Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Uncyclopedia/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch •
- Result pending
I believe that Uncyclopedia, as funny as it is, should have its article delisted from GA for multiple reasons:
1. The lead is too short, as mentioned on the talk page. It should easily be two paragraphs.
2. The history section consists of a ton of one-sentence paragraphs.
3. {{Fansite}} tag on the "Uncyclopedia in other languages" section.
Mostly criterion 1 of WP:WIAGA is what it seems to fall short on.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
1. Fails 2c, about 80% of citations are from the site itself. The site includes intentionally false information, so this is like shooting yourself in the foot.
2. Fails 3, goes into unnecessary details about the site in other languages. Which is why Fansite tag is there.
It is a very difficult article to main, and as it is edited by many users from the site, fansite-like details are commonly added but are debatable.
--Otterathome (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per above. Majoreditor (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delist. Someone could close this now, the article even uses user pages at Uncyclopedia as references.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The {{Fansite}} tag should never have been applied, as the languages listed are just the major ones - not all of the (currently fifty-two) Uncyclopedias in existence. Many of the references are from mainstream media and, if the effort expended in burying this page in maintenance tags to further some agenda were instead exerted more constructively, the intro could've been rewritten long ago. --carlb (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. You know, I actually thought everything was just gonna return to a nice good article equilibrium for this page. Apparently not. At any rate, I agree with Carlb on the issue of that language section; although some of the information given seems a tad trivial to me, when I skimmed it briefly, it seemed to have been all sourced thoroughly and properly(I don't speak much of any of those languages, of course, but doubt you do, either.). Don't like the links to the userpages? What links to userpages? I don't see any links to any userpages on this page, do you see any links to any userpages on this page? My point is that something as small as that can easily be fixed, in 30 seconds or less(or your money back!). This page isn't perfect. Far from it. It is, however, in my humble opinion, far from any kind of snowball clause closeout, and even further from simply removing the template yourself, without discussion. - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)