Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mathcounts/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 • • GAN review not found
- Result: delist No action taken on addressing article problems Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
Article was promoted three years ago. There are glaring problems with WP:V and WP:RS, such as the following:
- Entire paragraphs and sections have challengeable statements that are not supported by the given source. Examples include Mathcounts#Ciphering round and the description of the 1987 Countdown Round format.
- There are many speculative/opinionated statements that are not supported by the sources. For example, "As a result, a state team is typically made up of students from different schools," "This round is mainly a fun, fast-paced round where speed is vital. Due to the fact that no calculators are allowed, competitors must be able to do calculations quickly and mentally," "A good [team round] score ranges between 6 and 10," "It spread quickly in middle schools, and is the most well-known middle school mathematics competition" (characterization as "most well-known" is not in the source) and "This change was presumably made in hopes of making this final round more exciting and more suspenseful, since now the champion must win four consecutive matches (three if they received a first-round bye), as opposed to previous years when a student could potentially win the championship after defeating a single opponent."
- The countdown round description is inconsistent between the state and national formats. In the state formats, earlier rounds are best-of-three and the final rounds are first with three correct answers, while at nationals, the earlier rounds are best-of-five and the final rounds are the first to four correct answers.
- There are spelling and grammar errors, such as "competidors" (in the Awards section), "Which ever team has a score most improved form the year before gets this award." Additionally, the entire article could use a copy-edit for spelling, grammar, and style.
For these reasons, I believe this article currently fails good article criteria 1 and 2 and therefore should be delisted. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've left a note about this for User talk:Nousernamesleft#Mathcounts, who seems to have been the person most responsible for it meeting the WP:Good article criteria back in 2008. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2011 (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.