Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes/1

Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes edit

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

Result: Delisted. Unanimous consensus in the 9 days that it has been here; article hasn't been worked on since then. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the arguments given on the talk page are about merging and renaming the article, not about its quality. Thus, the withdrawal of the Good article status is not motivated. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delisting. I needed a machette to blaze through the prose. Here are some examples:

But on Réunion, throughout its history, it has clearly been Parisian customary law that has guided the rights of succession.
The task of dividing plots perpendicular to the coast was made much easier by the fact that numerous ravines, difficult to cross, cover Réunion, starting from the heights and striating the sides of this cone-shaped island.
Thus, a judgment of the Conseil de contentieux administratif, issued 2 August 1853, defined the first as designating the high point as seen from several successive places, while the second referred only to the crest as seen in the foreground.

Wikipedia readers expect and deserve concise, well-composed prose. Please, dispense with the meandering sentences. Shun the passive voice. And consider using English where possible ("Conseil de contentieux administratif"?) Majoreditor (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references are insufficient, as there are 16 references for this moderately sized article, needs much more. Also, merge or kill some of the one-two sentence paragraphs and this could be a GA again. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I disagree with Malleus's reasons for delisting, but agree with the overall delist. The article is severely under-referenced, with several sections being completely or almost completely unreferenced. What references there are need work on the formatting. Web references should all have publishers and access dates, books should have publishers, and everything should be formatted consistently. The Use since the 1970s section has three very short sub-sections, which should be combined and expanded if possible. The section names tend to be long, especially in the Consequences section, and although this isn't a GA requirement, I would like to see them trimmed, if possible. Dana boomer (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should perhaps have gone into more detail in the GA Sweeps Review, and also raised the issues you quite properly raise, I accept that; no excuse for cutting corners. I remain convinced however that this article is not a credible GA candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]