Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Diamond Rio/1

Diamond Rio

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

Result: Delisted per consensus below. Geometry guy 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, this is my first GA. Anyway, I really don't think that it's quite up to snuff anymore. Personally, I think that it fails 3a because it makes very little mention of their award wins and critical reception, and 2b since the sources are very thin. As I proved with The Kentucky Headhunters, I can do much better than this — and I would like this to be delisted, because I don't think that it's GA class. (Note: Giggy, formerly Dihydrogen Monoxide, was the promoter, but he has barely edited this year so I didn't bother notifying.) Also, the GAN was placed on the talk page and not in a subpage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter too much where the original GAN was placed. I have linked to it above. Geometry guy 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that critical reception and awards need expanding to reach broadness. Also the discography sectionn should list the major works at least (often just the studio albums). Overall, i thought the article passed most criteria, and the broadness deficit could be remedied in a hold period. But if TPH is planning to do this over a longer time, then delist for now.Yob Mod 11:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that over a longer time, perhaps after Shenandoah (band) gets promoted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, it's been a month. Is no one gonna touch this?!Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: There are several other articles up for community reassessment. Could you comment on them? Thanks, Geometry guy 23:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at it this weekend. I've quickly scanned it and agree that the article could be better. You may consider delisting it yourself and then posting it at Peer Review. Majoreditor (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can conduct an individual GA Review and delist the article if it doesn't meet criteria. Or another editor can conduct an individual GAR. Or we can continue this community GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas not. If you have delisted the same article before, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment. Individual GARs are for uninvolved editors, whereas here TenPoundHammer is a major contributor. So this can only be a community GAR and comments from other editors are very much needed here to reach consensus. Geometry guy 23:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll stay with the community GAR. My two cents:

The article is reasonably well-written, although one of the sections ("Awards") is stubby and another section ("Discography") lacks a proper summary of the daughter article.
Several of the references are marginal. For example, Oldies.com and About.com probably don't qualify as reliable. I'm also struck by the paucity of strong source material.
And yes, there's scant information on critical reception.

With better sourcing and further development this article will surely meet all GA criteria. While it's on the cusp of qualifying, we can delist it for now. Majoreditor (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]