Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

I feel doubtful that this article still meets the GAC. First of all, it fails 2b because a) there are tags in the "Style and influences" and "Books" sections and b) according to a maintenance tag (which has been in the article since March), there are primary sources throughout the article. GAs should have neither unsourced information nor primary sources. Anyway, that's my review. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 03:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the BS primary sources: primary sources are fine when used for what they contain without introducing other analysis (just like every other source, which is why I continue to maintain that the "primary/secondary/tertiary" distinction is mostly useless), and it appears that these are. But the sourcing could certainly use work—there's a weird mix of short-form refs and full refs to some sources, and some lack page numbers in places, and unsourced statements both flagged and unflagged. Anomie⚔ 11:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the article no longer meets the criteria. Jinkinson   talk to me  15:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Resuming reassessment
Although this individual reassessment has not been touched for over two years, and is itself over three years old, a look at the article indicates that the issues raised are still problems, and the article clearly needs significant work to meet the GA criteria.

There are a number of issues beyond those raised initially. Unfortunately, one of them is the lead section, where the third paragraph consists of information not found anywhere in the body of the article, a clear violation of WP:LEAD, one of the basic GA criteria.

I think one of the big problems throughout the article is the amount of analysis that has no supporting sourcing. Traits of the various characters in the strip are given without any secondary sourcing in many cases (and very little to Watterson directly). In a number of instances, strip dialogue is reprinted without sourcing, and Watterson is quoted also without sourcing—every quote should be sourced in an article, and for a GA, such verifiability is absolutely required.

There are also a great many details given about what strips are in what books, including the unexplained strip substitution of November 28, 1985, without any sourcing whatever. This needs to be fixed.

Sections that need significantly more sourcing (or are lacking any sourcing) include:
 * Calvin's parents
 * Susie Derkins
 * Rosalyn
 * Mr. Spittle
 * Calvin's roles
 * Cardboard boxes
 * Snow sculptures
 * G.R.O.S.S.
 * Books

That's it for the moment. I plan to allow at least double the standard seven days for these issues to be addressed, though if work is in progress, since there is a lot to do, I will naturally extend the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delist. It's been like this for the two years and in fact there has not been active work. It's time to move it down the quality list. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing comments
There have been no edits on the article to address any of the issues raised above in the past two weeks, despite notifications to all the relevant parties, including WikiProjects. Given the amount of unsupported analysis and number of sections without any sourcing at all, and information in the lead not found anywhere else, this clearly fails to meet the GA criteria in those areas. The article is therefore being delisted as a Good Article. Any editor is welcome to work on the issues noted above, and when they have been fully addressed, nominate the article again for GA status. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)