Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gruban v Booth/1

Gruban v Booth edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Consensus to delist, with additional questions as to whether the article passes GNG at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. The biggest issue with the article is that it uses ONE source from 1960 to cite the entire article, which I don't think follows GA criteria. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm tempted to agree, there are only 4 mentions on Google Scholar since 1960. The case seems to have fallen into obscurity. To play devil's advocate which sources would you suggest should be cited Onegreatjoke ? (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really, any other sources available should be cited since having one source to cite an entire article does not seem like good sourcing. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd argue anything with only one source shouldn't be a GA on principle. Such an article by definition can't be a summary of reliable sources (plural) if there's only one source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we cannot find any other coverage I wonder if this should just be part of the Patrick Hastings article, appropriately slimmed down. But that's more of a notability judgement than a GA criteria one. Regardless, were I reviewing this article for GA I would quickfail due to only one source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be pedantic Trainsandotherthings, but is there any part of the GA criteria that requires more than one source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While there isn't anything that says it explicitly, things such as "it contains a list of all references (sources of information)" and "all inline citations are from reliable sources" do imply multiple sources. Though, if you're still on the fence we can bring this up to the talk page since this is a genuine concern. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings on the matter are similar to Onegreatjoke's. An article with only one source arguably isn't showing a GNG pass, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a law expert, but it seems like there are more (albeit not too many) sources available on Google Books and Scholar. I haven't done a thorough examination and only have snippets, but unless they are completely trivial mentions that contain basically no additional information (if so the article might fail GNG anyway, though this seems unlikely) I personally don't see how just one source can meet criteria 3a (yes GAs don't have to be comprehensive, but I'm subjectively unconvinced when that one source can be suitably broad). Though I agree this isn't explicitly stated in the GA criteria, and will defer to more knowledgable editors with regards to this topic. VickKiang (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.