Talk:History of The New York Times (1998–present)/GA1

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

Nominator: 06:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 19:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review. It will be used in the WP:CUP. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

On first glance, I have concerns about extensive close paraphrasing, especially from Nagourney 2023. Take the following:

As you can see, the source very closely matches the article, and to compound this, what isn't close paraphrasing is often not reporting what the source says. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As I've said in the last History page Elijah nominated for GAN.... I do not think the page is stable enough that it should be GA. This article was decided by consensus to be History of The New York Times (1998–current) until Elijah unilaterally moved it today without consensus. The new split article seems to already be nominated for GA. While Elijah is indubitably the primary author for all of these articles currently, he has been disregarding consensus through all of this. Soni (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The instability is evident in this article's four separate edits from other users. On whose word can articles that appear to meet the criteria for good article status not be nominated? There is less contention among editors whose edit articles relating to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * GA criteria 5 - Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Given that the article was moved without discussion (and I've already raised it on Talk:The_New_York_Times), it should be an auto-fail. We had a discussion on how the articles should split (that you participated in). You decide to re-split it further without informing or discussing with anyone. That will cause problems and reverts. Soni (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am also confused as to why there need to be five subdivisions of articles about the history of a newspaper. Perhaps a reminder of WP:NOTEVERYTHING is needed?
 * In any case, if other articles were split from this, I would check them for close paraphrasing as above—if it is seriously bad, the articles may need revdelling. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As the CLOP has not been worked on and there are concerns about the long-term viability of the article, I will fail this review here. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)