Talk:Open relationship/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The majority of this article is a wall of text written in a didactic tone ("one sees that...") quite unlike that of normal Wikipedia style. It all needs to be broken up and rephrased before even coming close to good article status. I've downgraded it to B-class on both the Sociology and Anthropology WikiProjects. Also, the concern raised in the first review about the article largely relying on a single source is still valid. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reassessment consists of more than downgrading the banner assessment. If would be helpful if you gave specific advice for improvement weighed against the good article criteria and give the nominator a chance to respond. If your concerns are not adequately addressed in a week, the article can be delisted. Please follow the instructions outlined at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Hekerui (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read those instructions, and as you can see my comments are above. The article is still listed as GA status; the banner assessments are separate from that. To reiterate, the tone of most of the article body is completely inappropriate - "essay-style" - and not in standard Wikipedia style. That immediately required the banner downgrades, and triggered this reassessment. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed example of concerns. To pick a paragraph at random,

Open relationships are still a newly developing concept. Although it has been around since the 1970s, we still do not have much concrete evidence of its existence. Considering this as the case,

This kind of writing, while suitable for an essay, is not encyclopedia voice. The equivalent replacement would be:

While the concept of an open relationship has existed since the 1970s, formal examinations of it have been scarce.

Phrases such as considering this as the case are unnecessary. Also, statements such as has existed since the 1970s require citation. There are also weasel words scattered throughout, such as many believe that... - all of those need explication and citing. I'll probably go through and tag all these in due course.

There's a lot of good content in this article, it just needs to be made to sound like Wikipedia. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment: I've now tried actually reading some of the article and may have to take back my optimism. This is so poorly written that it's virtually impenetrable. Some parts manage to contradict themselves in the same sentence through sheer poor grammar! The authors have obviously tried very, very hard to paraphrase their sources; but it hasn't worked at all. The end result is obfuscation in the extreme. I'm going to try transforming it into something approaching readable, but to be honest, my instinct here is to tear up almost the whole thing and start virtually from scratch since the major sources aren't to hand to verify what on earth this gobbledegook is supposed to mean. Another major issue is that the content is completely America-centric. — Hex (❝?!❞) 06:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this article was written by students for an educational assignment. As much as I'd like to think they care about it after the grades have been issues, I wouldn't keep our hopes up that they are going to respond (you may want to try emailing them through their pages). I would love to be proven wrong, of course, and eat my words :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right! Well, that's interesting. (Good for them!) In that case, I might as well start working on it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As no evidence is forthcoming of any further changes being made to this article, I am concluding the review and removing its GA status. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]