Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Corrs/1

The Corrs[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 • GAN review not found

Result: delist This article remains substantially unimproved since its nomination for community reassessment over three weeks ago, the primary contributor is semi-retired and the projects have been informed. There are unsourced statements and many dead links, which could possibly be replaced by someone who care to research them. the reliability of several sources has been challenged but no response has been made to these challenges. The prose is not very good and the article as a whole lacks a consistent flow. A thorough copy-edit would be beneficial. The article does not appear to have been updated for nearly a year. I believe that in its present state the article does not meet the GA criteria, so should be de-listed as there is a clear consensus to do so. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to acharts.us should probably be replaced.
What makes the following reliable sources?
There are a ton of dead links.
Citations to Amazon and IMDb should be removed. If all you need to cite is the track listing, use Allmusic.
The infobox shouldn't have had the dates in it (i.e., how long they were signed to each label). I removed these.

Overall, it's obvious the article isn't being maintained (mainly the extreme linkrot, but also the ancient League of Copy Editors tag that was drive-by-tagged). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is in poor shape, I notified the primary contributor, but they do have a semi-retired notice. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also notified the projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few MOS issues (although not all of these need disqualify GA status) including those in: WP:Not #, WP:YEAR, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics and WP:ORDINAL. More significant for GA status are the issues in WP:Title, the many deadlinks and handful of missing citations already mentioned above. The writing style is a bit of a problem as well and needs a copy edit. This is a bit more than I am prepared to dip in and fix quickly I am afraid.--SabreBD (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just the dead links they could be fixed up relatively easily, but too many of the references used are not reliable and finding replacements is a harder task. As no one seems to be interested in saving this I suggest delisting. AIRcorn (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2011 (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.