Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Asexuality/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AceRebel (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 19 July 2020 (Responded to Adam9007). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Asexuality

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

My rationale is that this article doesn't meet criteria of good article criteria:

  • It has no Verifiable references. All provided references and references to research papers either directly or indirectly refer back to AVEN with attempt to circumvent criteria of Verifiable references;
  • It doesn't satisfy criteria of Broad in its coverage. It goes in unnecessary details like describing particular natural person personal website i.e. AVEN;
  • It doesn't satisfy criteria of being Neutral. Article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website;
  • It is not Stable. The evidence is that the Article has semi-protected status, which means there are ongoing editorial wars.

The whole my point is not to remove the Article itself, but to:

  • delist it first, because editors affiliated with AVEN use GA as an argument to state that AVEN is Verifiable resource trying to circumvent Wikipedia policies and rules. The article couldn't be improved by providing Verifiable references to the claims made, because Verifiable references simply do not exist and claims made in article are not correct.
  • When there would be no argument that AVEN is Verifiable source it would be possible to proceed to change the claims in Article to correct ones with references to Verifiable sources like Oxford University Press, which is the most authoritative and most reliable source for definitions, lexicography and words usage with most recent developments in English language taken into account, which is a concern of the Article. In fact AVEN itself has no even its own article, which makes it unreliable in the first place and in fact reflects definition of Questionable source.
  • The Article will be nominated for GA again when claims stated in Article will be changed and referenced to Verifiable sources.

Unfortunately, without these 3 steps process there is no way to fix Article to satisfy GA criteria as editors affiliated with AVEN are using GA status argument to circumvent Wikipedia rules and policies on Verifiable sources. AceRebel (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article shows this nomination to be patently absurd and conspiratorial in its rambling about AVEN. I also note that this user (or I should say, account) has a grand total of 23 edits. CU would be a good idea. This should be speedily closed. Crossroads -talk- 00:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads, you are making serious allegations without providing any prove. You attempt to discredit me on the basis of my account statistic, doesn't make any sense as you do not address any points I made trying to diver conversation from the good article criteria discussion. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No type of solid rationale provided for this "reassessment." Seems to be retaliatory for Crossroads reverting the editor here. The editor was also reverted by Adam9007. Although AceRebel is being disruptive like a newbie, it's clear that AceRebel is not a newbie. Not sure what AceRebel is trying to achieve except for trying to get the article delisted because of their views on AVEN (and possibly due to other personal feelings). Close this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Flyer22 Frozen, please stop engaging in misleading technics and address points I made that article do not satisfy good article criteria. If you have no argument just attempts to divert the topic of the discussion, then your irrelevant argument makes no sense. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user also accused me of being affiliated with AVEN. I didn't realise that being asexual (or creating the related article Discrimination against asexual people) automatically affiliates you with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Adam9007, please stop engaging in misleading technics and address points I made that article do not satisfy good article criteria. If you have no argument just attempts to divert the topic of the discussion, then your irrelevant argument makes no sense. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain exactly how this article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website? Adam9007 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what point of my argument are you looking to address? AceRebel (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you haven't at all explained your argument that this article is somehow affiliated with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Adam9007, your rephrased statement makes no sense to me. In my Community reassessment request I'm challenging four criteria, specifically: Verifiable, Broad in its coverage, Neutral and Stable. What challenges are you addressing? AceRebel (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Asexuality/1&oldid=968382232"