Talk:GameStop short squeeze/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe this is stable enough to be a Good Article now. Not so much because of edit warring (WP:GAFAIL #4), although there has been some, but because the situation is too recent and ongoing to be stable (GAFAIL #1, a long way from meeting GA criterion 5). The main events may have been over after January, but in late February the NYT reported that there were nearly 50 ongoing lawsuits against Robinhood over this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/business/robinhood-gamestop.html), two weeks ago GameStop reported a plan for major changes in management structure (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gamestop-provides-corporate-governance-130000470.html), and new analysis of what happened and rule-making to address what happened is still coming out. I think we need to wait long enough to have some perspective on the situation before setting this in stone as a good article. Otherwise, either we would pre-empt the addition of later developments (if editors use the GA status as an excuse to prevent changes to the article) or those changes would make any GA review quickly obsolete. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with your reasoning for an immediate failure. WP:TOOSOON is an essay specifically concerning whether or not there is enough information generally to include a subject in the encyclopedia, and only gives guidance in relation to notability for biographies and films. Suffice it to say, this article subject, while recent, certainly meets the Wikipedia general notability threshold; there are currently 238 references included, all of which are about the subject directly. On your other point: I struggle to see how an article cannot fail as per GAFAIL 4 but can fail per GAFAIL 1 re GA criterion 5. I see no logical difference between an article that "is not stable due to edit warring on the page" and an article that "is a long way from meeting" the criterion of being stable, defined as "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." This article has not been majorly edited in several days, and as you note, there is not a significant enough amount of edit-warring to warrant an immediate failure on that count. However, you immediately failed the nomination per a criterion only discussing edit-warring and content disputes. I empathize with the spirit of what you are saying, but as per the relevant guidelines, I still feel this is deserving of a full review. I would like a reply, and if you will not reconsider, I would at least appreciate some advice for improving the article going forward. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)