Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Edmund Andros/1
Edmund Andros[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted per citation issues, and possible copyright issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
GA from 2012. Has been tagged for needing more citations. Also, I'm quite surprised to see barely anything about his govenorship of Maryland. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- A drive-by comment: despite the big banner, I only see two CN tags, one of which is for his date of death, which I imagine is pretty easy to track down. At a very casual glance, I'd suggest the banner might have been put there a little over-eagerly. On the second note, the GA criteria don't require comprehensiveness (though the FA ones do), only that the major aspects of the topic are covered - he was only governor for about eight months, so it might be that there simply isn't much in the sources. My impression is that this one's pretty easy to straighten out, and I could probably take a more proper look at it at some point: is that the extent of your concerns, or were there other issues? In particular, if you think there's more statements needing a citation (because they're likely to be challenged or attributed to specific individuals), it would help if you could stick the inline tag on them.
- EDIT: There's a couple more inline CNs than I thought, though I think the general point stands. "Palfrey" (partially cited passim) is almost certainly Palfrey's 1858 History of New England; I can check those sources and add it to the biblio at some point.
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think you could fix the tags and the sourcing, UndercoverClassicist? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd be happy to: this next week is pretty busy; I'll do my best to take a look at the 'easy' stuff first, but it might take me a week or so to get into anything that proves more tricky. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've made some progress here. The "Governor of Virginia" section is basically written from Lustig: if someone can get hold of the full text of that, I suspect the entire section could be cited quite easily. I do have some concerns about this method of writing, where the original editor appears to have largely worked from a single source at a time: a CLOP check might be a good idea. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Given the new changes to the GA sourcing requirements, I suspect this one is now going to fall short. As detailed above, I'm not happy that the writing methods would meet current GA expectations: at the moment I'd support a delist. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've made some progress here. The "Governor of Virginia" section is basically written from Lustig: if someone can get hold of the full text of that, I suspect the entire section could be cited quite easily. I do have some concerns about this method of writing, where the original editor appears to have largely worked from a single source at a time: a CLOP check might be a good idea. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd be happy to: this next week is pretty busy; I'll do my best to take a look at the 'easy' stuff first, but it might take me a week or so to get into anything that proves more tricky. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think you could fix the tags and the sourcing, UndercoverClassicist? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.