Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tina Turner/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Keep Improvements have been made and no more objections have been forthcoming AIRcorn (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2012
I was shocked to see the green circle at the top of the page, because this page is far from a "good article". A vast chunk of it lacks any kind of verification, and though it does follow a chronological pattern, is plagued with numerous POV issues. A variety of editors have agreed that the article does not meet the GA criteria. A reassessment was even initiated a long time ago, but it did not reach a consensus as there was no commentary. —DAP388 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- It seems well written and at least decently sourced. There are a few paragraphs, or end of paragraphs that do not have references, which is a problem. I'd say it's close to GA quality, but it probably would fail a GAN in its current condition. Perhaps you could communicate your specific concerns on the article talk page and add some notices to appropriate WikiProjects? Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please notify intersted parties and projects if you are going to nominate an article for reassessment (have done it for you). Also it is easier if you give examples or detail how an article fails the criteria. However saying that, the article does seem to be missing a lot of sources. Will see if anyone is willing to fix it up. AIRcorn (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, this is interesting. But I can see the argument as to why it doesn't really meet the "good article" assessment looking at other "good article" pages. Maybe sources and a better way of writing the story in the respective paragraphs. Does the lead section still look off to y'all? It does seem fleshed out but yeah more sources are needed. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- The lead seemed fine to me. The biggest concerns are the unverified statements. In particular potentially controversial ones like Ike & Tina Turner reached the pinnacle of their success following the release of "River Deep - Mountain High",, and By the mid-1970s, Tina's personal life and marriage had fallen apart. Ike's growing cocaine use led to increasingly erratic and physically abusive behavior. I would suggest reading through and identifying potentially controversial statements and then looking for a source to back them up (or changing the statement so it is supported by a similar source). I don't think it would be too hard to do. The recent years section could probably use a bit of a copy edit too, which is usually the case when new information is added to existing Good articles. AIRcorn (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah those statements can be damaging as far as its assessment goes. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- A friendly reminder: there is no GA requirement requiring citations in each paragraph. Instead, focus on Aircorn's point: controversial statements that are likely to be challenged and contentious material relating to living persons should cite reliable sources. Majoreditor (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah those statements can be damaging as far as its assessment goes. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- The lead seemed fine to me. The biggest concerns are the unverified statements. In particular potentially controversial ones like Ike & Tina Turner reached the pinnacle of their success following the release of "River Deep - Mountain High",, and By the mid-1970s, Tina's personal life and marriage had fallen apart. Ike's growing cocaine use led to increasingly erratic and physically abusive behavior. I would suggest reading through and identifying potentially controversial statements and then looking for a source to back them up (or changing the statement so it is supported by a similar source). I don't think it would be too hard to do. The recent years section could probably use a bit of a copy edit too, which is usually the case when new information is added to existing Good articles. AIRcorn (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A lot of work has been done on this since it was nominated. Are there any outstanding issues remaining? AIRcorn (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)