Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Labrador Retriever/1

Labrador Retriever

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

Result: Delist Clear consensus to delist AIRcorn (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I believe this article should be stripped of being listed as a Good article due to the fact that there are multiple additional citations tags in a lot of the article's sections, which IMMEDIATELY disqualifies it according to the third GA criteria. It was listed over a decade ago, in 2007, so I don't know if the rules were extremely lenient back then? Because though I haven't checked a lot of the sources, I know that it needs a lot of fixing up with updating prose with reliable citations.

There is also an issue with people simply adding free-use pictures of their labradors for the heck of it rather than with an image matching commentary reflecting the section's information. Doubt that's a GA issue though, just something I should mention. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Unfortunately the article is now in terrible shape. Cavalryman (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see. ..but this needs lots of manpower to fix up. Will research sources soon.--Moxy 🍁 04:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it Moxy! -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is the English-speaking Wikipedia, and for us the Labrador Retriever is arguably "the flagship dog". It should be at FA standard. The same old problem - overweight labbies again! Quick solution? Axe everything that is unsourced or dubious. That text will either return again fully cited, or simply be removed and leading to a weight reduction. I am in favor of a reclass to quality=B. Even after the axing! I would do both right now, but will be guided by your consensus. William Harristalk 11:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I call WP:CONSENSUS. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delist I say WP:IAR and delist it now. There are way too many maintenance tags and image-spam issues for it to even need to sit in a queue any longer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NowIsntItTime, TenPoundHammer, Moxy, William Harris, and Cavalryman: I am speedy delisting . I guess if you want to start a reclamation drive, the article's talk page would be a good place to do it. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... we can now clean it up without people say ..."no no dont remove its a GA article". I am up for helping this weekend.--Moxy 🍁 01:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC

Well done Lingzhi2. Also, whether an article is at GA or even FA, that should not deter editors from ensuring that it complies with WP:POL. I will place my watch on the LR page for a week in support of the efforts here - there may be some biting necessary. "Let the games begin!" William Harristalk 04:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]