Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Byzantine-Arab Wars (780–1180)/1

Byzantine-Arab Wars (780–1180)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: Delisted. This is, unfortunately, a relatively clear cut case of something that should not have passed GAN. I encourage article editors to work on the comments raised here and on the talk page in bringing it up to criteria. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have had problems with this article's GA review, as listed on the talk page. Mine mainly concern criterion 2a: there is serious confusion regarding the sources, such that it is impossible to know which works are being cited. For me, though this is something that can probably be fixed quite quickly, this is enough for an instant delist. I will allow the other editor to comment here if s/he so chooses. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I am the mysterious "other editor", and I believe that this article is so far short of the GA criteria on so many levels that I was about to delist it until Jbmurray came along. The formatting of the sources was to say the least confusing, and remains confusing, but the quality of the prose alone is a show-stopper IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, with regrets. The prose needs improving and the article needs copyediting. I share Jbmurray's concerns about the citations. Majoreditor (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I agree with the above comments, particularly regarding copyediting and sourcing. The article seems to rely heavily on one or two sources, despite a fairly extensive references list (some of which are apparently unused in the article). The makings of a decent article are there, but it needs some attention before I'd be happy seeing it as a GA. EyeSerene^talk 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The article has been copyedited and the prose improved somewhat, but the confusion over the Treadgold reference has not been fixed. The limited number of sources has suggested concerns about plagiarism, which need independent checking. In addition to the general sourcing issue, the article has an uncited "Conclusion" section, which appears to editorialize the whole article. Wikipedia cannot and must not do this. A "Conclusions" section can be bad even when reliably sourced, as it is difficult to maintain neutral point of view. I agree with the consensus to delist. Geometry guy 00:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]