Talk:Kristallnacht/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article first received its GA status in 2008, at which time the standards at GAN (and indeed at FAC too) were a lot more lax than they are today. Moreover, this page has changed quite a bit in the intervening eight years. Concerns about the quality and rating of the article were raised earlier this year at the Talk Page, and I thought it best to inaugurate a GA Reassessment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are various chunks of text that are simply unreferenced, with "citation needed" tags at various points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Public Domain claims on a number of the images used (File:Synagogue Eisenach burning- Nov 1938.jpg; File:Destroyed Ohel Yaaqov Synagogue.jpeg; File:Buchenwald Disabled Jews 13132 crop.jpg) have been dubiously applied. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A number of references have been tagged as "incomplete short citation". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the Talk Page, User:Keith-264 has raised concerns that the article does not represent a neutral presentation of the academic material on this subject. I am not familiar with the academic studies, although the article seems to make very scant use of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I would be inclined toward removing the GA-status of this article unless significant improvements are made on the points listed above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I agree there are significant issues which indicate it is not a GA anymore. Just to confirm, though, what is missing from the short citations? They seem to conform with the guidance at WP:CITESHORT to me, or am I missing something? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, I think that you are right. The short citations do look alright. I'm not sure why they have "incomplete short citation" tags on them in that case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a month since this GAR was opened and there has been no change to the article. I think it time to delist it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]