Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/? Nycticebus linglom/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept Notability is not a GA criteria, that is for AFD to decide. As to the sourcing, unless other sources are presented that can be used then the article meets the broadness criteria. Aircorn (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I think this article might have a bit of a notability issue—during the initial assessment it was kind of implied that there was only the one real source discussing this specimen (the one in use), and not much else. Google Scholar, for instance, has just four results. I don't have the expertise to judge the worthiness of the other three articles, but my major problem with the article is more that there's just one source represented. Usually three would be required for basic notability, but for a good article I would at least expect more than one.
Briefly, I think this article could have issues with verifiability and/or neutrality. –LogStar100 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @LogStar100: WP:Treeoflife rules are that all species re considered inherently notable. The single source is considered fine for meeting those notability guidelines.--Kevmin § 23:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: Notable, sure, but is it enough to merit "good" status? In particular, the article is based off just a single primary source, meaning that it's difficult to call it entirely verifiable/reliable/neutral. –LogStar100 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I, too, am unconvinced it merits GA status. I don't have worries about verifiability or neutrality, as the source validly writes about a new taxon of dubious/uncertain nomenclature which it tentatively ascribes to the genus Nycticebus. In a sense, the whole source is original research, and yet a validly published new species account is acceptable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. On the one hand this very short article seems to present all that is known about this putative taxon, but therein lies the dilemma. Is that short source sufficient for a GA article? Personally, I'm not comfortable with that - and would prefer it to have an A rating, and await until further taxonomic research and publications ascribes this with greater certainty to one genus or another. It's the combination of taxonomic uncertainty and overall brevity that concerns me here. But if others feel it does merit remaining as a GA, I won't be wailing or gnashing my teeth! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- All an article in an encyclopedia can hope to do is to adequately represent the state of current published knowledge, and if there is only one main source on a notable topic, then the best possible version of the article on that topic is going to rely on only one main source. Assuming breadth of coverage (in the good-article context), or comprehensiveness (in the featured-article context) measures the current state of the article against a theoretical best possible version of that article, I don't see why an article should be held back just because few people have written about it. That would, in effect, create tiers of notability, where only the most notable (and thus most written about) subjects could ever see their articles become good articles. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- I, too, am unconvinced it merits GA status. I don't have worries about verifiability or neutrality, as the source validly writes about a new taxon of dubious/uncertain nomenclature which it tentatively ascribes to the genus Nycticebus. In a sense, the whole source is original research, and yet a validly published new species account is acceptable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. On the one hand this very short article seems to present all that is known about this putative taxon, but therein lies the dilemma. Is that short source sufficient for a GA article? Personally, I'm not comfortable with that - and would prefer it to have an A rating, and await until further taxonomic research and publications ascribes this with greater certainty to one genus or another. It's the combination of taxonomic uncertainty and overall brevity that concerns me here. But if others feel it does merit remaining as a GA, I won't be wailing or gnashing my teeth! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: Notable, sure, but is it enough to merit "good" status? In particular, the article is based off just a single primary source, meaning that it's difficult to call it entirely verifiable/reliable/neutral. –LogStar100 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)