Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jack (webcomic)/1

Jack (webcomic)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delisted I have looked at this article and agree that the referencing is well below standard as noticed by TenPoundHammer. AS there have been no other comments within two weeks I am de-listing this. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GA passed 5 years ago, and I'm surprised that it did.

First of all, it is very lacking in secondary sources. Nearly every source is to the strip itself. And of the sources that aren't:

This site is a retailer that sells the comic — not a reliable source.
This and this are other people's webcomics, only verifying that those two comics (which are not notable in their own right) gave a shout out to Jack.

The other sources are the artist's VCL gallery, and listings from the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and Ursa Major awards. While I don't think it's even notable (there is years of consensus saying that Ursa Major and Web Cartoonists' Choice are not enough for WP:WEB), one thing at a time. See among others, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_and_Mab's_Furry_Adventures, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination) — these discussions have all shown a well established consensus that WCCA is not enough to meet WP:WEB. And the fact that Ursa Major Awards' article was AFD'd 2 years ago, I'd say it's not a notable award either.

Even back in 2007, the nomination was called into question ("I'm unsure how this has got to GA - it is completely lacking in reliable sources and the referencing is thin - largely references to awards sites and the comic itself. This is particularly noticeable in the themes and reception sections which should be heavily referenced to reliable third party sources and they aren't."), but nothing ever came of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~ETA: Any chance I could AFD this as it stands? Zig Zag (character) had an equally flawed GA, and was successfully taken to AFD even while it had the green disc on the talk page.~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One fight at a time. Why don't you withdraw that AFD of yours until you get this reassessment handled? Veled (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the original nominator, reviewer and primary contributors been notified? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer appears to be retired, as they've only edited twice in the past year. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the others? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISD was both the nominator and most prominent editor, so I notified them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WikiProject Furry, whose members might be able to help. GreenReaper (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ETA part deux. I have withdrawn the AFD but still hold that the article is far below GA standards due to its heavy reliance on primary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.