Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John Gardner (British writer)/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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
An "additional citations needed" banner has been present since 2019 for his works. The "Death" section is uncited, and the lede could be expanded and reformatted into two paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Really? Fifteen minutes to add the citations is a little easier than the whole GAR thing. The lead could be expanded, but it currently contains the core information, and anything added would be adding just for the sake of adding, which doesn't do anyone any favours. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pace SchroCat, I'm not sure MOS:LEAD is met -- I would put it a little more strongly and say that there's a great deal of key information in the body that isn't in the lead, meaning that the lead serves only as an introduction to, rather than as an abridged version of, the main article. However, I agree that this should be straightforward to fix. SC, do you plan to make some additions -- I'm happy to give it a go if not? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free, UndercoverClassicist! I have limited time this week, so your input would be valued. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I won't be able to before Thursday or so, but will give it a go then if nobody else has. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've now done this. It might be a bit long, but honestly I think that's mainly because the article itself is a little sparse: I would advise editors thinking that it is overweight to look at expanding the body rather than cutting it by too much. I know almost nothing about Gardner except what is in the article and easily accessible in its sources, so please read it accordingly! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SchroCat and Z1720: thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, looks fine. - SchroCat (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep looks fine, I do wonder if the article can be expanded with more sources, but I'm not willing to look for them at this time. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, looks fine. - SchroCat (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SchroCat and Z1720: thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've now done this. It might be a bit long, but honestly I think that's mainly because the article itself is a little sparse: I would advise editors thinking that it is overweight to look at expanding the body rather than cutting it by too much. I know almost nothing about Gardner except what is in the article and easily accessible in its sources, so please read it accordingly! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I won't be able to before Thursday or so, but will give it a go then if nobody else has. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free, UndercoverClassicist! I have limited time this week, so your input would be valued. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pace SchroCat, I'm not sure MOS:LEAD is met -- I would put it a little more strongly and say that there's a great deal of key information in the body that isn't in the lead, meaning that the lead serves only as an introduction to, rather than as an abridged version of, the main article. However, I agree that this should be straightforward to fix. SC, do you plan to make some additions -- I'm happy to give it a go if not? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:08, 11 August 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.