Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wal-Mart/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wal-Mart

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Consensus (vote of 5 delist, 1 weak delist, 2 keep) after 21 days is for delist. Several editors have pointed out serious issues with the article that cause it to fall the criteria. Significant edits needed before article can be relisted as GA. Vicenarian (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that GAR is not a vote: I have commented on the talk page. Geometry guy 21:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the article has been tagged to be checked for POV and have the intro rewritten. GAs shouldn't have maintenance tags, should they? Also, I'm seeing {{dubious}} starting to sneak in. Some sentences that should be sourced aren't, such as the presence of Dunkin Donuts or Blimpie, and the section on Marketside. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I agree that the lead is too short. I get 40 Kb readable prose for the article, so the lead should be approaching the maximum allowed, - there is obviously a lot to cover, even in summary. The "unbalanced" tag seems to be there on the insistence of one user, who wants more praise included. Considering the number of people on the talk page complaining that there is too little criticism, i don't think it is worth delisting over until it has been there longer. Work to fix any balance issues seems to have died off though, and i see no improvments being made in the lead, so hopefully this GAR will prompt the editors to start working on it again, otherwise weak delist (if only because of sourcing problems: no-one is doing anything about the ugly dubious tag, which has a citation that contradicts the claim, so should be simply removed).YobMod 09:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you could please hang-on on this a bit, and give a chance to address these issues, I'd appreciate it. The tags on the article were placed there by one user (THF (talk · contribs)). There has been discussion on this, and many issues have been addressed, yet many remain. It's been difficult finding adequate citations for the rest, and several others citations that THF has suggested are, in fact, mostly opinion-based commentary and books written by authors with a particular point-of-view, which I don't think is appropriate for the page. Still, the article should be made to provide a good analysis of the positive and negative aspects of the company. If we could have a week or so to fix this up more, that would be great! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. GARs are typically open for two weeks to gather consensus. Geometry guy 20:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist until the problems in the lead can be sorted out. I didn't read any further. The lead is very poor. SilkTork *YES! 18:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, I almost nominated myself a few weeks ago, and came back today to do it, but found someone else had beat me to it. The lead is too short, clean up tags, stubby paragraphs, timeline-like prose. Nikki♥311 00:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A week has passed with no change, and this GAR has been open for two and is ready to be closed per consensus. Concerning the timeline-like prose mentioned by Nikki, I think the article would really benefit from making more use of secondary analysis. At the moment, it relies extensively on primary sources and newspaper articles. A quick search of Google books reveals books by several authors on the company, including Lichtenstein (which the article cites, but only once), Vance & Scott, Brunn, Fishman,... Using secondary sources to piece together some of the primary source material would not only make the article more interesting, but would help to maintain NPOV, by using sourced analysis to represent viewpoints. Geometry guy 12:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the lead is rewritten. I do not see any other serious problems. Ruslik (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I agree that the article has several problems, including the lead and NPOV. I would advise delisting until these problems are completed. Vicenarian (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Geometryguy. Ricardiana (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Wal-Mart/1&oldid=1138523001"