Talk:Fujiwara no Teika/GA1

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

Start GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * References are to print sources, assume good faith
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Sources appear reliable.
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * correctly licensed and tagged
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A well written and researched article. I removed one deadlink in the EL section *Hyakunin isshu-(Public domain translation online) Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * correctly licensed and tagged
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A well written and researched article. I removed one deadlink in the EL section *Hyakunin isshu-(Public domain translation online) Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A well written and researched article. I removed one deadlink in the EL section *Hyakunin isshu-(Public domain translation online) Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at this page for other reasons (see my last edit) and saw this. While in this case it probably wasn't "wrong", "References are to print sources, assume good faith" is a terrible interpretation of the policy. AGF is for user behaviour -- it does not mean we assume all sources are reliable, representative of up-to-date scholarship, and accurately represented. I very much worry about the precedent set by "reassessments" (and "assessments") like the above... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)