Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Andy Ganteaume/1

Andy Ganteaume

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

Result: Kept No examples given here on how this fails any of the criteria. Nothing obvious from a look at the article either AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that its grade is anywhere near for GA-Class articles. At best its a C-Class article. Please see Template:Grading scheme. On the review, when it says reasonably well written, it should be in light of Template:Grading scheme. This is an example of reasonably well written for GA-Class [1]. So it doesn't pass reasonably well written for GA-class. It doesn't pass broad in its coverage as well. Only 13 sources mentioned, whereas the example shows atleast 200+ sources for a GA-class, so it fails on that as well. So, I think its grade should change to C, an example of C-class [2]. M A A Z T A L K 13:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed this. This "reassessment" does not look at the GA criteria and simply has taken two subjective examples of good articles and compared it to this one. Unless GA has changed enormously since I was active there, this is not how GA review works. Nor is this how to conduct a GA review. If specific, actionable points are raised, I can attempt to address them as I originally worked on this article a few years ago. Sarastro (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: You are not mistaken. GA reviews do not work like this.--Dom497 (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notified the reviewer, nominator and wikiproject cricket of this reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware about GA criteria WP:GA? and i'm sticking to my original argument. Compared to many other GA articles and Template:Grading scheme, this article is: ❌ Not reasonably well written, ❌ Not Broad in its coverage and ❌ not illustrated by images. M A A Z T A L K 14:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that if there are no suitable free images available then it does not need to be illustrated by them. AIRcorn (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless Ma'az can provide specific examples of subpar prose or insufficient coverage, people won't really have an idea of how to improve the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided my arguments. I have no further arguments. Thank you. M A A Z T A L K 03:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]