Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Delist per consensus below.
Geometry guy 20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I came across this article rather randomly, after adding a Good Article to the GA page. Looking over the talkpage, it seems like there are a number of other editors who believe this to be well written but ultimately full or WP:Original Research, thereby failing (amongst others) Point 2c, 3a and 3b. Firstly, whilst there is a significant amount of academic research on this subject, it certainly doesn't stop at the Battle of Vienna, and probably hasn't for a hundred years or more. The Battle of Normandy is one example that could be highlighted, and there are probably a number of others; I'm sure the 18th and 19th centuries alone can account for numerous other battles. I think that's the main reason why this should be delisted - copious amounts of OR, even to the extent of declaring in the lead that there were only eight such battles to ever affect Europe in this manner. Further details can be found on the talkpage for other possible examples of OR - I'm afraid this isn't quite my area of expertise, but I think I know enough to see why this shouldn't be a GA.
- Addendum: I realize the instructions say that I should have tried an individual reassessment first, but I'm afraid I clicked the wrong link. However, I actually think this might be the best way to go; I certainly don't have the knowledge (or books, for that matter) to try and improve the article, and I'm not entirely sure it can be saved in its current form. I'd also appreciate a wider community viewing of the article to see what people think. Skinny87 ( talk) 08:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that the whole concept of the article invited synthesis. Even the choice of which battles to cover seem to have been decided based on what editor's think are important battles. Without sources indicating that the conept of the article as a whole exists, i don't see how it can be considered GA. Yob Mod 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm surprised that this article hasn't been through an AfD discussion. Although I haven't finished checking the sources it appears, at first glance, to rest upon synthesis and OR. Which particular reliable sources list all (and only) these particular invasions as the macrohistorically important battles? Which source uses the term "Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe"? Majoreditor ( talk) 22:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delist. I see no signs of progess. Majoreditor ( talk) 01:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delist, but not a candidate for AfD. I imagine there are sources that discuss this concept, but that the article was probably created without sufficient awareness of the need to discuss them explicitly. Hopefully, the time will come when it gets sorted out. Should not, however, be GA. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe
- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Delist per consensus below.
Geometry guy 20:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I came across this article rather randomly, after adding a Good Article to the GA page. Looking over the talkpage, it seems like there are a number of other editors who believe this to be well written but ultimately full or WP:Original Research, thereby failing (amongst others) Point 2c, 3a and 3b. Firstly, whilst there is a significant amount of academic research on this subject, it certainly doesn't stop at the Battle of Vienna, and probably hasn't for a hundred years or more. The Battle of Normandy is one example that could be highlighted, and there are probably a number of others; I'm sure the 18th and 19th centuries alone can account for numerous other battles. I think that's the main reason why this should be delisted - copious amounts of OR, even to the extent of declaring in the lead that there were only eight such battles to ever affect Europe in this manner. Further details can be found on the talkpage for other possible examples of OR - I'm afraid this isn't quite my area of expertise, but I think I know enough to see why this shouldn't be a GA.
- Addendum: I realize the instructions say that I should have tried an individual reassessment first, but I'm afraid I clicked the wrong link. However, I actually think this might be the best way to go; I certainly don't have the knowledge (or books, for that matter) to try and improve the article, and I'm not entirely sure it can be saved in its current form. I'd also appreciate a wider community viewing of the article to see what people think. Skinny87 ( talk) 08:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that the whole concept of the article invited synthesis. Even the choice of which battles to cover seem to have been decided based on what editor's think are important battles. Without sources indicating that the conept of the article as a whole exists, i don't see how it can be considered GA. Yob Mod 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm surprised that this article hasn't been through an AfD discussion. Although I haven't finished checking the sources it appears, at first glance, to rest upon synthesis and OR. Which particular reliable sources list all (and only) these particular invasions as the macrohistorically important battles? Which source uses the term "Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe"? Majoreditor ( talk) 22:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delist. I see no signs of progess. Majoreditor ( talk) 01:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delist, but not a candidate for AfD. I imagine there are sources that discuss this concept, but that the article was probably created without sufficient awareness of the need to discuss them explicitly. Hopefully, the time will come when it gets sorted out. Should not, however, be GA. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)