Talk:Fursuit/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
There are several marks of maintenance and the version in Portuguese and Norwegian is much more complete. The French article is good, but there is some missing references; but so is even more complete than that. Keplerbr (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would really agree Portuguese is in better shape, but Norwegian appears to be. I do agree that it's not really been worked on (prose expansion-wise) since the GA pass, with only two of the "retrieved" dates for references being after 2008 (they're 2012 in both cases). One of those is to WikiFur, which while they have good standards in place, they are another wiki. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the article in Portuguese, and I think it's far from deserving mention of "Good Article". In WikiFur is nice, but in entire sections missing references. Keplerbr (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how this passed in the first place. The sourcing was atrocious and when the inappropriately source content is removed the article clearly does not meet the criteria of breadth or depth of content coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Criteria:

   1) Well-written:
       the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
       it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
   2) Verifiable with no original research:
       it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
       it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
       it contains no original research.
   3) Broad in its coverage:
       it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
       it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
   4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
   5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
   6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8]
       images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
       images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

2) Fail, many unsourced claims, non reliable sources

3) Fail, no discussion of history, or construction methods or materials, or famous costumes, or pretty much anything

Based on quick fail of 2 and 3, i recommend de-listing. per the process before de-listing, there needs to be time for someone to respond. i will put notifications out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing reassessment

The article was delisted by User:TheRedPenOfDoom on 11 December 2014 by removing the Good Article icon from the article page. Having looked at the article page, I can see that the article is very far indeed from being a GA; it's somewhere between Start and C classes, by my estimation. I am formally closing this reassessment and removing the Good Article listing from the article's talk page as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]