| Revision as of 00:11, 13 August 2013 editSPECIFICO (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,510 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:07, 13 August 2013 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits Considering standards higher, not unsual proposal; and comment on edit warringNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| <li>{{Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.</ol> | <li>{{Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.</ol> | ||
| There's a lot more work to do on this article in order to present a fair and balanced description of Rothbard and his views. ]] 00:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | There's a lot more work to do on this article in order to present a fair and balanced description of Rothbard and his views. ]] 00:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Considering article probably was made a Good Article around 2007 , it would not be surprising if in these days of tougher standards on sourcing and NPOV that it was a problem now. | |||
| :The main edit warring, by the way, has been related to those who constantly have done problematic edits or made dubious statements which have to be discussed ad nauseum on the talk page and at noticeboards, wasting the time of those trying to do NPOV edits. A perfect example is claiming that because an (assumedly) books.google search link includes a term that ''the author thinks is prejudicial'' (like "murray rothbard" and economist!) that the returns from that search should not be used!!! Let's just outlaw using books.google entirely, if that is an issue. And, of course, ''even if there was such an absurd rule'', one could always use such a search to find the material and then redo the search in the relevant book to make it more neutral. I've done it a number of times myself over the eyars. Hopefully we won't have to waste hours debating that point, holding up valid research. '''] ''' 14:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:07, 13 August 2013
Murray Rothbard
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
I was hesitant to request this, but the page has been tagged for over two months now with multiple content concerns. Talk page discussions about these do not appear to be progressing to any near-term resolution. As a result there are significant concerns about the article meeting GA criteria #2 (verifiability), #4 (neutrality) and #5 (stability). Maybe this reassessment will be the spur to get these issues taken care of, but if not, it should not continue to be portrayed as a "good article" if it doesn't meet the criteria. --RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note that the WP:GAR guideline directs us to try and bring a GA quality level back to the article. The point is not to remove GA status (though this must be done if it does not improve) but to improve it sufficiently. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is my hope as well. I also wanted to let the disputes resolve themselves first, but they seem locked in. Maybe more eyes on the article will shake them loose. --RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note that the WP:GAR guideline directs us to try and bring a GA quality level back to the article. The point is not to remove GA status (though this must be done if it does not improve) but to improve it sufficiently. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I would say the current defects of the article relate to the following GA criteria:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic;and
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
There's a lot more work to do on this article in order to present a fair and balanced description of Rothbard and his views. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Considering article probably was made a Good Article around 2007 discussion here anyway, it would not be surprising if in these days of tougher standards on sourcing and NPOV that it was a problem now.
- The main edit warring, by the way, has been related to those who constantly have done problematic edits or made dubious statements which have to be discussed ad nauseum on the talk page and at noticeboards, wasting the time of those trying to do NPOV edits. A perfect example is this absurd posting claiming that because an (assumedly) books.google search link includes a term that the author thinks is prejudicial (like "murray rothbard" and economist!) that the returns from that search should not be used!!! Let's just outlaw using books.google entirely, if that is an issue. And, of course, even if there was such an absurd rule, one could always use such a search to find the material and then redo the search in the relevant book to make it more neutral. I've done it a number of times myself over the eyars. Hopefully we won't have to waste hours debating that point, holding up valid research. User:Carolmooredc 14:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)