Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Danny Deever/1

Danny Deever

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Danny_Deever/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2006. This article has many unsourced statements, original research, and uses circular referencing. Spinixster  (chat!)  10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Spinixster Thanks for flagging this. I'm recovering from covid at the moment so haven't much spare capacity, but I'll try and have a look over it in the next week or two and see what can be salvaged. Standards have definitely moved on a bit in the last 17 years! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Gray, I can also take a look towards cleanup over the next few days if it would be of assistance? Eddie891 Talk Work 12:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eddie891 that would be very kind, thankyou! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just added a few citations and removed an uncited claim. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've overhauled the background (though it might need more tweaking). Working on digging up some suitable sourcing for critical commentary. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a little more, and removed an uncited paragraph which does seem to have been editorial. The rest seems to be both sufficient and properly cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, the work by Gray et al. looks good to me. Queen   of   Hearts ❤️  (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 00:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)