Talk:Fort Lauderdale, Florida/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am fulfilling a request to reassess the article. The most obvious issues are the update tag on the article, indicating that it does not fully cover the topic, and the content in the article which lacks a citation. I am also skeptical that all the sources cited meet WP:RS (can provide more details if necessary). (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical on some of these sources, too. For instance, "Falling Rain Genomics" looks a bit on the iffy side. Significant uncited text, multiple sections tagged for update. The healthcare section is very out of date, and parts of the demographics section date to 2000. There's some prose issues, such as "As of the 2019 census, the city has an estimated population of 182,437", which ignores the fact that there was no 2019 census. I'm also concerned a little bit about the degree of affiliated sourcing: there's big chunks cited to either the city itself, the county, the Florida municipal league, the county historical commission, or the city tourism commission. This is an important enough city that secondary sourcing is available. Too much work for me to deal with at the moment. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a conflict of interest since I used to live in Fort Lauderdale ~8 years ago, but I agree with the decision to reassess it. Mostly the reasons stated above and the update tag. As the user above me mentioned, this definitely is an important city and further research can be done, but at its current condition, it should be subject to reassessment. FredModulars (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - It's been almost two months and none of this has been addressed. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]