Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Socialist Party USA/1

Socialist Party USA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: keep No specifics of issues have been added by nominator Jezhotwells (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Socialist Party USA/GA2, where I wrote the following:

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

I shall write more later. However, as the author of a GA article Shapley–Folkman lemma, I was shocked by the tendentious editing and COI problems of this article. It obviously fails GA criteria, because of misuse of sources and NPOV violations.
For example, the article failed to mention that the old Socialist Party changed its name to Social Democrats, USA, until I added the NYT article. Its blames a group called "Schachtmanites" for taking control of the old SP, citing a Washington Post article, whose on-line version only mentions Schachtman (and not SDUSA or his position within the Socialist Party, at least in the on-line version cited).
Procedurally, it would be useful for advocates or officers of this organization to either stop COI editing or to declare their COI. Bluntly, these COI problems are related to the NPOV violations. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with this process. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is for you to list the problems with the article against the GA criteria. It is polite to leave a note at the main contributors and the passing reviewers talk page to give them a chance to respond to your comments. Other editors will come along and make there own comments. If no one fixes the problems or they are not fixable it will likely be delisted. If the problems are fixed it will probably be kept. That's my take on it anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most of the problems can be readily fixed. I shall make a list next week. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. It might pay to compare it to this essay. The requirements are a lot less than many people seem to think. AIRcorn (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.