Talk:Henri Brocard/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article very clearly does not meet modern GA standards. Even a passing glance reveals unreferenced paragraphs, outstanding citation requests, dead links in references and poorly formatted references. Further, I have serious doubts about whether this article is comprehensive. The article has barely 900 words; I've written start-class Did You Knows that were longer. I would ask a representative of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics to comment on the comprehensiveness, as I am a sociologist, and don't feel qualified to judge the "Contributions" section. PS. Also, MoS failure with regard to WP:LEAD (does not seem like a comprehensive summary, contains citations and claims not present in the body). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real opinion on the topic seen globally -I am not experienced enough about the :en Wikipedia GA standards- but your critics seem harsh : there is certainly one dead link (singular, not plural) used once as a referrence proving that Brocard was a geometer (we could do without referrence for that, could not we ?) and at another place to source that his contributions in meteorology were substandard (this opinion could be removed, if no other source can be found). No obvious "unreferenced paragraphs" except perhaps the quite trivial one about his attendance to International Congress of Mathematicians, but it happens to appear in source 6. Nothing to say about formatting, it is not my cup of tea. French Tourist (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The length itself is not part of the criteria, but it is an indicator that the article may not be broad enough (so is the references section, which suggests more information is available). The French article is a GA and might be useful in assessing the broadness. The citation needed tags need to be taken care of and WP:lead is part of the criteria, although there is no rule against using citations the other points are valid. The overuse of single sentence paragraphs is also a prose issue in my opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is the reassessment coming along. AIRcorn (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, nobody cares about it, so I am going to fail the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]