Talk:Kurt Cobain/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order 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 August 16, 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.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • I made some minor copy-edits to achieve this. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • I fixed some deadlinks using CheckLinks. Ref #1 [1] doesn't support the statement, it says the opposite - Just don't call Cobain a spokesman for a generation.; ref #3 [2] directs to a blank page; ref #4 [3] directs to a 404 page; ref #53 [4] does not support the statement, A picture of Cobain from the Bleach era is used for the book's front cover, and its title comes from a shirt that Cobain was once photographed wearing.. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • ref #21 [5] is a blog post on a magazine website not RS; ref #23 [6] is a fansite, not RS; ref #34 [7] - I accept this has benn cited in good faith but it is not a RS, it is a campaign web site - there is no proof that thuis is actually the original document, not proof that it has not in some way been tampered with. The source site is a campaign site - find a newspaper report or better still the original document from original sources; ref #35 [8] as for #34 you can't use reproductions on other web sites; ref #44 - as #34 & 35 not RS; The multi-page Rolling Stone articles should have web links to the appropriate page rather than the front page of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • OK, on hold for the referencing issues to be fixed. Major contributors and projects are being notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I can probably tackle this one, but I need to finish the GA review of alternative rock first, so it might be over a week until I can start work on this. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries - I can wait. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, It has been some time now, so I am de-listing. The artcile can be brought to WP:GAN when it is ready. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)