Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
This article was promoted to GA status, but I disagree with its promotion. Issues include:
Will work on this. This is not a featured article so let's not be too picky. Instead, let's work together to improve this! User F203 ( talk) 16:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Dabomb87 list Done*Insufficient lead: Much of the information in the body is not summarized in the intro (culture, geography, etc.) Done removed some sports club information, added references *Unsourced info and undue weight given to sports clubs, sites of interest, and colleges, which are listed in bulleted form without any elaboration. Done*The " Transport" is stubby and unsourced. Done added more sources, access dates not required for GA, maybe for FA*Not enough sources, and what few sources there are mainly tour-guide-type sites, which are not the most reliable sources out there. Additionally, sources need titles, publishers and last access dates per WP:CITE/ES.
Done I'll still work on this but the basic points raised have been covered. I plan to work on this daily for at least a week. User F203 ( talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if you could get your hands on this book. http://www.port.is/index.php?pid=3 is an introductory website that can be used to source basic information. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this GA reassessment has gone quite a bit longer than normal. I see that improvements are being made, but much more is needed. I will return in five days to give my final verdict. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Please allow extra time as long as people are editing it. Looking back from 1/1/2009 to present, it's much better. Having a paper re-graded from B (if A=FA) to D (assuming F=deletion) is very discouraging and may cause some editors to give up. Please, please, please! If editors become discouraged, then this article could conceivable sit for months or years with little or no improvement. Please don't be the bomb! User F203 ( talk) 15:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If the GA is lost then I will not apply for it because it would look like fighting. If there's no real chance for GA, then the desire to fix it is much less. There isn't a sufficient number of other editors working on this so it could rot. The encouragement to improve by having an open GA reassessment is ok with me. Having the bomb go boom is not fun. User F203 ( talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The primary editor requested that I give him/her until July 5 to fix the article before GA status is reassessed. I have allowed them to do so. This is not me "backing out" or being pushed around at other editors' whims, but of my willingness to assume good faith that the article can be brought to GA standards in the allotted time. I will make no more extensions afterward. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Follow up
CHECKLIST
Good article criteria (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria)
ARTICLE: Akureyri
A good article is—
1. Done, all 6 areas of the MOS followed. Note that GA does NOT require compliance with the entire MOS, though an effort has been done to comply.
2. Done
3. Done. also compared sections to other GA city articles to insure all usual sections included
4. Done
5. Done
6. Done
1st disqualification: Done (passes)
2nd disqualification: Done (passes)
3rd disqualification: Done (passes)
Done - Has the same or similar sections as other city article that are GA, for example, Columbia, Missouri.
Done - article length is 27 kb, which compares with a suggested maximum limit of 32 kb when using some browsers.
Issues include:
Done (fixed) *Insufficient lead: Much of the information in the body is not summarized in the intro (culture, geography, etc.)
Done (fixed) *Unsourced info and undue weight given to sports clubs, sites of interest, and colleges, which are listed in bulleted form without any elaboration.
Done (fixed) *The " Transport" is stubby and unsourced.
Done (fixed, a substantial number of non-tour sites added, access dates added, format of references standardized even though not a requirement for GA, but probably a requirement for FA)*Not enough sources, and what few sources there are mainly tour-guide-type sites, which are not the most reliable sources out there. Additionally, sources need titles, publishers and last access dates per WP:CITE/ES. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC) NOTE: This edit was copied from comments left by Dabomb87 on the article talk page.
I have decided to close this individual GAR as a "keep" and start a community reassessment. I see that a lot of work has been done to improve this, but I want multiple opinions, as I have several lingering questions. Compared to other GA city articles, this is much smaller. I do understand that this article is about a small Icelandic town, as opposed to a American or English, which will have many more available sources. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
This article was promoted to GA status, but I disagree with its promotion. Issues include:
Will work on this. This is not a featured article so let's not be too picky. Instead, let's work together to improve this! User F203 ( talk) 16:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Dabomb87 list Done*Insufficient lead: Much of the information in the body is not summarized in the intro (culture, geography, etc.) Done removed some sports club information, added references *Unsourced info and undue weight given to sports clubs, sites of interest, and colleges, which are listed in bulleted form without any elaboration. Done*The " Transport" is stubby and unsourced. Done added more sources, access dates not required for GA, maybe for FA*Not enough sources, and what few sources there are mainly tour-guide-type sites, which are not the most reliable sources out there. Additionally, sources need titles, publishers and last access dates per WP:CITE/ES.
Done I'll still work on this but the basic points raised have been covered. I plan to work on this daily for at least a week. User F203 ( talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice if you could get your hands on this book. http://www.port.is/index.php?pid=3 is an introductory website that can be used to source basic information. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this GA reassessment has gone quite a bit longer than normal. I see that improvements are being made, but much more is needed. I will return in five days to give my final verdict. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Please allow extra time as long as people are editing it. Looking back from 1/1/2009 to present, it's much better. Having a paper re-graded from B (if A=FA) to D (assuming F=deletion) is very discouraging and may cause some editors to give up. Please, please, please! If editors become discouraged, then this article could conceivable sit for months or years with little or no improvement. Please don't be the bomb! User F203 ( talk) 15:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If the GA is lost then I will not apply for it because it would look like fighting. If there's no real chance for GA, then the desire to fix it is much less. There isn't a sufficient number of other editors working on this so it could rot. The encouragement to improve by having an open GA reassessment is ok with me. Having the bomb go boom is not fun. User F203 ( talk) 15:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The primary editor requested that I give him/her until July 5 to fix the article before GA status is reassessed. I have allowed them to do so. This is not me "backing out" or being pushed around at other editors' whims, but of my willingness to assume good faith that the article can be brought to GA standards in the allotted time. I will make no more extensions afterward. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Follow up
CHECKLIST
Good article criteria (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria)
ARTICLE: Akureyri
A good article is—
1. Done, all 6 areas of the MOS followed. Note that GA does NOT require compliance with the entire MOS, though an effort has been done to comply.
2. Done
3. Done. also compared sections to other GA city articles to insure all usual sections included
4. Done
5. Done
6. Done
1st disqualification: Done (passes)
2nd disqualification: Done (passes)
3rd disqualification: Done (passes)
Done - Has the same or similar sections as other city article that are GA, for example, Columbia, Missouri.
Done - article length is 27 kb, which compares with a suggested maximum limit of 32 kb when using some browsers.
Issues include:
Done (fixed) *Insufficient lead: Much of the information in the body is not summarized in the intro (culture, geography, etc.)
Done (fixed) *Unsourced info and undue weight given to sports clubs, sites of interest, and colleges, which are listed in bulleted form without any elaboration.
Done (fixed) *The " Transport" is stubby and unsourced.
Done (fixed, a substantial number of non-tour sites added, access dates added, format of references standardized even though not a requirement for GA, but probably a requirement for FA)*Not enough sources, and what few sources there are mainly tour-guide-type sites, which are not the most reliable sources out there. Additionally, sources need titles, publishers and last access dates per WP:CITE/ES. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC) NOTE: This edit was copied from comments left by Dabomb87 on the article talk page.
I have decided to close this individual GAR as a "keep" and start a community reassessment. I see that a lot of work has been done to improve this, but I want multiple opinions, as I have several lingering questions. Compared to other GA city articles, this is much smaller. I do understand that this article is about a small Icelandic town, as opposed to a American or English, which will have many more available sources. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)