Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of poison/1

History of poison

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 • GAN review not found

Result: Seems to be a clear view towards delisting: in addition to concerns raised here, does not meet criterion 2b, and satisfies criterion 3 (and arguably criterion 1) for a quickfail. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an old GA that hasn't stood the test of time, unfortunately. Lead is covered in {{cn}} tags, eleven citations to a somewhat academic-looking early 2000s webpage, another three to a blatantly non-MEDRS source. I want to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, so i'll say upfront that I think this would be a quickfail at GAN and as such should be speedily delisted and brought back to GAN when it's undergone the necessary work. I'd be happy to assist in that however possible, but I don't think GAR's the right venue. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Ancient poisons", where most of the article historic información is sourced from, has an extensive bibliography that could be of use. The tags in the lead could certainly be addressed with some of those sources; if I weren't going on break I would step up to take a stab at it but the proposed route is probably better given the age of the nomination. Recon rabbit 16:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with delisting, the prose also needs significant improvement. It is a wonderful world (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2024 (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.