Talk:Mother Teresa/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I am de-listing this article as it no longer meets GA criterion 1-b for the lead. Specifically, the lead no longer adequately encapsulates the article. There may be other problems as well; rather than addressing each of them, I will de-list the article and work on improving it via Peer Review. The article will hopefully be re-nominated for GA status when it's up to par. Majoreditor (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, if you would, could you expand on this? What specific parts of the article need to be encapsulated into the lead to satisfy "Criterion 1-b"? Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, the lead would benefit by having additional material on her reception in India and the rest of the world as well as on her spiritual life. The lead is rather stubby and doesn't do justice to the influential role she's played in shaping humanitarian movements. Nor does it mention the criticism she's received from Hitchen and others.

Rather than attempting to temporaily patch this issue ... as well as other potential GA problems ... I propose de-listing the article, working on it woth other editors, and then re-nominating it at GAN. If you feel that this article currently meets GA criteria then please let me know and I will close this individual GAR and open a community GAR. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I agree with you, it's not GA. I was just wondering what you were referring to, specifically. I also think that the fact that she was a missionary should be summarized in the lead from material already in the body, that criticism from WP:RS medical journals should be given more weight than those of famous authors, and maybe most importantly, there is nothing at all anywhere about the fact that "Mother Teresa" was not only a real person, but has long been a very commonly used metephor in the English Language for "selfless, altruistic person" in rhetoric and discourse.

Very good points, Chrisrus. Majoreditor (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see this article going GA again unless the title reflects Hitchen's contributions. It's down for the count. Penyulap _talk 09:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't think of them as Hitchens's. He was just passing them along, making them known to the English-speaking world. Fans of MT want the lead to imply that all criticism of MT originates from Hitchens. Chrisrus (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying, based on the multiple recent editing work, is that generally most editors want this article to be mostly about Hitchens, and less about MT. So hey, lets give them what they want. And of course dump GA status as is appropriate in such cases. A good fast cure is to simply rename the article "Hitchens commentary about MT" followed by a brief outline of who MT is, and blah blah blah Hitchens. Cool, job done. GA so totally doesn't belong on this article, Full support as proposed, full support on stability. Penyulap _talk 20:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I am closing this discussion as a delist and will strike the article from GA status later today. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)