Talk:Mike Tyson/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. As many sports related GAs are unmaintained and not improved, I will be providing only a cursory review to begin with. This review will be placed on the talk page and I will notify the wikiprojects involved (not necessarily at the same time). The article will then have seven days from the day of notification for someone to come forward and start making the suggested changes and taking responsibility for the article here. If someone comes forward, I will supply a more detailed review, if someone does not then the article will be delisted. If someone is working on the article then, within reason, there will be no time limit in which the changes have to be made.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is not good, maybe a 5/10 average. Some sections are fine, others awful: many sections consist of little more than random unconnected sentences.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Many references are improperly formatted.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Amateur career is awful, as is legacy and in popular culture. Many other sections have stubby paragraphs and randomly inserted information.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * So badly written in places that it is impossible to tell.


 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Comment
I am the editor that initially slapped the thing together to get the GA rating. Right now, the article is in the state it is due to a lot of well meaning (assuming good faith) users randomly inserting text and snippets from various sources - and not being too careful about how they jammed it into the article. Frankly, IMHO even having Tyson listed as a GA from the start was a bit of a minor miracle - I have come to the conclusion that unless a GA/FA version is locked from any further revisions (and updated only on significant bio happenings), it will inevitably deteriorate into a mess.

I don't have the time and nor the inclination to wrestle the thing together to GA status anymore. Perhaps another editor can take over? In the meantime, I agree - the state it is in at present does not deserve GA status. --Eqdoktor (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your honesty and wish you luck with this and other articles in the future. Unfortunately however, I have no choice but to fail this article at this stage.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)