Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Malice at the Palace/1
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Several completely uncited sentences and paragraphs, YouTube is used twice as a source. SirMemeGod 12:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why are there citations in the lead to begin with? mftp dan oops 23:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's a misconception that citations are banned from lead sections entirely, but frankly this article has much bigger problems than that. If the issues are not addressed in the near future I'd support a delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am aware. There are exceptions. But I fail to see anything particularly exceptional which must be noted with a citation inside the lead, and that it is usually preferred without. I would think that an article like this should be easy to fix if it's just a few citations missing, yes? mftp dan oops 22:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- The official guidance is
Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.
In this article, the alternate name "Pacers–Pistons brawl" is only mentioned in the lead, and is therefore cited there. Assuming editorial judgement is that the alternate name doesn't need to be repeated in the body, then those citations would need to remain in place. I do agree most of the others appear redundant to the body and could be removed. Personally, I wouldn't fail someone's GAN over citations in the lead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- The official guidance is
- I am aware. There are exceptions. But I fail to see anything particularly exceptional which must be noted with a citation inside the lead, and that it is usually preferred without. I would think that an article like this should be easy to fix if it's just a few citations missing, yes? mftp dan oops 22:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's a misconception that citations are banned from lead sections entirely, but frankly this article has much bigger problems than that. If the issues are not addressed in the near future I'd support a delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
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.