Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/GLaDOS/1

GLaDOS[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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this nomination is a little more of an interesting one. When this became a GA I nominated it for DYK like I always do for most GAs. However, the nomination actually got rejected because of reliable sourcing concerns. There are reportedly unreliable sources such as youtube and a forum post while there's also a supposed overuse of primary sources. This is concerning considering i've never had a nomination rejected for unreliable sourcing and DYK is usually more relaxed than GA with its criteria. So, i'm nominating this for GAR to see if these concerns are valid and enough to be reassessed. For more information see the DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/GLaDOS Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There numerous listicles that may need to be removed. This one for example is just pure fluff. This one may also be fluff, especially since it's written in a very geeky tone. There don't seem to be many that are outright unreliable, though, but I am not sure if PopMatters is a WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend delist until sourcing issues are fixed due to such wide ranging use of content farm style articles. It's clear the review was simply not thorough enough, and the fact that no fixes were asked for by the reviewer is surprising and points to a rushed review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section "Relationship to other characters" is cited to G. Christopher Williams of PopMatters. They might be cited in-depth in part because of their position at the University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, but there may be good reason to trim this section down. I don't know. Primary source usage does not seem out of the ordinary. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the GA reviewer of this Article. I admit that more work should have been performed on my part. I apologize for this. I agree that a delist should be performed. This article does not meet all of the GA Criteria. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is redeemable and probably close to GA. But there are a few sourcing issues that need to be resolved. I agree about a delist and I hope it encourages editors to work on it. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.