Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/DevilDriver/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.

---

DevilDriver

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted, consensus is that article is a C-Level. Shearonink (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This article would benefit from a community reassessment. In its present condition I find the following:

• Fails GA Criteria 1b, especially regarding MOS:LEAD - No clear claim of notability in lead section.
• Doesn't fulfill GA criteria 2b - References need to be cleaned-up. There are 2 Citation Needed templates + a dead link + a "clarification needed" + an "update needed".
• The first paragraph in "The Fury of Our Maker's Hand (2005–2006)" section is completely unreferenced.
• The references date from 2007 - they all need to be checked for viability.
• The article was promoted to a GA in 2007. Wikipedia standards have changed since then, especially in terms of statements, referencing and possible WP:BLP concerns. Shearonink (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Aye, someone picked up on one of my tags. Appreciate it. Anyway, I think there isn't enough research or detail done for the Pray for Villains, Beast and Trust No One sections. The article was promoted when the band was still somewhat new, and the original nominator has obviously left it to collect dust...actually, the user's been pretty much inactive since 2008, and officially since 2010... so I guess it makes sense that it's this badly deteriorated. They need to look more like the first two. Aside from that, one of the paragraphs in the second section is devoid of citations. I'm at a delist if this article stays the way it is for a few more weeks. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Delist. If the various referencing issues (no references for some sections, dead link, referencing maintenance templates) & MOS:LEAD problems are not fixed then this article should be delisted. Also, if this article came up for a WP:GA Review in its present condition, it would be failed on the referencing problems alone. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I think we can close this one. Nobody appears interested. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: In your opinion, what level would this article now qualify as? It doesn't appear to be a GA in its present condition...is it a C? Maybe a B? I don't feel comfortable leaving it as a GA...Shearonink (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

C-Class at best with refrencing and weasker content as the article progresses. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I value your expertise on this. Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, DannyMusicEditor, as you have both "voted" on this, it would have been best to get someone else to close it per the community reassessment instructions: When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it. (This also means that the person who opens the community reassessment shouldn't be the one to close it.) I've checked the article myself just now, and feel that it is appropriate to delist for the reasons above, plus the overshort lead (which doesn't adequately cover the various sections of the article), additional unsourced paragraphs, and prose that is too much "on date X person Y announced Z". There's no need to undo the close, but next time please do wait for that uninvolved editor to close the community reassessment. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I can see your point about all that Blue. I would like to mention that I was relying on and referring to the Instructions at WP:GAR and that the "uninvolved editor" term is oddly only part of the Community reassessments (but not the Individual reassessments). The term should probably be bolded within the instructions so no one else misses it if they are doing a Community GAR. If a single editor had weighed in with any sort of a different opinion I would have refrained but since the consensus was unanimous, I thought the article should be put out of its GAR limbo-misery, and went ahead and closed the reassessment. If I find myself in a similar situation in the future I'll post on Talk:GAR (or maybe ping you or one of the other GA/GAR regulars). Shearonink (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, the person I tend to ping if I think something needs closing is AustralianRupert; if he's involved, then I try Wizardman. As for "uninvolved editor", the reason it's only part of the community reassessment is that the individual reassessment is, like a regular GAN, supposed to be conducted by a single individual who opens and closes it—is responsible for making the final decision on keeping or delisting—though as with GANs, anyone is welcome to comment. (The lack of involvement comes a priori: the individual not having been a significant contributor to the article, or a past GA reviewer, or the like.) GAR's an odd place: it was up to over 40 GARs this summer, many of which had been opened as individual reassessments but never taken beyond an opening paragraph before being abandoned (they should have been community ones). It was a long haul cleaning them up, but we're in much better shape now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Yay for better shape! This is starting to go wildly off-topic for this GAR but yeah, besides my involvement in the GA Cup, I've been trying to clear-out some of the GAR waitlist. Some of the articles have been undergoing reassessment for months. I'll poke around and see if any are eligible for closing. Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2017 (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.