Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wind shear/1
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 • • GAN review not found
- Result: Unfortunately, since the presented issues have not been addressed since the nomination was started on February 7, I am delisting the article. Noah, AATalk 04:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Given the lack of response at the notice, I have copied and pasted my concerns below. I have not evaluated other criteria at this time. If someone wishes to work on it, I can do a more extensive review. The article will be delisted on February 14 if the concerns are not addressed.
- There are areas needing citations as well as different sources since verification failed.
- There seems to be more topics and newer sources discussing windshear here
- The article seems quite unbalanced with most of it discussing vertical wind shear and Im unsure that all the main aspects are being addressed. Noah, AATalk 16:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Howdy. I’ve awaken from my crypt. ;) I’ll look into the citations, but newer citations aren’t always better. From what I recall, original sourcing is the name of the game, which argues against newness in established topics. If you’re unsure what needs to be addressed further, why GAR? Be bold and explore the topic. GAR is not completely incumbent on the main contributor to figure out what you mean. I hear you’ve GARed another article where this is true, and will respond there more appropriately. I hope you’re not simply targeting articles for GAR where the main contributors have been inactive lately. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Thegreatdr, have had a chance to look into the references? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can tomorrow. I’m concerned that new content contributed since my last edit 15+ years ago caused the problem. If so, the resolution is simple. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Cutting is certainly a viable solution, Thegreatdr. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can tomorrow. I’m concerned that new content contributed since my last edit 15+ years ago caused the problem. If so, the resolution is simple. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Thegreatdr, have had a chance to look into the references? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Howdy. I’ve awaken from my crypt. ;) I’ll look into the citations, but newer citations aren’t always better. From what I recall, original sourcing is the name of the game, which argues against newness in established topics. If you’re unsure what needs to be addressed further, why GAR? Be bold and explore the topic. GAR is not completely incumbent on the main contributor to figure out what you mean. I hear you’ve GARed another article where this is true, and will respond there more appropriately. I hope you’re not simply targeting articles for GAR where the main contributors have been inactive lately. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Given we are going on a month, I will be forced to delist this article unless some progress is made soon. Noah, AATalk 18:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
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.