Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John W. Campbell/1
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Numerous uncited passages, bloated lede, reliance on block quotes, and unused sources in the "Further reading" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- My advice is to trim the lede by at least one paragraph and reincorporate into another section, cut down some of the block quotes and change them into regular prose, and look into some of the works found in the Further Reading section to determine if any of the unsourced claims can be found there. I was able to find a Los Angeles Times reference for one of the unsourced claims and I might be able to assist further with the article. Are you available or willing to clean up the article? If so, can you provide a timeframe? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Dobbyelf62: I am happy to provide a review after the article is fixed up, but I am not willing to clean up the article myself. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720: That's fine. While I might not be able to heavily overhaul the article, I am willing to make various improvements. I have made a couple of changes in the interim, including the addition of references and the elimination of a few block quotes in favor of prose, but I'm hoping that I did not remove any necessary context in doing so.
- @Dobbyelf62: I am happy to provide a review after the article is fixed up, but I am not willing to clean up the article myself. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Could you provide more specific examples on some of your grievances with the article? You mentioned that the lede is too lengthy, but are there any particular paragraphs that are worth trimming or removing? Which ones are absolutely necessary for the article and should be retained? I can address some of these requests once I have additional context, but I will also exercise some discretion when making these changes. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Dobbyelf62: According to WP:LEADLENGTH, it is suggested that an article of this length should be two to three paragraphs. Typically, the lede is a summary of the most important aspects of the article. I don't have enough knowledge of the prose to know what should be cut from the lede, and I don't have the time or desire to obtain that knowledge. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Dobbyelf62: do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but I am unfortunately away from my computer and will not be able to make extensive edits until the end of the month. My apologies for the inconvenience. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lead now looks fine for length, but uncited passages are a major concern. @Dobbyelf62: are you in a position to keep working on this? UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I will place some attention on sourcing certain passages later today. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, I am unlikely to add further content to this article, so the review process can proceed. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- We still have some uncited material, so if this means that nobody is going to step in to cite it, the only option seems to be a delist, as the article does not meet the criteria. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, I am unlikely to add further content to this article, so the review process can proceed. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I will place some attention on sourcing certain passages later today. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I won't be able to take on much work with respect to this article, but I do have most of the cited sources and can look things up and review if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delist; valiant effort by Dobbyelf, but this article still has a citation needed tag, two "page needed" tags, and cites the deprecated NNDB. Queen of Hearts (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)