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 (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I do not believe the article is at the GA level. My comments pertain to this version, not significantly different (though its prose is improved) from the version that passed GA. In essence, two problems combine: the article is entirely too short to provide decent coverage, and it is not based on enough reliable sources.
Let me be clear: this is a nice and interesting little article, but it's not up to GA level, and it was promoted way too quickly and easily by an editor/reviewer who in my opinion is not seasoned enough. Drmies ( talk) 18:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is this guy even notable? I see nothing here that meets the WP:GNG. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Criterion 3 for a Good Article says "Broad in its coverage" and part a specifies "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". This is I think the primary failing of this article. It is a nice start of an article, but there is no depth to it. To be a Good Article, I think Criterion 3 requires much more coverage than we are given here. That there is a lengthy further reading section, as pointed out by Drmies and Malleus, shows that more information is available. Is it hard to get ahold of? Probably so, but that is no excuse for promoting an article to GA status without having consulted and referenced that material. Since it was (mistakenly, I believe) promoted in this state, it needs to be delisted. Ladyof Shalott 20:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I wrote a large part of the text I will make a comment. Before it was promoted I wrote this in response to a proposal to nominate it:
As you can see I did not think it was ready for a GA without consulting more of the further reading bits. The further reading section was a bit of an under construction zone. It contained snippets of newspapers which are online and Dutch archive material, which is not yet online, but the indexing does support some facts. The newspapers shipping announcements themselves do not indicate notability but build up a history of movements of this captain. However the two more recent newspaper articles used as inline references do show notability as the coverage is substantial, independent and written by an expert on the topic. Since I wrote much of it I will abstain from a de-listing or keep-listing vote. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
In the infobox he is called James Deketh, as that is what his name is translated into English, from Dutch. As I wrote a few thousand characters of it, I will abstain from the vote like Graeme Bartlett. -- Thine Antique Pen ( talk • contributions) 13:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
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 (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
I do not believe the article is at the GA level. My comments pertain to this version, not significantly different (though its prose is improved) from the version that passed GA. In essence, two problems combine: the article is entirely too short to provide decent coverage, and it is not based on enough reliable sources.
Let me be clear: this is a nice and interesting little article, but it's not up to GA level, and it was promoted way too quickly and easily by an editor/reviewer who in my opinion is not seasoned enough. Drmies ( talk) 18:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is this guy even notable? I see nothing here that meets the WP:GNG. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Criterion 3 for a Good Article says "Broad in its coverage" and part a specifies "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". This is I think the primary failing of this article. It is a nice start of an article, but there is no depth to it. To be a Good Article, I think Criterion 3 requires much more coverage than we are given here. That there is a lengthy further reading section, as pointed out by Drmies and Malleus, shows that more information is available. Is it hard to get ahold of? Probably so, but that is no excuse for promoting an article to GA status without having consulted and referenced that material. Since it was (mistakenly, I believe) promoted in this state, it needs to be delisted. Ladyof Shalott 20:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I wrote a large part of the text I will make a comment. Before it was promoted I wrote this in response to a proposal to nominate it:
As you can see I did not think it was ready for a GA without consulting more of the further reading bits. The further reading section was a bit of an under construction zone. It contained snippets of newspapers which are online and Dutch archive material, which is not yet online, but the indexing does support some facts. The newspapers shipping announcements themselves do not indicate notability but build up a history of movements of this captain. However the two more recent newspaper articles used as inline references do show notability as the coverage is substantial, independent and written by an expert on the topic. Since I wrote much of it I will abstain from a de-listing or keep-listing vote. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
In the infobox he is called James Deketh, as that is what his name is translated into English, from Dutch. As I wrote a few thousand characters of it, I will abstain from the vote like Graeme Bartlett. -- Thine Antique Pen ( talk • contributions) 13:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)