Talk:Gruban v Booth

Gruban v Booth was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
July 5, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 12, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Gruban v Booth case was so popular that the barristers had difficulty making to their way through the crowds to the court on the last day?

Current status: Delisted good article

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

GA Reassessment[edit]

Gruban v Booth[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: Consensus to delist, with additional questions as to whether the article passes GNG at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. The biggest issue with the article is that it uses ONE source from 1960 to cite the entire article, which I don't think follows GA criteria. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm tempted to agree, there are only 4 mentions on Google Scholar since 1960. The case seems to have fallen into obscurity. To play devil's advocate which sources would you suggest should be cited Onegreatjoke ? (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really, any other sources available should be cited since having one source to cite an entire article does not seem like good sourcing. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd argue anything with only one source shouldn't be a GA on principle. Such an article by definition can't be a summary of reliable sources (plural) if there's only one source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we cannot find any other coverage I wonder if this should just be part of the Patrick Hastings article, appropriately slimmed down. But that's more of a notability judgement than a GA criteria one. Regardless, were I reviewing this article for GA I would quickfail due to only one source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be pedantic Trainsandotherthings, but is there any part of the GA criteria that requires more than one source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While there isn't anything that says it explicitly, things such as "it contains a list of all references (sources of information)" and "all inline citations are from reliable sources" do imply multiple sources. Though, if you're still on the fence we can bring this up to the talk page since this is a genuine concern. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings on the matter are similar to Onegreatjoke's. An article with only one source arguably isn't showing a GNG pass, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a law expert, but it seems like there are more (albeit not too many) sources available on Google Books and Scholar. I haven't done a thorough examination and only have snippets, but unless they are completely trivial mentions that contain basically no additional information (if so the article might fail GNG anyway, though this seems unlikely) I personally don't see how just one source can meet criteria 3a (yes GAs don't have to be comprehensive, but I'm subjectively unconvinced when that one source can be suitably broad). Though I agree this isn't explicitly stated in the GA criteria, and will defer to more knowledgable editors with regards to this topic. VickKiang (talk) 22:48, 30 June 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.