Talk:Hurdy-gurdy/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. So I will be assessing the article.Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

This is a "good article", but it no longer meets the requirements of a GA in respect of WP:verify; and it already has {citation needed} tags on it.

In all other respects it is: well-written, informative, and well-illustrated. It would be a disappointment to me if this article lost its GA-status and was downgraded (to B-class), I'm therefore putting the GAR On Hold to allow time for these points to be addressed.Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found one {citation needed} tag in the article for a point I'm highly skeptical of (about a possible source for the term “hurdy-gurdy”) and commented out that portion. (I'm familiar with most of the literature on the subject and never recall seeing it.) If someone could go through and mark other points that need citation, it would help. I'm too deeply familiar with the subject to see what others might not take as common knowledge. Thanks. -Fenevad (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand exactly what is going on here. Is the GA status threatened because of the one citation tag that has now been removed? What other work needs to be completed? I don't think anyone is challenging statements in the article; this looks like some kind of review process to see of articles still meet the GA criteria. Does it now? --Laser brain (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it is currently non-compliant with GA, the requirements for GA have been tightened up since it was last assessed for GA; and that if it is not improved within a certain time it will lose GA-status. Normally that period is one week. Are you clear what is needed, or do you need more details (and/or more time to fix it)?Pyrotec (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it now. Thanks for your patience. Hopefully we can work on these before they are delisted. If not, we can always bring them back later when they're improved. --Laser brain (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they are not done in one week you can ask for another week, etc; and, while the clock is running, I would prefer not to delist it.Pyrotec (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no progress has been made, and it's June 16. Article delisted. Once it meets the GA criteria again, it can be renominated at WP:GAN.Pyrotec (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of earlier comments

The WP:Lead appears to be satisfactory.

Origins and history -

The first paragraph has in-line citations and appears to be compliant with WP:verify.

None of the remaining paragraphs have any citations.

Terminology -

I think that the first paragraph needs some citations for these terms.

Names of the instrument -

has some in-line citations.

Design -

almost entirely unreferenced except for the Regional types subsection.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments currently has six GAs; four of these, including Pipe organ, are also up for review this year. Pipe organ has a number of {citations needed} flags and it is up for review so it might also fail; but that, I would suggest, is the minimum level of in-line citations what you should be aiming for in this article. Recorder is also on the list for review and that also has {citations needed} flags (see here for the articles in your scope that are due for review this year - Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps worklist#Instruments).

Just to clear up any possible misunderstandings: both the presence of {citations needed} flags and the absence of in-line citations can lead to loss of existing GA-status.

Any more questions, just add them to this page.Pyrotec (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]