Talk:David Lucas (composer)/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has multiple issues which makes it unworthy of having GA status. I believe it would not meet the GA criteria unless someone is dedicated enough to fix the issues. Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree it does not meet GA standards. At one point, I made a significant pass-through to try to remove the most significant problems, but I could not remedy everything. As you say, Ikhtiar H, it would take significant effort to make the necessary improvements. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ikhtiar H: I updated some of the references and fixed some typos. Besides fixing the references without titles and the dead links, would you like to detail your specific concerns so editors know what to work on? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- So, I count at least 10 unsourced claims, which is pretty serious for a BLP. There's additionally a significant amount of material that feels like trivia and/or puffery (I don't really understand the sentence about the yacht on a grammatical level, let alone why it's encyclopedic?), and then, when we get all the way down to it, I have some concerns about whether there's even sufficient secondary source coverage to establish notability (beyond verifying currently unverified BLP details.) Trimming trivia and the related not-great sources may make that clearer tho. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @GoingBatty: apart from that, the article needs some copyediting and a few trimming here and there. The cleanup banners are the noticeable and the main reasons for this reassessment. The article did not have much update since its promotion to GA and I am leaving 14 days for improvement before demotion. Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- So, I count at least 10 unsourced claims, which is pretty serious for a BLP. There's additionally a significant amount of material that feels like trivia and/or puffery (I don't really understand the sentence about the yacht on a grammatical level, let alone why it's encyclopedic?), and then, when we get all the way down to it, I have some concerns about whether there's even sufficient secondary source coverage to establish notability (beyond verifying currently unverified BLP details.) Trimming trivia and the related not-great sources may make that clearer tho. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This page Still havet some source issues and I think it's safe to be delisted. ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)