Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Carol Kaye/1

Carol Kaye

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Carol_Kaye/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: No consensus to delist. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No picture of the subject, and Free Image Search Tool couldn't find any either. (There was a picture from 1955, which was deleted from commons for no evidence of permission, but if the picture was indeed from 1955 it may pass PD-US-no notice.)
 * Breadth of sources is lacking. Most of them are from one book or Library of Congress entries.
 * This list represents only a small fraction of her recorded performances. - WP:SELFREF violation. Also no criteria for what's included in the discography, making it very cherry-picked.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * Note 6 on WP:GACR says "The presence of media is not a requirement." so I don't think that's a valid reason to delist this.
 * There are a number of articles used as sources. If the "one book" you're referring to is Hartman, then that's 9 of the >50 non-discography citations. Considering that it's a book that's substantially about her, I don't think that's excessive.
 * Is a solution to the selfref violation just a case of removing that sentence? Agree about the criteria, maybe just a link to the main discography would be better. That would be a simple fix.
 * Garnet-Septagon (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the discography list, as it failed MOS:EMBED, part of 2b) of the GA criteria. I am in agreement with your other points. Keep AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I only just noticed this. TPH, you could have left a note on my talk page, and at WikiProject Women in Green - for the latter point I have raised a neutral (ie: non-canvassing) note at that project page. Anyway, it looks like the sequence of events is roughly that I improved it to GA in November 2018, then got fed up of IPs and inexperienced editors making BLP violating edits and adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, that I gave up, assuming consensus that nobody cared whether this was a GA or not. Indeed, you can see my lack of contributions from this protection for BLP violations tell that story. Therefore, raising it to a GAR to get the article fixed is acceptable. I don't have a great deal of time to dedicate to fixing up issues right now, but as a starting point, it may be worth comparing the article as it passed GA, to the state it's in now :. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)