Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Community/1

Community

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 • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delist Concerns have been raised about referencing and the lead which does not summarize the article in the manner required in WP:LEAD. Embedded lists and poor prose are also concerns. Editors and projects have been notified but no remedial action has been taken. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed for GAR, because I feel the that article does meet the GA criteria 2b since the "Communitarianism" and "Types of community" sections is completely unsorced. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 11:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. There are so many unsourced sections I can't see this retaining GA status. It had a GAR 3 years ago in a sweep and the article looks almost identical. It shouldn't have been kept then, I didn't check how the article compares now to GAN however. I don't see the point of keeping this one open much past the due date, its not a very sexy topic and not a well maintained article - I doubt anybody will source now or anytime soon and there is too much to do. Szzuk (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been just 2 article edits since the start of this GAR. Vandalism and revert. Szzuk (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with the above about the referencing. The lead needs work and the prose in general could do with a quick once over and not too keen on the use of embedded lists in sections. Notified the Wikiprojects Community (which looks stale) and Sociology plus User:Sunray so it has a chance. AIRcorn (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist No improvements to article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the above, as well - but, then, I'm new here.Meclee (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2011 (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.