Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Carol Kaye/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 • • Most recent review
- Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- No picture of the subject, and Free Image Search Tool couldn't find any either. (There was a picture from 1955, which was deleted from commons for no evidence of permission, but if the picture was indeed from 1955 it may pass {{PD-US-no notice}}.)
- Breadth of sources is lacking. Most of them are from one book or Library of Congress entries.
This list represents only a small fraction of her recorded performances.
- WP:SELFREF violation. Also no criteria for what's included in the discography, making it very cherry-picked.
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep
- Note 6 on WP:GACR says "The presence of media is not a requirement." so I don't think that's a valid reason to delist this.
- There are a number of articles used as sources. If the "one book" you're referring to is Hartman, then that's 9 of the >50 non-discography citations. Considering that it's a book that's substantially about her, I don't think that's excessive.
- Is a solution to the selfref violation just a case of removing that sentence? Agree about the criteria, maybe just a link to the main discography would be better. That would be a simple fix.
- Keep
- Garnet-Septagon (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Garnet-Septagon I've removed the discography list, as it failed MOS:EMBED, part of 2b) of the GA criteria. I am in agreement with your other points. Keep ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
I only just noticed this. TPH, you could have left a note on my talk page, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green - for the latter point I have raised a neutral (ie: non-canvassing) note at that project page. Anyway, it looks like the sequence of events is roughly that I improved it to GA in November 2018, then got fed up of IPs and inexperienced editors making BLP violating edits and adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, that I gave up, assuming consensus that nobody cared whether this was a GA or not. Indeed, you can see my lack of contributions from this protection for BLP violations tell that story. Therefore, raising it to a GAR to get the article fixed is acceptable. I don't have a great deal of time to dedicate to fixing up issues right now, but as a starting point, it may be worth comparing the article as it passed GA, to the state it's in now : [1]. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)