Majoreditor (talk | contribs) m →Ralph Nader: sp |
PeterSymonds (talk | contribs) m closing discussion as "delisted per consensus" |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
: {{al|Ralph Nader|noname=yes}} • <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Ralph_Nader/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page]</span> |
: {{al|Ralph Nader|noname=yes}} • <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Ralph_Nader/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page]</span> |
||
: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Wikipedia|<span>|{{error:not substituted|GAR/result}}<span style="display:none;">}}[[Category:GAR/35]] '''Result''': delisted per consensus</span> [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] | [[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>talk</small>]] 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: {{GAR/current}} |
|||
Delist. |
Delist. |
||
Latest revision as of 21:17, 18 March 2008
Ralph Nader[edit]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch •
- Result: delisted per consensus PeterSymonds | talk 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Delist.
1. Prose- Fail. Fails Wikipedia:Embedded list. Links to copyrighted material. Includes Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Layout is poor, with several stub sections. Mechanics errors.
2. Verifiable- Fail, contains whole paragraphs and sections without sources. Contains info box with info that isn't true.
3. Coverage- Fail. Has several stub sections that can use more detail. Section concerning early life and 2000 election are too short.
4. Neutral- Fail. Several instances of biased wording. See "Clash with the automobile industry"
5. Stable- Fail. Current controversial candidate. Several lengthy exchanges on talk page.
6. Images- Fail. Contains copyrighted image, Sesame Street image that should be deleted.User:calbear22 (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delist. Let me count the reasons: Nice Shakespearian touch :-) Geometry guy 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article fails criteria 1 due to stubby sections, minor issues with the lead, MoS concerns and use of lists rather than prose for key sections. There may be other issues I haven't yet noticed.
- Criteria 3 runs into problems as coverage isn't particularly broad in key areas dealing with consumer safety and corporate response, and in political involvement. and unless I missed it, the article doesn't discuss his views on the Near East.
- The article is far from neutral. Nader is a controversial individual. He's respected among consumer advocates and populists but assailed by free marketers, chambers of commerce, political conservatives and legal reformers. I see scant material discussing his reception among business and conservative interests.
- Use of the Sesame Street image is problematic. Discussion of the episode should be in the body of the article rather than relegated to the photo caption.
- The article requires substantial improvement before it meets GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delist. I agree with the above concerns. Additionally, unlike several other presidential candidates, I think there is a case for delisting due to instability here. This article should not be unstable, as Ralph Nader's notability stretches back far beyond the current election; unfortunately, current election events seem to be impinging on this natural stability anyway. Geometry guy 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)