Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Paris–Roubaix/1

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

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been a GA since 2009, but in my mind, it falls woefully short of the current GA standards. Problems I've identified are:

Lack of sourcing in places, many unsourced sections and lots of unsourced tables
Not enough about the history, only 10 years of the race are mentioned (and 8 of those are purely for "controversy" reasons). History section would be better laid out like in Tour de France#History, with summaries for different time periods.
Way too many long quotes, violates MOS:QUOTATIONS
Comments section seems like WP:TRIVIA, and should maybe be integrated into another section (maybe Course section)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose and layout issues mentioned above.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Sources that are in article look fine. Multiple unsourced sections and paragraphs though.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article is overly focused on a small number of races, and doesn't have any text on 95% of the events at all. This therefore fails the major aspects and focused aspects of scope criteria.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images look fine, and seem relevant and freely licenced
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, this would fail the GA criteria by a long way

I would like to give people a bit of time to try and start fixing these issues, but if not, then it should be delisted. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]