Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Linda McCartney/1

Linda McCartney

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Consensus is for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article passed GA review nearly six years ago. The review itself is here and gives virtually no comments or explanations why it meets the GA criteria. The article in its current state had one unsourced quotation tagged {{cn}} (which I've removed), a number of unsourced claims (such as her appearance on Bread, which though I personally remember is not sufficient), and the "Discography" section is in the middle of the article when I would normally expect it to be at the end. There are a number of suspicious sources, such as a geocities link, wingspan.ru (which sounds like a fansite), revolverbook.co.uk and 10zenmonkeys.com. I don't think there's enough detail about her frozen foods business, which seems to have been pretty financially successful, or anything about the recent exhibitions of her photography (I saw one at Paul's Hyde Park gig in 2010). In short, I think the original review was insufficient and there's a substantial amount of work to get this up to the required standard. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that it never did meet GA standards and does not do so now. At a quick glance; the frozen foods business (which may be what she is chiefly remembered for now!) is mentioned once in the lead and then not mentioned again; there is tremulous (and inaccurate) use of names (we vary between Linda, McCartney and "the then-Linda Eastman") and I agree the sourcing is awful. It might be easier to delist this until it can be improved. --John (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, the frozen foods business is mentioned again under Linda_McCartney#Animal_rights. GoingBatty (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. It is a tiny mention though and needs to be greatly expanded. --John (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because if inappropriate review.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]