Talk:Wales/GA3

GA Reassessment

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

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.

It says Wales is a country, which is false. Shamrock5885 (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Sham Rock (Welsh man)[reply]

This issue is addressed in the article and cited from good sources, including the Office of National Statistics in the 4th cite. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content #1

It contains a nationalist slogan, both unsourced per WP:RS and disputed, that also contravenes recommended use of infoboxes in that it is not contained in the body of the article – see Talk:Wales#Cymru_am_byth. Plainly it is not in the body of the article because that would stir up further legitimate complaints that it is unsourced per our RS policy. It appears to be editor-preferred content rather than acceptable encyclopaedic content. Leaky Caldron 13:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is being addressed in the talk page, and IMO is not a reason to declassify the entire article as a GA. Reason appears disingenuous to the entire process. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The position regarding the unsourced inclusion of the motto is unchanged since previous assessments. It is, in any case, a relatively minor point, and in my view does not undermine the overall GA status of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:GAR and this talk page was to identify issues that may need to be resolved to assist the reassessment, not to list objections to the GA status. As the talk page discussion coincided with the GAR request this seemed an obvious place to raise the motto issue since WP:RS is a GA requirement per WP:GACR. FruitMonkey seems to have got the wrong end of the stick in his wild accusation that listing a current defect here was an attempt to hamper the article's GA standing. It was a genuine attempt to ensure that the issue be resolved and accusing an editor of insincerity here is unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is still an issue it is probably better resolved through a community assessment rather than an individual one. AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2012 (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.