Talk:History of The New York Times (1998–present)/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 06:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 19:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. It will be used in the WP:CUP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance, I have concerns about extensive close paraphrasing, especially from Nagourney 2023. Take the following:

Article	Source
"Sulzberger Jr. called Raines to report that the World Trade Center had gone up in flames. As Raines began to leave, Sulzberger Jr. called again to report that a second plane had hit the towers. When he arrived at the office, Cronin gave him an overview of the initial story assignments. Raines inspected each photograph from photographers with The New York Times and wire service photographers as they came in."	"Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., called him: "Are you watching television?" Raines turned on the television to see one of the towers in flames. As he was getting ready to leave, Sulzberger called again to report that the second tower had been hit...Raines arrived... and stopped... to talk to Cronin, who gave him a rundown of the initial story assignments. He inspected the pictures gathered by the Times and wire service photographers as they came in during the day"

As you can see, the source very closely matches the article, and to compound this, what isn't close paraphrasing is often not reporting what the source says. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said in the last History page Elijah nominated for GAN.... I do not think the page is stable enough that it should be GA. This article was decided by consensus to be History of The New York Times (1998–current) until Elijah unilaterally moved it today without consensus. The new split article seems to already be nominated for GA. While Elijah is indubitably the primary author for all of these articles currently, he has been disregarding consensus through all of this. Soni (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The instability is evident in this article's four separate edits from other users. On whose word can articles that appear to meet the criteria for good article status not be nominated? There is less contention among editors whose edit articles relating to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria 5 - Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Given that the article was moved without discussion (and I've already raised it on Talk:The_New_York_Times#Undiscussed_move), it should be an auto-fail. We had a discussion on how the articles should split (that you participated in). You decide to re-split it further without informing or discussing with anyone. That will cause problems and reverts. Soni (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am also confused as to why there need to be five subdivisions of articles about the history of a newspaper. Perhaps a reminder of WP:NOTEVERYTHING is needed?

In any case, if other articles were split from this, I would check them for close paraphrasing as above—if it is seriously bad, the articles may need revdelling. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the CLOP has not been worked on and there are concerns about the long-term viability of the article, I will fail this review here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2024 (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.