Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Margaret Sanger/1

Margaret Sanger

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Retrohead (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This article is overly reliant on puffery and flowery language to try and sell a controversial individual. We should state the facts in as encyclopedic a manner as we can and leave the reader to make their own opinions. Chrononem ☎ 15:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you are busy with a campaign to make the article non-neutral. In the way you are reworking it, it will never be good enough for the status Good Article. The Banner talk 00:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good enough now. It's violation after violation of the manual of style. Puffery, Unsupported attributions, Contentious labels, and Editorializing pervade the entire work, both critiquing and lauding the subject. I've tried to correct some of this but I've met with resistance from one very persistent editor. (At least when I've made changes to neutralize the puffery, removing items that attack the subject seems to be allowed.)

Regardless, It would be better if the community as a whole would recognize that the article needs work and move to correct it. Chrononem ☎ 02:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally haven't read the article yet, but at a glance I can tell the lead is too short. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, this article fails criteria #5: it is not stable. There's quite a bit of POV edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, based in part on what happened when I tried today to make a single edit restoring some balancing content that had been removed from the article without explanation: I was promptly reverted and accused of making 3 reverts with a single edit. At this point the article needs a POV tag and doesn't qualify as a good article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The instability seems to be getting worse. This article has problems, and we need to get editors on the same page before we can even think of this being GA again. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page just had to be fully protected due to the instability. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]