Talk:Northeast Philadelphia/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As part of the GA sweeps performed by the Good Article Project Quality taskforce, this article has undergone an individual reassessment to ensure that it continues to meet the Good Article criteria.A quick glance at the article shows that the biggest problem is the large amount of unreferenced information. To meet the GA criteria for verifiability, the article should be fully referenced. At present, the specific sections with referencing issues are:

Early settlement - mostly unreferenced
Consolidation and population increase - completely unreferenced
Post-war growth - completely unreferenced
A separate identity - one full paragraph unreferenced; how much of the first paragraph does the citation cover?
Political representation and government - two paragraphs fully unreferenced
Local businesses and attractions - completely unreferenced
Primary and secondary schools - completely unreferenced
News media - completely unreferenced
Transportation - first paragraph is unreferenced

Based on this, I feel that the article does not currently meet the GA criteria for verifiability. I am going to place it on hold for one week (beginning after I notify the relevant projects and editors). If these concerns can be addressed within this timeframe, I will give the article a deeper look to ensure that it meets the criteria. If the concerns are not addressed, I will delist the article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough inline references, and probably there will be, is there anything else that can be improved right now, without awaiting another evaluation? I would suggest some more photos, especially of the unusual row houses with a driveway and garages in the rear and steps up to the first floor in the front across a lawn, certainly far different from 18th or 19th century Philadelphia townhouses. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A message at [[1]] indicates that the reviewer has had to drop out so I will carry on. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 19, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I have made various fixes using WP:CHECKLINKS, one dead link has been tagged, a large number of statements need citations and have been tagged.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

OK, the concerns all to do with referencing as cited above. On holf or seven days. Projects and major contributors will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC) OK, times up, there have been some amendments but there are still uncited statements and even references to other wikipedia pages. WP is not a RS. So I am going to delist, please renominate at GAN when you have got the article into shape. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. If I wanted to cite every sentence, I'd have submitted it for Featured Article. [Sigh] Fine, I'll fill in more cites, if they exist, but this is the last time I deal with this ridiculous bean-counting. Coemgenus 14:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any place in this article where a citation needed tag is now present? If not, how does the article fail for lack of reliable inline citations? I could easily add additional citations in various places, but how would I know where they are needed? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]