Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kamal Haasan/1

Kamal Haasan

Result: Delist. Though it has no great quorum, and no lengthy discussions, the article has the problems pointed below that no longer make it a GA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I have listed this article for GA reassessment bcoz it was badly damaged by edit wars, content deletion, info not up-to-date and too many dead links. i want it to therefore improve it. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? Did you improve it? Please be specific on why do you think this article does not meet GA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found these statements unsourced:

"The late 1970s was a period that saw Haasan's continued collaboration with K. Balachander, who cast him in many of his social-themed films."
"Haasan has refrained from politics in spite several people from the film Industry taking the plunge in Politics."

...and many statements in the awards section. But will try to fix them. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Request to close this dumb review due to inactivity. —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I hereby declare that the article be delisted from its GA status. Like u once said, the article is "not GA-worthy" due to having been "degraded a lot since it was last promoted" and there is no time to fix those errors. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792, Vensatry, and Dwaipayanc: So what has happened finally? If its not GA, why does it still have GA mark? Or is it GA? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmadhyaksha, Vensa and I have agreed that the article has far been degraded from its GA status (the nominator and reviewer did not actually work well at the time I think), but Dwai has not yet responded. I say the article be delisted now itself... Or wait for a third editor's reply. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With no active participation, this one clearly lacks consensus. —Vensatry _(Ping) 13:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the article, so you can disregard my view. However, on a quick glance, the article seemed quite good. What specific GA criteria are you guys worried about?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – Sourcing is been a major concern throughout the article. Looks like a lot of sourced content was removed/changed since the last assessment. IMO, it fails to satisfy criterion 2(a), 2(b) and 3 (a). The 1970s which is supposed to be a turning point in the actor's career is summarised in just four small paras; Lead roles, 1970–1975 has just one ref and Late 1970s has just a single ref. to back up two paras. The subsequent sections have the same problem. —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the delist - I also think that the now retired User:Universal Hero did not work well on the article and nominated it just like that, which a docile reviewer just blindly passed. His errors are also hard to correct. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash, we are not here to discuss the quality of work, be it the contribution or reviews carried out by other users. It passed GAN four years ago and has suffered a lot in the form of vandals and POV pushers. So give your opinion based on the current status of the article. —Vensatry _(Ping) 11:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]