Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Borley Rectory/1

Borley Rectory

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Borley_Rectory/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept. --Retrohead (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Problems with this article have been identified in the fact that it gives equal validity to hearsay ghost story claims. Attempts to fix these problems are met with ownership-y reverts and arguments that ignore the problems in favor of vague suggestions that attempts to fix problems are problematic themselves. It is clear that we cannot fix these WP:FRINGE problems with the current gatekeepers thumbing their noses, so the only solution is to declare that the article is not stable and not neutral and therefore not worthy of "GA" status. jps (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I could also add, I suppose, that I have questions about matters regarding weight and possible omissions. I am led to believe from what I've seen that quite a bit of material, including material about things like one of the Rev. Bull's having threatened to haunt the place, and according to some maybe doing so, the lack of mention of some tests at the site taken after the fire, and maybe a few other things in reference works isn't included at all. And I also find, in unverified nonRS sources on the net, that the local governments might be trying to almost hide Borley in general now, which I find interesting. Right now, not knowing how much content regarding of this topic might be in other articles, I have to say that I have some serious questions whether these and maybe other matters might be "major topics" or at least significant topics which do not seem to be covered in the article as it is. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing which is making this article unstable at the moment is the tag team efforts to elicit change without apparently even taking some time to read any references at all or fully discuss on the article talk page; I can see that advised that discussion should have been undertaken. Over the next few days, I will attempt to work through references but this may take some time. I am astounded at the haste that is suddenly demanded.  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Silly comments about "tag team efforts" do nothing to support your argument or your apparent ownership issues regarding this article. Regardless of what the references say we are still required to phrase information about reputed paranormal events in an appropriately neutral way. This is non-negotiable. I am astounded at your attempts to keep the article phrased in a non-neutral way. Afterwriting (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep GA is not FA. The article currently passes the GA criteria as it is: well-written; verifiable; broad in coverage; and stable. Accusations of ownership levelled against me immediately above are nonsense as my first, and to date only edit to this article was on 4 September. Having now gone through all the references, they are correctly reflected in a neutral manner and do not demonstrate any confirmation bias. I do not feel the two omissions specifically mentioned by concerning Rev. Bull's threats and the later tests are major; I will, however, attempt to add a sentence or two to cover these over the next couple of days.  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep This is utterly ridiculous. Aside from the fact that Eric is one of our most competent article writers who has more experience with GA than virtually everybody here as both an editor and reviewer and knows exactly what is required for GA, these "fringe theory" claims are invalid. Borley Rectory is one of the most widely documented paranormal sites in the world, and it's what most readers will be coming here looking to read. The article is a sufficient summary, and as Sagacious says, GA is not FA, and it meets criteria. An article should reflect what is documented in sources. This isn't notable because of its architecture, it's notable because it is one of the most controversial/widely discussed alleged paranormal sites in the world, and the article reflects what is documented on it, and rightly so. It's hardly surprising people are put off wanting to produce quality work if they have to deal with this sort of nonsense.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the above. "not stable" is no reason to remove the GA (use the flaming talk page or page protect instead), and I'm unconvinced on "non-neutral". The article, as I see it, reflects what the reliable sources say. The supposedly paranormal activity is couched in the relevant terminology (i.e. use of "alleged", "reported", "claimed", etc) which shows we're not stating it as fact, just stating the fact that the sources say it - a crucial and critical difference. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It's ridiculous to claim that this article does not meet the GA criteria simply because a bunch of misguided fringe theory fanatics take objection to it. Eric  Corbett  16:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep per Dr. Blofeld and some other reasons. If a GA article is not "stable", that does not mean it should be demoted. If it starts getting out of control, I'd recommend page protection or discussion on the talk page. I'm not convinced by the "fringe theory" discussions because the article states what it says in the sources, instead of the article stating that some certain unpublished theory is an established fact.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep This still meets the GA criteria and the article is comprehensive enough considering the number of reliable secondary sources there are. These claims of ownership and fringe theories are invalid here in my eyes. JAG UAR   18:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)