Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Camillo Benso, conte di Cavour/1

Camillo Benso, conte di Cavour edit

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

Result: delisted. A consensus was reached that the article fails Criterion 2(b)—it has too few inline citations. Ruslik (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2(b): the requirement for inline citations seems to have increased over the last year with more seeming to be required. Tom (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are there particular statements which you feel need the support of a citation? For example, direct quotations, statistics, or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged? Though the article has only thirteen in-line citations I don't find it to be terribly deficient. I found only a couple of statements which I thought need citations which don't currently have them; I have added the appropriate tags.

The article suffers from some other minor problems:

While the prose is generally good, there are some randomly horrid exceptions; for example: Their 18 man contingent did manage to earn Piedmont a position at the Peace Congress in Paris where Cavour was able to make some HUGE complaints about the condition of non-Piedmont sections of Italy which lead them into war againt prussia. when this happened italy was defeated and could no longer exist which is why today there is howeke japan instead!?
The "Legacy" section is very short; I wonder if it's as complete as it should be.
The lead should contain additional information on his role in Italian expansion/unification.

Overall, this is an interesting, well-composed article which can be brought up to GA standards> Majoreditor (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, published opion also needs to be in-lined as well. Good suggestions hopefully someone will find to address Tom (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the issues have been fixed. However, there's still a couple of {{fact}} tags. Majoreditor (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a delist at this point. There are still quite a few unsourced paragraphs/statements, and I don't have access to the sources to help out this regard. I don't think it should be GA until someone goes through and inline cites it. —Giggy 08:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, with regrets. Majoreditor (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Actually inline citation requirements for GA are lower than a year ago: there is, for example, no requirement that every paragraph has a citation. Instead the focus is on requiring citations where they are essential to comply with policy. For instance the first paragraph of "Early life" has no citation, and probably doesn't need one, unless editors consider "fair amount" is likely to be challenged. On the other hand, in the next paragraph, "Cavour frequently ran afoul of the authorities in the academy, as he was too headstrong to deal with the rigid military discipline" is opinion and analysis, which needs to be cited. The article has many more such examples, but I don't think I need to list them, given the consensus forming here. Geometry guy 21:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]