Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Popular culture studies/1

Popular culture studies

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

Result: Delist. Unsourced material, original research, unencyclopedic bias and prose, and a weak lead. Although there are inline citations, these don't cover the opinionated material adequately. Geometry guy 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am reviewing all of the "Society and Culture" articles for GA Sweeps and am undecided on this article. The article has been tagged with "This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes." since August 2007, and it uses Harvard referencing, which the criteria allows. However multiple parts are unsourced and some of the statements may be considered original research. I found parts of the article hard to follow, but I would like to see if it's just me that couldn't keep up with the content. Hopefully a community consensus can be determined to see if it should remain a GA. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. For so many reasons:
  • No in-line citations in key sections.
  • Underdeveloped lead.
  • Poorly-composed prose. The first person plural cracks me up.
  • POV and OR issues.

This one isn't even close to GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Concur with Majoreditor, although I think if Harvard refs are used, the inline citation criterion should be flexible. However, the sourcing is wholly inadequate for GA, the prose reads like an essay and needs thorough copyediting, especially for editor commentary (which I think is also the cause of the impression of POV), and the lead is not WP:LEAD compliant. EyeSerene^talk 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. The article does indeed read like an essay and needs some work. However, I am somewhat disappointed to see reviewers concurring that this has "no inline citations". It has frequent inline citations. That these inline citations do not use the cite-php footnotes method is irrelevant. Citation by author and year is perfectly acceptable for a GA. Geometry guy 23:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I recognize that the article has inline citations, be they Harvard referencing. However, multiple questionable statements throughout the article are not covered, and that is why I believe the tag was added. Of course, I'm sure it is possible the person who tagged the article had done so hoping that the citations were converted to cite-php footnotes. Anyway, the article needs to be rewritten, and references expanded. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, I agree, my remark referred only to the two subsequent posts. I just want to be sure that my much esteemed colleagues, who play a vital role in keeping GAR working, are on the same page as we are regarding this issue. Geometry guy 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I meant to say that certain key sections lack in-line citations, and have modified my original comments accordingly.

I started adding {{fact}} tags but threw in the towel because the article is, as Geometry guy states, more of an essay than an article. This article needs more than de-listing; it requires significant pruning. Too many assertions smack of personal opinion. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gguy: yes indeed we are. As usual I was less clear than I should have been :-( I, too, thought Majoreditor was saying there weren't any inline cites, and intended my opening sentence to be read to say that, just because the citations don't use the <ref>...</ref> format, it doesn't mean there aren't any. Apologies EyeSerene^talk 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries both. In any case, it looks like this article needs to be delisted. Geometry guy 22:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delist. Poorly-written and far from comprehensive essay, with some strange biases and emphases. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delist Lack of inline citations is big here. Also, the "essay-style". Mastrchf (^t/_c) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)