Talk:1995 Quebec referendum/GA2

GA Reassessment

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
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the GA criteria, due to large sections of the article that are not cited. The aftermath section contains an "additional citations needed" banner since 2017, which needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I did a lot of work on the original...cites should be very easy for most of the items, I can make an effort to do so this week. Are there any more substantive concerns with the article's content that would warrant removal from the standard? Knoper (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Knoper: My biggest concern was the lack of citations. Since finding (or not finding) sources might change the article, I will wait until this is resolved before doing a closer evaluation. Please ping me once this is complete. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, should be easily resolved, most of the events cited are fairly common knowledge and not in dispute. Would be a bit sad for an article that a lot of work went into to lose status over a few paragraphs of citations. Knoper (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Voila. Knoper (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Knoper: There are still some missing citations: every paragraph should have a citation at the end, minimum, to help with verifying the information. The Background section is particularily missing these citations. There's also a couple of "citation needed" templates throughout. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I cited the paragraph you referred to that required cites out of irrational personal attachment to the article after putting a lot of work into it 8 years ago, your tone and vague requests are a clear reminder why I left the project except for tinkering. Do whatever you want, have fun. Knoper (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: So as not to appear unconstructive, if you're looking for an editor who added some interesting sections on this work to have a second set of eyes, I'd recommend @Bearcat:, and to add more construction to my criticism, I'd recommend taking a collaborationist approach if you have an issue with an article and recommending a clear course of action instead of giving evolving commands dependent on vague criteria. 01:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Knoper: I am sorry about the quality of my comments. When I give initial reviews, I try to point out the larger problems that I see in the article, and commit to a more thorough review if someone resolves the larger issues. I use the GA criteria as a basis for what an article needs in order to be a GA, then decide if the article would meet those criteria if it was reviewed today. My role as a reviewer is to give comments about how the article can be improved upon. Unfortunately, I do not have the time at the moment to look for new sources, add the necessary references, and review the article for prose concerns. While improvements have been made, this article still needs some work to retain its GA status and I hope you or someone is willing to make those edits. I'll keep this review open for a week, but if no edits are made, I'll close this as a delist. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Z1720, do you wish to keep or delist this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe the right question is "should it be" delisted? Aside from an arbitrary statement that "Every paragraph should have a citation at the end", I haven't seen any clear statement that would indicate it should be delisted. Knoper (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Personally, I agree with you, Knoper. However, this is an individual reassessment (a process which will hopefully be removed soon per WP:GAPD23) and so the decision must be left to the nominating editor. If Z1720 does not reply by 16 January, I will manually close this GAR with "no consensus to delist", or something similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, appreciate the response. Knoper (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29 and Knoper: Sorry for the delayed response. This article has undergone improvements since the original assessment, but I am still concerned at the sourcing, with multiple paragraphs missing inline citations such as the first, third, fifth, and sixth paragraphs in "Background", second in "Prelude", first and second in "Participants", and others. This makes it hard to verify multiple sections of the article. If I was assessing this article at GAN today, I would not pass it. I think most of the inline citations can be added from the sources that are already used in the article. Knoper (or someone else) are you interested in looking at the sources and adding the missing inline citations? Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  For me, the issue is that with the content that does not have a cited source, it's not clear where I can verify the information. While inline citations are not required, it should be obvious to the reader where each bit of information can be verified to meet the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Z1720: could you close? I think the article should be delisted as there is no distinction between further reading and general references. General references are technically allowed (but de facto we're moving away from this), but the article doesn't even do that clearly. Femke (alt) (talk) 10:51, 1 February 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.