Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Stargate (device)/1

Stargate (device)

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

Result: Delisted Geometry guy 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After two failed FA nominations (which claimed this article was full of original research), this article was promoted to GA status in May 2006. It has been listed in the improvement drive of the Stargate WikiProject for at least a year (when I became an active editor), but I still see a lot of original research and in-universe perspective. Before start some work on the article (including cutting about half of its current content), I'd like others to confirm that the article no longer fulfills the GA current criteria (lead, fiction, original research, images) and requires massive cleanup to become Good again. I fear others' resistance to cleanup otherwise (founded or unfounded). I particularly ask here because I have kind of a conflict of interest as a fan of the franchise, and have no previous experience with Good Articles about fictional items. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article qualifies for GA anymore. There are multiple reasons for this but my main one is the overcrawling of fancruft, specifically this "kawoosh" nonsense. Carter uses it maybe twice, a dozen or so seconds apart, to refer to the unstable vortex. The adoption of this term throughout the entire article is the ultimate example of pedantic fanboyism and needs to go before this article can be half decent.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Much of the article draws from primary sources. Aren't reliable secondary sources available?

That issue aside, the article has OR tags, which are a no-no for GA status.

If you want to go the extra mile, you can try to square the operations section with current thinking in theoretical physics. The article doesn't accurately represent what happens to information passing through an event horizon (see Penrose, 2004). But, that's why it's called science fiction. :)

I recommend de-listing the article. You can then focus on improving it; when it's ready, it can be re-nominated for GA status at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Seriously in universe and packed with original research. Adding the word "fictional" from time to time does not an encyclopedia article make! The overblown lead is terrible, and contains self-references and unsupported claims. It is also one of the few places where real world information is supplied. There's an almost total reliance on primary sources. Typical sentence: "The Tollan were an extremely advanced human civilization. Among their most impressive technological accomplishments was the construction of a new stargate." Unsourced, and in universe. This is not only not a GA, but also, unless some really big changes are made soon, it's a potential AfD candidate. Massive cleanup is desperately needed to save it from such a fate! Geometry guy 19:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This is on my 'pending' list as part of the GA sweep for "Television and Radio shows and series" articles, and I would have delisted it. I can't see the issues being addressed in a reasonable hold period, and (from other articles on the list) I know WikiProject Stargate has its hands pretty full already. EyeSerene^TALK 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. OR and in-universe concerns haven't been fixed. Majoreditor (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I count about (15) fair-use images used in this article that are non-free, and some of them don't even have a fair-use rationale at all, and/or don't have any source information. This could be considered something that would actually trigger a "quick fail", am I correct here? Cirt (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]