary citations rather than re-nominate it. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen serious academic papers with fewer citations than this. High quality writing is about more than "checking the box that say there's a citation for every paragraph", but about whether previous paragraphs develop what happens before, and if so, they may not need a cite of their own. I think this is a little nutty. There are well over 100 citations in this article. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. At the time the GA was denied there were already 95 good citations and there are even more now. GA's do not in any way require a citation for every paragraph and, to be totally honest, shouldn't. It is perhaps a justifiable request for FAs but we have to remember that citations for citations sake everywhere also just plain hurt the readability and usefulness of the page. If there is a need for more citations then say so (and I'm not actually sure there is to be honest) but quick failing, without feedback, when that many citations are already in place and that much work has been put into the article is silly and just serves to bite great editors. Jalexander--WMF 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)