Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jutland (horse)/1

Jutland (horse) edit

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

Request withdrawn

This article was recently listed as a good article. Its really a start class. Its a 7.5 kb start class article. It fails the GA criteria in that its supposed to be broad in scope. Sure we have a few short articles but this really does not provide a comprehensive, satisfactory coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article length has never been a GA criterion. What information do you believe is missing in the article's coverage? Malleus Fatuorum 12:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much more out there. I agree the thing looks dangerously short. But good faith for GAR (who is supposed to want the article to pass not to fail, blabla) would be to list some sources and some aspects of coverage. That's not asking for him to rewrite the article, but just to define what work needs to be done and scope it. I did a GS search and there were 8 hits (and one was like a picture book with a paragraph). It's definitely slim pickings, but will throw you what I can find (not meant like neener neener if I find something or the converse.) at your talk pageTCO (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you find anything let User:Dana boomer know. She wrote the article, I just did the review. Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the article talk page.

Some articles on very obscure topics may get away with being short if they are comprehensive. I'm not horse expert but 6 sources indicates lack of research and makes me doubt its comprehensiveness.... See A here. There are a mass of sources which could be used for it....♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "comprehensive" is not one of the GA criteria. Compare this article to other similar ones like Suffolk Punch for instance, which is an FA, and then give some indication of what available information you believe is missing. Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange words Malleus. A good article shouldn't be comprehensive? How can an article be "good" if it is poorly researched and not comprehensive?? "Broad in coverage" is a GA criteria... I've already added to this...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Comprehensive" is a criterion for featured, not good, articles. GAs should merely be "broad in their coverage" (as you say), a far lower standard. It means they should cover the main aspects of the topic. Ucucha 13:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your "comprehensive" and length complaints, neither of which are relevant to the GA criteria, have been dealt with. You are now complaining that the article is poorly researched, but on what evidence? What available information do you believe to be missing? Malleus Fatuorum 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article now has triple the number of sources compared to the version you passed, all from a mere ten minutes of study.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not skimmed the sources to see that they have new substantive information that fills a gap in the article, you can't tell if the number means anything. I do know some of those horse almanacs are very "thin". TCO (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in shock at the two proposals I just saw for delisting reviews. (Jutland and that one on Sandy's page.) They are lacking a REVIEW by the delisting proposer! Shouldn't there be some sort of detailed and substantive set of comments to start off the party? To show that this is a worthwhile exercise? If I were GA-Sandy I would just shut this down and tell the proposer he needs to spend a couple hourse reading the article in detail, making a serious set of comments at some level of granularity, like you would get from Sasata or would get in a peer review or just a review review (like here: [1])

And I'm not even trying to defend the articles! They might be subpar, I don't know. And if the would-be delister doesn't know enough about the literature (and is unwilling to spend the time to brush up on the extent of it) then he should NOT propose a delist. He should recognize his handicap of not being able to make a sophisticated criticism and just stay out of it. But if he really wants to delist, he should invest the time that would allow others to see that a delist is needed and also to allow the article writer a better chance to save the article.TCO (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look enough of the angst from you lot. I know a subpar article when I see one. Horse expert or not, 6 sources IS very poor standards for a good article, even if apparently a good article could even use just 2 sources and "pass the criteria". Having done some research into this now it is actually a lot more comprehensive than the length and original 6 sources let on. Luckily I've filled in gaps and tripled the number of sources and I'm now happier with it. Somebody can withdraw this review. I will consider making improvements myself to articles first in future irather than taking straight to review.. I just do not think articles with an extreme lack of sources and evidence of much research should pass GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the original poster can withdraw requests themselves. Pitke (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]