Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Watford F.C./1

Watford F.C. edit

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

Result: Delist Main issue appears to be broadness. Missing owner is important. Not too concerned about the low detail over the 1990-2000 era as broadness does not mean comprehensive. Still the issues have been clearly identified and there has been enough time for a editor to address them. AIRcorn (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this passed GA before, the current article is not up to current GA standards.

The chronological order in early history doesn't seem clear.
Missing the period (era) when Jack Petchey owned the football club as there is no mention of him what so ever.

I really feel the article needs to be reassessed and the current GA be dropped. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first review Talk:Watford F.C./GA1 was hardly in-depth. However, the reassessment happens here before being removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, are you looking to make improvements to the article yourself or simply want it downgraded? Kosack (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: For the moment, just to downgrade the article. It's doesn't help either that there is currently an argument over the found date of the club, that also makes me feel that GA is void. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be a shame as I think the core of the article is there and the majority of the damage has been done post-review. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree to an extent, I didn't think the previous version was fantastic. However, there being a dispute over the date (with both sides being sourced) isn't an issue to stop this being a GA. Realistically, all sources should be used and associated in the text. The GAR is here to let people have a chance to fix issues with the text, so usually, you'd want to point out the biggest issues with the text. with that being said, this article does need a massive shakeup Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there's definitely issues here no doubt about it and I think standards have improved in the seven years since this was promoted but we're not starting from scratch here. Kosack (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the article that can't be fixed. Also @Govvy:, why couldn't you just add that stuff yourself. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KingSkyLord: Firstly, you can't vote keep, a non-partisan reviewer is required to assess the article for or against. Secondly, I have mentioned there are issues here that modern GA assessment would deem this a fail that haven't been address, Petchey era 1987 to 1994, this certainly isn't the Elton John era! 1990 to 2000, a whole decade seems a bit dry on content. Club identity has alignment and white space issues. As noted above there seemed to be edit-war, WP:OR problems with the found date! There are a few basic issues to address and I frankly think it's a bit rude of you asking me to address all the issues. Govvy (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]