Talk:Crazy Eddie/GA1

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.

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Comment: The major problem with this article as it stands right now is that there are multiple "citation needed templates" and it is tagged with multiple maintenance templates. If I were reviewing this for the first time, it would be a Quick Fail on those grounds alone, but since this is a reassessment I am going to read its text, check its sources etc and see what else shakes out. Shearonink (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead section is too long for an article of this size. WP:LEADLENGTH says that for articles with less than 15000 words the lead section should be 1 or 2 paragraphs - this article has 4 paragraphs and goes into too much detail.
Edited per above. Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the lead into a better size so it now passes that parameter but I still have grave concerns about this article. Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
At this point in the articles life its referencing is simply atrocious. 19 references out of a total of 27 fail verification: dead links, changes paths, redirects to a different URL, handshake failures, etc. There are 8 10 "citation needed" maintenance templates.

C. It contains no original research:
I'm not sure about C - the referencing issues need to be fixed first.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Several phrases & statements are the same as a subsection of haruth.com/mw/CrazyEddie.htm .
Please see the following link for the extent of the sharing of phrases: https://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/compare.php?url1=haruth.com%2Fmw%2FCrazyEddie.htm+&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCrazy_Eddie&minwords=2&minchars=13 Some of the text has been in WP's pages since 2006 so it is probable this other site and/or Marjorie Gottlieb Wolfe copied WP (and not the other way around).Shearonink (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: }

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Except for the lead, this is true. For the most part the writing is very good.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
I am most troubled by the use of a photo of a Robert Crumb design on a t-shirt. Mr Crumb is still living and I am not convinced that the usage rationale is valid. Also, the uploader states that he created the file File:Crazyeddie.jpg which, for the purposes of Wikipedia, might be technically true - he probably did take the actual photo BUT he did not create the original Crumb artwork. ALSO, the image has nothing to do with any text. Nowhere in the text are promotional items mentioned.
Deleted per above.

File:Eddie Antar arrest warrant.png is apparently an arrest warrant but the file page is missing Date/Source/Author information.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~This Reassessment Review is on hold pending further research.~~

In my opinion this article could possibly be classified as a start-class article AND, as a matter of fact, I couldn't find a GA Review on it. That's because it doesn't apparently exist. THIS is how the Crazy Eddie article ended up being named a WP:GA. One editor mentioned it on the article's talkpage at Talk:Crazy_Eddie#GA in 2006 so another editor gave it a Good Article symbol with an edit summary that states: "(→‎External links: This article was linked from WP:GA, so it is having {{good article}} added per Wikipedia:Bot requests#GA symbol, using AWB)". In 2008, the article had a GA Review/Reassessment and it passed, but, at that time the article was in much better shape (barring the redlines in the references).

Shearonink, you'll want to take another look at the reassessment instructions. The expectation is that you notify all the relevant WikiProjects and any major contributors to the article, and give time—at least a week—for the issues you raise in the review to be addressed, or start to be worked on. As it says on the GAR page, the goal of a reassessment is to get an article back to GA level, though naturally that is often not possible. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I posted above:

If I were reviewing this for the first time, it would be a Quick Fail on those grounds alone [ie., the citations needed templates and the maintenance templates], but since this is a reassessment I am going to read its text, check its sources etc and see what else shakes out.

I didn't say I was going to Fail it, I said I was going to read it and check its sources and "see what else shakes out" and that my Reassessment Review was on hold pending further research. Is any of that incorrect? I stated my opinion above and after spending probably several hours today working through all the article's issues my opinion still holds - if I came upon an article that was up for a GA Review and it was in this condition I would Quick Fail it. Read through my Reassessment. This article is in a sorry state at the moment.

And I've notified all the top ten contributors who are still editing Wikipedia (some haven't edited for some years). And left notices on the pertinent WikiProjects. Shearonink (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending the notices. As far as I could tell, you were new to GAR—you hadn't initially made the notifications I mentioned, and you'd posted a request to Jaguar for help—so I thought it would be useful to point out the ways that GAR differs from GAN. With GAN, even if the article is not quickfailed prior to a full review (it didn't look to me like you were quickfailing here), it can still be failed after a complete review if the work required to achieve GA is too extensive; but with GAR, time for revisions has to be allowed. Good to see you making such progress. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:Contrary to GA initial Reviews, on a GA Reassessment the Reviewer is expected to edit the article under Reassessment and therefore cannot fall afoul of any WP:COI issues. I have, therefore, adjusted or fixed some of the problems. Shearonink (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article fails too many of the GA parameters - referencing problems, maintenance templates, refimprove issues, plus no response/editing from any other editor except myself - even though I posted notices on its Top Ten editors' talk pages (who are still editing) and on the appropriate WikiProject's talk pages. I know part of that is because this GAR has to have a somewhat malformed GAR since the initial GA Review (such as it was) was done so long ago there isn't a pre-existing GA review page and therefore the GAR template doesn't work. There is no benefit to Wikipedia in keeping this article in its present state as a designated GA when clearly it is not. I intend to de-list it to a lower status, a B or C. If and when it is improved it can be resubmitted for a GA Review at that time. Shearonink (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has been de-listed per the instructions as I understand them at WP:GAR. Shearonink (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.