Talk:Bexley, Ohio/GA1

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delist. Limited discussion and participation indicates lack of effort present to make this article meet GA standards (which are clearly not met yet). As well, it is clear that GA status was improperly given in the first place. ɱ (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article was added as a Good Article in 2010, by a then-new editor, simply by adding "class=GA" to the WikiProject template. The article does not meet several GA standards:

1. Its sourcing is unclear. There are only 11 inline citations, many of which are just being used in the population table. The rest of the "citations" are poorly-formatted and unclear. Many of them are likely not even used, and many are not Reliable Sources.
   1. BexleyOhio. com (Cities Unlimited, Inc., 2001) - dead
   2. Comedy Central: The Colbert Report (Comedy Partners, 2010) - not an RS
   3. The Washington Examiner (Washington Newspaper Publishing Co. LLC, 2008) - vague
   4. The San Francisco Examiner (S.F. Newspaper Co. LLC, 2008) - vague
   5. USA Today (Gannett Co., Inc., 2010) - vague
   6. The Los Angeles Times (Tribune Interactive, Inc., 2007) - vague
   7. Cagle Cartoons (Daryl Cagle, 2010) - not an RS
   8. How I Met Your Mother (CBS, 2005) - not an RS
   9. Tumblr, Inc. (Marco Arment, 2007) - not an RS
   10. Miss America (Miss America Organization, 1921) - not an RS
   11. Something Corporate (Andrew McMahon, 1998) - not an RS
   12. Jack's Mannequin (Andrew McMahon, 2004) - not an RS
   13. Amazon. com (Amazon Services LLC, 1996–2010) - not an RS
   14. Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2008) - not always an RS
2. It is not broad in its coverage, lacking "Climate", "Economy", "Arts and culture", "Religion", "Sports", "Parks and recreation", "Media", and "Infrastructure" sections, all common in US cities articles and possible in this article.
3. Its use of external links in the article body violate WP:EL
4. Its illustrations are lacking compared to what is available on Commons, and the last image and caption are vague and unhelpful.

For these reasons, it's clear to me this needs significant work to be held as a Good Article, and needs to be delisted until the day someone decides to put in this great amount of work. ɱ (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Not only is this article **not** "GA", nor it is "B" either. I would say "C" at the highest, and maybe even as low as "Start" until the reference mess is cleaned up. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The "Demographics" section needs cleaned up too, because of the text above "2010 census" subsection. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick cleanup of the article, but I avoided trying to fix the reference mess. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. I agree it is still around C-class. The editor who added "GA" to it had only edited for a few months, handful of edits here and there, 9 years ago. Another editor apparently removed the GA tag from the article in 2013 as well, citing no review. Unless this really gets to GA standards in a week, I'll start the delist process. ɱ (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.