Talk:Good Samaritan law/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This page concentrates only on North America even though many European countries have this type of law. As it is not global in scope it does not at this time fulfill WP:GA criteria. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice suggestion for improvement, but nowhere in WP:WIAGA does it require that a good article have a comprehensively global view of a topic. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is criteria number 3 "Broad in its coverage" [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is in your interpretation of criterion 3. As is, I don't see anything that convinces me (including a review of the WT:WIAGA archives looking for "worldwide" or "global") that your view is a widely held interpretation of criterion 3--can you point me to something that supports your view? Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested further opinions... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any of them pan out? Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

The lead starts with "Good Samaritan laws in the United States are laws" this needs to be more global
"In some jurisdictions", "Not all jurisdictions"? One should clarify this. How about a map showing which states / countries that have common law and those which do not...
The history is touched on in the lead though unreferenced and than is not dealt with in the body of the text. This article needs a a section on history. When for example did these laws come into existence? [2]
The image in the lead is French yet the law as it applies in France is not discussed. Here is a paper on France [3]
This ref says all 50 states have laws "All 50 states have Good Samaritan laws that vary in scope and conditions but that match, supplement" [4] An important point that one does not get from the text
There has been a great deal of discussion about how GSL applies in airplanes. [5] and [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing refs with suggestions. I'll see what I can do to incorporate these over the next few days. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you need any help getting papers drop me a line. I have full access to most stuff.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on point of disagreement. While worldwide coverage (e.g., WP:BIAS) is not a GA requirement per se, broad coverage is, and that means the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". Exactly what this implies involves some subjective interpretation and judgment, which is one reason that GA reviews are conducted by human beings rather than bots. In some cases, it may be reasonable to argue that an article about a topic of global interest (in this case in most common law countries) does not address the main aspects if it only concentrates on the North American case. I suggest that the reviewer here applies his judgment. If the outcome is disputed, renomination or community GAR are available to obtain input from other editors. Geometry guy 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I do not think this meets GA criteria. If you wish me to move this to a community assement I will else I can delist it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question a while ago, and today is the first time it's been answered. I would suggest that moving to delist is premature in light of the delay. I've made some improvements to the article, but not had a lot of luck finding ProQuest references with which to expand European coverage. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Australia, New Zealand, and other UK Commonwealth countries (India?)? Geometry guy 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those too. Now that school's back in session, I have access to ProQuest, but ProQuest is primarily a US/Canada based publications indexing service, so I haven't gotten anything new to use. I have yet to really dig into the rest of the suggestions here, but I can. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need a copy of journal articles let me know.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at this article at just first glance and I think that it should lose its GA status. We have a Globalize tag at the top of the article since December 2009 and multiple citations needed. At closer examination, there is a big consern with the references, shown right here. Any comments? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... the "Globalize" tag has been disputed since it was added, Globalization is not a GA criterion, and the reference tool you're looking at is for FA, not GA. I don't debate that this article could be improved, but GA is not FA, and none of the complaints against it have demonstrated areas where WP:WIAGA is not met. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully at the link, you can see that two references are dead and some other references have problems as well. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have delisted this article due to issues with references and lack of global scope. Once these are addressed please reapply for GA status. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my above comment, can you please detail the rationale for your delisting? Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Geometry guy recommends this can either be "renomination" or opened as a "community GAR". It had been open a long time and I have continued concerns about limited scope.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]