Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Wiggles Pty Ltd/1

The Wiggles Pty Ltd edit

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 • Most recent review

Result: Speedy keep, GAR rationale badly misunderstands the GACR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the material in the lead sentence is uncited. failing GA criterion 2b GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielPenn4223, GA criterion 2B states that reliable sources should be cited inline, but the MOS:LEADCITE policy states (2nd paragraph):

"Because the lead will usually repeat 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. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation or it may be removed. 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."

Nothing in this article's lead can't be found in its body and no statements in the lead is challenged or likely to be challenged. There's one direct quote that is cited. Finally, the subjects and claims made in the lead aren't controversial or complex. Consequently, the lead doesn't fail the GA criteria. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this interpretation of policy. Reviewing the lede section -- not a sentence, as the nomination claims -- there's nothing that isn't echoed and expanded on later in the article. Literally, similar words recur in the lede and body (independent, consensus, richest, difficulty/difficult, partnered, recession.) All you need is a CTRL+F search of the page, you don't even need to read it.

The exception is the Anthony Field quote, which appropriately has a citation.

I've looked at the nominator's talk page. Your welcome message is January 4, and since then you've closed GARs before they should be closed, asked for GARs of articles that aren't GAs, etc.

As has been expressed by Hog Farm on your talk page, GARs are not for minor issues, and even if they were, there are no issues in the lede.

This is a quick close, if that's even a term in GARs. If there are legitimate issues with this article that I haven't noticed, you're welcome to open a new GAR, but I see no obvious issue, and your initial rationale is flawed. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:15, 21 January 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.