Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Problem of two emperors/1

Problem of two emperors

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

Result: Request for review withdrawn, erroneously opened Dimitriye98 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is very sparse with inline citations compared to other articles at the GA-level. In particular, the entire lead text has only a single inline citation, which relates only to the etymology of the term, with no inline citation of any of the facts stated in the lead text.

Beyond that, while most paragraphs and statements are cited properly to a single source, there is no citation of corroborating sources. Given the sheer quantity of sources cited, I have no doubt that the information is corroborated, however there is no indication of where it's corroborated.

The bigger problem at issue is the lead text though. Dimitriye98 (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dimitriye98: What is the meaning of this? Why was this brought directly to GAR without any prior discussion anywhere (on the talk page perhaps)? If there was prior discussion, why was I as the main contributor and nominator for GA not notified?

The article is very sparse with inline citations compared to other articles at the GA-level is simply a lie - the only portion of the article that is unsourced is the last two sentences. There is no reason to include multiple citations for every statement when one citations does the trick and as for with no inline citation of any of the facts stated in the lead text, lead text does not have to be cited if supported by citations in the article body. There is nothing stated in the lead that is not supported by citations further down. See here and here for examples of GA articles with extensive lead sections but no references in them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm kinda new here, and not necessarily entirely familiar with the etiquette. This wasn't meant as a personal attack. I wandered into the article while working on another one, and saw a large section of what appeared to be completely uncited text and added the template. I only realized after that it was listed a good article. I thought I reverted adding the template after that, entirely my bad on that front. I also didn't realize GAR was a major step, I was under the impression it was more or less just opening the conversation on the issue. It was my impression that even Feature Articles lapse in and out of the status, e.g. Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Dimitriye98 (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dimitriye98: Yeah, alright. I did not realize you were new and I am sorry for being overly confrontational - I just woke up to see that one of my GA:s had been tagged as being insufficiently sourced. Articles do drift in and out of GA and FA status but my impression is that in most cases, issues can be resolved by bringing them up on the talk page. I've never had anything gone to GAR before but it seems to me that this happens when it's large scale issues such as obvious errors littered throughout or large unsourced sections in the article body. The version of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that got demoted from FA status for instance had unsourced sentences and paragraphs in virtually every section, with some sections lacking references completely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Sorry about all that. I don't quite know if I'm allowed to close this, since it says uninvolved editors, but on the basis of WP:SNOW I'm gonna do so, and hopefully I won't get in trouble for that. I do still feel it'd be better to have the lead section cited, as in many articles (case in point the current version of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth), but that's something I was planning on addressing myself anyway once my finals are done. Dimitriye98 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dimitriye98: Yeah it's fine - I was just very surprised. You're free to work on adding citations to the lead section if you want to - the relevant references in that case should be found without much trouble further down in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)