Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/David Cameron/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: The article is demoted per unanimous consensus. Pretty good justification that the article is no longer the one which was nominated for GA. This is natural since the major aspects of his career (twice PM) happened after the GAR. Please note that I do not have much experience with GA generally, I am simply closing this per a request at WP:ANRFC. (non-admin closure) Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm bringing this up for reassessment, because it is a completely different article to the one which was originally promoted.[1] On top of that the original review heavily lacked in rigour and was merely a quick 6 bullet point job.[2] The article is also heavily unstable. This is a BLP for an influential figure and it is bad of us to give the impression that what's contained within is the creme la creme of encyclopedia content. With this in mind I support a speedy demotion. Brustopher (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would second your vote for a speedy demotion. It's not the same article as the promoted article because the most significant aspects of the subject's career (two elections and becoming Prime Minister) have all happened since the article obtained its "good" status, and the material that has been added to reflect these most important parts of his career is uneven at best. There are discussions taking place over reorganisation, but the present article is poorly-structured, lacks detail on some important aspects of his career whilst including entire subsections on lesser details, and has been insufficiently updated in the last couple of years. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a good article, and it will need a huge amount of editing to get near that status again. Dtellett (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- demote unstable article - see this as an example, large deletion without discussion of the good article content after this review was created Govindaharihari (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)