Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Baltimore Urban Debate League/1

Baltimore Urban Debate League

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Baltimore_Urban_Debate_League/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted I am making a decision on this one even though I commented below. If anyone disagrees they can revert. I am delisting it because even though this version is better than the shortened one it still has failings regarding the Good Article Criteria. Obvious issues are the big tag requesting updating and also the citation needed ones sprinkled throughout. It is also missing referencing in other key spots (e.g. the champions) and some of the material does not appear encyclopedic. It needs a good copy edit and some research by editors before being nominated again. AIRcorn (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC).

Since the GAR in 2007, this article has been stripped down to a bare stub by several editors who assert that the previous content was promotional, poorly sourced/heresay, and out-of-date. Some of the content was sourced to independent refs. Out-of-date content can be rephrased using terms like "as of" if nobody knows the current info or updated if an up-to-date source is known. But so much outright deletion means some editors think it wasn't salvageable, and this process has been happening by multiple editors over multiple years.

What's here now is not up to Good article standards: badly fails point GA 3: "Broad in its coverage", and compared to previous versions there might be some reasonable images (GA point 6: "Illustrated, if possible, by images"). The editing is slow-motion and with edit-summaries and no disputes from other editors, so I don't think it's a major GA point 5: Stable" problem; either it's now stable as a neutral stub or it was previously okay and could be edited back to the previous form for collaborative improvement. DMacks (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with restoration of deleted content that was sourced to independent references. I also agree that out-of-date content should either be updated or rephrased. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I will restore the last good version and tidy it up some. We can then decide whether that version meets the GA criteria, because this one certainly doesn't. AIRcorn (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Added some tags (update and citation needed). AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)