Talk:Squab/GA1

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

I propose Squab (food) fails 2a and 3a of the good article criteria. It could use some more references, as it is mostly based on the second citation. In general, the article could use an expansion on information. –blurpeace (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree that the Etymology section is not of GA quality. I did not write it, and it wasn't a part of the article when it was originally reviewed. We should either remove that section, source it, or delist the article. However, on the charge of incompleteness I would say that Good Articles are not meant to be comprehensive. That's what FA is for. Also, the article relies heavily on the second source because it is the most recent and complete book on the pigeon in the 21st century. It's the best source there is, and relying on it is not a fault. Steven Walling (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We could probably find a reference for the Etymology section in a Merriam-Webster dictionary. Though that is the most up to date source available, basing most of the article on it is a fault. Multiple citations are preferable. A good article is, "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia." Good articles aren't meant to be outrageously comprehensive, but it should represent all of the major points on the topic. I believe there is a lack of that in the article. –blurpeace (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What major points are not touched on then? Steven Walling (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I have no specific example for you. I am visiting the library today to see what I can dig up. –blurpeace (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As a note, I'm back from the library and they had no books available on squab as a food. –blurpeace (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. There's a limited number of sources, and the article uses the best ones to be generally found. Steven Walling (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) After further review, I've decided to initiate a community reassessment of the page. Please share your thoughts at the discussion. –blurpeace (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)