Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American Civil War/2

American Civil War

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/American_Civil_War/2&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: delist: There are significant causes for concern enumerated by editors below. No attempt has been made to address or comment on these. Best course is for comments to addressed and then the article may be renomiated. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is extremely long, and needs to be reduced in size. Editors come here, add material that belongs on pages covering more specialized topics, and the excess material remains while continuing to build up. Specifically, the article is not in compliance with Good Article criteria 3b (it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail). An article like this cannot be regarded as a Good Article. Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wish to have a community reassessment then you will need to provide details. Please read and follow the instructions on this page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you need to be rather more specific, section by section enumerate where material is not compliant with the good article criteria. You should also notify the reviewer and primary contributors. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article makes use of Summary style, per criteria 3b. It surpasses the recommended 100 kB per Article size, with 128 kB of prose, which means it could better use the Summary Style. Unless there is something specific, that is excessive or irrelevant to American Civil War being addressed by the article, it still meets the GA criteria. I don't see any other issues with it. maclean (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as GA class. The article might be a bit long but it is not excessively so. From my understanding, the American Civil War is a vast subject, so it makes sense to me that the article covering it would need to be large to cover it adequately. 76.7.238.93 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry to buck the trend, but I think this could use summary style much better. Fourteen paragraphs on slavery are much more than is needed. The "The Territorial Crisis and the United States Constitution", "Emancipation during the war" and "Victory and aftermath" sections are also far too long. These sections could be split into content fork articles relatively easily and linked with a main template. They are probably notable enough to be articles in their own right. To me, in its current state, this easily fails 3b (focus). AIR corn (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not voting here, but merely commenting that there has been a back-and-forth for years on whether causes, especially, should be made longer, as was done recently, or shorter, as was done before. I don't think everyone will ever agree about this.76.187.151.110 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have to agree with Aircorn, there are sections that need to be summarized significantly better than they are currently. Overall the article is very good, and therefore I would not support delisting, however the article does need improvement, and content that is removed in the summerization can be moved to appropriate articles, this way verified content is not lost.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist The article admits that it gives "only the broadest outline" of the battles. Unless we can make that even broader, it should be delisted in its present state. And speaking of states, I think keeping this article would be a bit of systematic bias. Inter  change  able  16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)