Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kitch-iti-kipi/1

Kitch-iti-kipi[edit]

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: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who reviewed this article for GA originally, but in light of issues brought to light here about Doug Coldwell's tendencies in the GA area, I went back to have another look. In retrospect, I do not think I should have promoted this article in its current state. There are minor prose and formatting issues, but the bigger problems are with sources. I accepted Doug's half-baked justification for using ExploringTheNorth.com, a site of unknown reliability that the article heavily relies upon. UpperMichiganWaterfalls.com is also a poor source that is clearly promotional and probably unreliable. The article should be delisted as a GA. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Within the critical eye brought on by the CCI issues for the author the wording in the second paragraph in the Native American legends section is a little too close to that at Exploring the North for my liking. Gusfriend (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per nom. On another note, if the September 2022 ANI discussion Doug was subject to didn't make him realize his problematic editing patterns then I'm not sure what will. Articles with blatant copyright, plagiarism, and reliability issues should not be GAs. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 October 2022 (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.