Talk:Battle of Posada/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Update After seven days of no response from other editors, and per the reasons laid out below, I'm downgrading this article from GA-class to start-class. Gug01 (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The Battle of Posada needs a lot of work and improvement to merit its status as a Good Article. Specifically, I find the article fails the following criteria right now (please see the GA Table for reference):

1a - The article's prose has great room for improvement across the board. One example that comes to mind is the use of the word "variant," but that's merely one example; the entire prose is clunky and could be improved.

1b - The article's lead section is massively deficient in particular, as it's exceedingly short, doesn't introduce the context of the article, and doesn't discuss the aftermath in any detail whatsoever.

2a - There are literally citation needed tags in a Good Article. This is unacceptable, and would be grounds for a quickfail, which I haven't done only because I believe in providing an opportunity for us (the community) to work together to improve articles rather than punitively docking them.

2b - Again, there are citation needed tags.

3a - Very limited discussion of the battle itself, no discussion of the political context or military campaign prelude, and very rudimentary discussion of the aftermath of the battle, which was enormous.

3b - The article currently goes into unnecessary deep use of quotations, including unnecessary information as well as too little information overall.

4 - The article relies on only three sources, all of which represent old scholarship and none of which seem to represent the Hungarian perspective of the battle. There's a wealth and diversity of sources on this pivotally-important battle online, none of which are reflected here.

5 - see GATable.

6a - Images lack US-specific copyright justification, though this problem should be relatively easy to fix given how old the images are.

6b - Caption prose could be improved and condensed, and many captions ought to be moved into the main text. Choices in images are rather poor and better aesthetics could be achieved.

The Battle of Posada is pivotal to Romanian history; it's a shame the article on Basarab discusses Posada in far more depth than this specialized article. I'm open to working with editors to improve this article. I'll give one week for editors to respond; if I have no response after that period I will delist the article unilaterally.

While the article might've met criteria in 2008 when Wikipedia was a much less-developed encyclopedia (though even then it seems there was no formal review of the article), it certainly doesn't meet them in this moment. In the table below I've inputted passes and fails to illustrate the current status of the article: Gug01 (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Though there aren't edit wars per se, editors over the years have continuously chipped away at parts of this article they don't like without replacing with something new, which decreases the article's stability. Gug01 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	See top of page