Talk:Karl Stirner
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karl Stirner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Karl Stirner was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 4, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Karl Stirner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 20:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This article has an interesting history. It was created and heavily edited from 2013 to 2016 by Masterknighted, who was blocked for sockpuppetry (as part of a much larger sock farm, likely responsible for undisclosed paid promotional editing) in 2017. Then in late 2017 it came under heavy edits from four single-purpose accounts, who edited nothing else, one of whom made this nomination.
To me the article certainly reads as the likely result of undisclosed paid promotional editing. We have a lot of dubiously-reliable sources (footnotes 1 and 11-13 from subject-associated web sites, and most of the rest from local newspapers), a lot of unsourced personal details (most of the early life section), exhibits sourced only to the artist's own web site (most of the career section), an editorialized description of the emotional response to his artwork sourced to a book but given no specific page numbers, lots of overly-detailed descriptions of specific non-notable artworks (most of the arts trail section) and a lot of pull quotes in place of neutral descriptions of his work.
I think the subject is probably notable, but the article as written doesn't show it. I think that, given its apparent promotionalism, dubious authorship, low-quality sourcing, and overly detailed coverage of minor matters, it is very far from meeting the good article criteria, particularly criteria 2 (verificability), 3b (unnecessary detail), and 4 (neutrality). As such I think it can be included as an immediate failure under WP:GACR quick fail criterion 1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)