Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Andrés Nocioni/1

Andrés Nocioni edit

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

Result: Delist. Fails WP:LEAD and several other criteria. See comments below. Geometry guy 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails in coverage and scope. No personal info at all, some NBA seasons are completely missing coverage, the NBA career section is mostly one-sentence paragraphs, and the international and NBA careers being completely split even when they overlap makes for bad flow. Wizardman 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Wizardman noted on my userpage, when I passed this at a GAR in November, it was rather reluctantly and on the proviso that suggested improvements were made. They haven't been, and the article actually seems to have gone backwards since then. As it stands, I recommend delisting this if the improvements above and on the talk page aren't swiftly made.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the editors who brought this article to GA status are around much anymore. Just delist it. I'd like to make some improvements eventually, but this is not a top priority for me, and I greatly prefer to write about players when their careers are over. Zagalejo^^^ 22:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now hold on just a minute you have to at least give editors a few days to try to make improvements, even if those who brought this to GA are inactive others such as myself can still make improvements. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have time to improve. But if anyone can make improvements, please do. It would be greatly appreciated.—Chris! _ct 18:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to try to fix the article, go ahead. However, this article will need some significant prose expansion to retain GA status, and I'd prefer that people take their time adding that prose, rather than rushing to fix everything right now, which can just add more problems. I'm not saying we should delete the article, or anything like that. I'm just saying we should temporarily remove the GA status, since the article falls well short of where it could be, and has been that way for a while. When it's ready to become a GA, then we can call it a GA. Zagalejo^^^ 20:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marcusmax, don't worry: community GARs typically remain open for at least a week to gather consensus, so there is time to make improvements. Geometry guy 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. The prose really does take a nose-dive into proseline near the end, and the gaps in the personal life & career would seem to fail broadness. Where are the personal info numbers in the infbox sourced from? If in the article, is ok, but i couldn't find weight/height etc. (ah found source, but i don't think an infobox should be instead of cited text, it should only be summarising immportant info that is also somewhere in the article).Yob Mod 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It isn't a good sign that the citations in the lead are not used in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarize the article (and in principle does not need citations, although there are many exceptions to this). Geometry guy 21:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]