Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Akureyri/1

Akureyri

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist. Sourcing and coverage concerns remain outstanding, and time and effort is required to address them. GAR cannot support an improvement process indefinitely, and in the meanwhile it is inappropriate for the article to remain listed as a GA. Once GA issues are addressed, renomination is encouraged. Geometry guy 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This article was originally listed as GA more than two months ago by an inexperienced reviewer. Seeing the article, I did not believe it was GA material and started an individual reassessment. Since then, the article has been improved dramatically through cleanup, expansion, and referencing. However, I have lingering concerns about the article. First, there are issues such as bare-linked refs, a couple stubby paragraphs (and non-flowing prose in some areas), and other minor MOS nitpicks that aren't required for GA. The more major issue is that of comprehensiveness: if one compares this to other GA city articles, they can see that this has much less information. However, that this is an article about a small Icelandic town as opposed to an American or British city made me wary of immediately dismissing this as not covering the broad points. Not being a regular GA reviewer, I am uncomfortable with making a unilateral decision, even if it may seem obvious to some. Thanks in advance for your input, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs some polish, and I've made some copyedits, without prejudice as to the outcome of this reassessment. Consistently formatting the refs would help a lot, be it a GA criterion or not, but I didn't have the energy to do this yet. Anyone up for it? Geometry guy 00:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I have time and energy later this week I can do it. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will also help once I see what format is selected. There are a few acceptable formats but they are slightly different. User F203 (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a first attempt. Geometry guy 22:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although some sections are short (and could maybe be greatly expanded), i think that the coverage overall meets the broadness criterion.YobMod 11:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Having studied the references in formatting them, I'm somewhat concerned that the sources are mostly to tourist guides, Icelandic agencies and companies, plus a small number of newspaper references. Comments, please, on whether these are grounds to delist. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the locality of the sources is unavoidable (even if this may introduce bias). However, i do think the use of at least one local history/social studies book would be better to back the current sources up, and every town should have such a book in the town library. Still not sure if that makes it delist-worthy, so i'll wait to see what others think.YobMod 08:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A local history/social studies textbook would help, but there are also books such as "The History of Iceland" by Gunnar Karlsson (University of Minnesota Press, 2000) which may provide a broader context. Google books searches reveal a number of plausible sources like this, which makes me hesitate to endorse as GA an article that relies so much on governmental (essentially primary) and tourist (essentially tertiary) sources so much. Geometry guy 19:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my concern too, but I wasn't sure if there was much more out there. Seems that there are several sources that could be used. This and this could be used. Looking through Google, I see multiple mentions of a polio epidemic in the city that might be worth looking into. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Without someone willing to do the legwork and get their hands on the print sources, there isn't much more GAR can do. I've left a message for User:User F203, and hope he/she will appreciate that GAR is part of the collaborative process to improve the encyclopedia. Certainly I would be happy if my efforts to format the references are interpreted in that light. Geometry guy 20:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into books. Online sources are much easier but I'm willing to work. We can't all be lazy in life! User F203 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)