Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Breton horse/1
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 • • GAN review not found
- Result: kept There appear to be no problems that would justify delisting, the expand from the French tag does not justifyt delisting. Thus the article should keep its GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Tagged with "Expand from French". Is that an insta-fail? Also needs a major copy edit; nearly every sentence begins with "the". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- It would really be nice if there was some sort of notification on the talk page the the article was a potential candidate for GAR, like is done at FAR...you know, try to talk to people? Yes, this article can (and will, probably this summer) be expanded from the French version, but for now, I believe it still meets the GA "broadness" criteria - all of the basic info is there. If you have any specific questions WRT coverage, please let me know. I took several of these French breeds to GA before I began working with User:Tsaag Valren to bring info over from the French WP (where she has taken quite a few of them to GA/FA). I've done a quick copyedit, but I'm not seeing where you get "nearly every sentence" beginning with "the" - the majority of them didn't. Dana boomer (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Breed history section. I'm seeing a lot of sentences starting with "the" and it makes it read really dull. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Still not getting it. In that section, first paragraph - none of three sentences start with "the", second paragraph - 3/8 do (none successive), third paragraph - 2/12 do, fourth paragraph (first paragraph of Crossbreeding) - none of three, fifth paragraph - 1/9 do. Overall, that's 6 of 35 - not even 20 percent. This is not most, and not even a lot. Dana boomer (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is a notification on the talk page, by the addition of the GAR template. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I meant a prior notification. Something like "I'm thinking of putting this article up for GAR, is anyone out there interested in working to address the issues before I do so?" and then waiting a week or so to see if anyone answers. Like I said, that's the requirement that was put into place a couple of years ago at FAR, and it seems to work relatively well - sometimes there's no response and the article goes on to FAR, other times someone goes through and cleans up the article and there's no need for going through the whole FAR process. Not relevant now, at least to this article, but I guess it's something to think about. It just would have been nice to have something like that here, because (in my opinion) the issues are relatively minor and could have been addressed/discussed without coming here. Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- GA is a lot more simplistic than FA. As passing an article is pretty unbureaucratic, delisting one should also be. Though it can be slow this process is not usually a major drain. AIRcorn (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I meant a prior notification. Something like "I'm thinking of putting this article up for GAR, is anyone out there interested in working to address the issues before I do so?" and then waiting a week or so to see if anyone answers. Like I said, that's the requirement that was put into place a couple of years ago at FAR, and it seems to work relatively well - sometimes there's no response and the article goes on to FAR, other times someone goes through and cleans up the article and there's no need for going through the whole FAR process. Not relevant now, at least to this article, but I guess it's something to think about. It just would have been nice to have something like that here, because (in my opinion) the issues are relatively minor and could have been addressed/discussed without coming here. Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is a notification on the talk page, by the addition of the GAR template. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Still not getting it. In that section, first paragraph - none of three sentences start with "the", second paragraph - 3/8 do (none successive), third paragraph - 2/12 do, fourth paragraph (first paragraph of Crossbreeding) - none of three, fifth paragraph - 1/9 do. Overall, that's 6 of 35 - not even 20 percent. This is not most, and not even a lot. Dana boomer (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Breed history section. I'm seeing a lot of sentences starting with "the" and it makes it read really dull. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no need for a GAR because there are too many "the"s or because of a tag that was placed by one editor back in September who was mass-tagging dozens of articles with translation tags. The French article is now a featured article over on fr.wiki, so of course that material could be brought over here, but that does not in the least detract from the quality of the existing article. This does, indeed, seem like a sledgehammer being taken to an article that at most needs some minor copyedits. Montanabw(talk) 18:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the expand from French tag be on the talk page? Broadness may be an issue if there is information missing, but the tag does not necessarily mean that is the case, I can't read french so cannot judge this. Too many the's does not seem like a strong 1A reason to delist, and there are only four as I type so the issue may already be resolved. AIRcorn (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The only possible delisting issue I can see being made here is that it might fail the broadness criteria. Reading the article I did not get a sense that anything major was missing. Although the French version goes a lot more into the history of the horse, the requirements at GA does not require every major fact be present. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Expand from language tags go on the article, at least according to the template documentation and every placement I've ever seen. The French article is definitely longer (it's an FA on the French WP, after all), but as you said, the criteria for GA is broadness, not comprehensiveness. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I might see if I can change that. Clean-up tags I can understand, but tags which do not necessarily mean the article is bad should not be displayed so prominently in my opinion. Where would one go to start a discussion on this. AIRcorn (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know. Possibly one of the subsections of the WP:Village pump (the proposals page, maybe?), but other than that I don't have any suggestions. Dana boomer (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I might see if I can change that. Clean-up tags I can understand, but tags which do not necessarily mean the article is bad should not be displayed so prominently in my opinion. Where would one go to start a discussion on this. AIRcorn (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Expand from language tags go on the article, at least according to the template documentation and every placement I've ever seen. The French article is definitely longer (it's an FA on the French WP, after all), but as you said, the criteria for GA is broadness, not comprehensiveness. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The only possible delisting issue I can see being made here is that it might fail the broadness criteria. Reading the article I did not get a sense that anything major was missing. Although the French version goes a lot more into the history of the horse, the requirements at GA does not require every major fact be present. AIRcorn (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
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.