Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dayton, Ohio/1

Dayton, Ohio

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept Consensus is keep. The only remaining issue isn't explicitly part of the GA criteria. Szzuk (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

Aside from there being many unsourced areas, many parts of the article were copyright violations, which I am in progress of removing, and upon all of them being removed it won't have the prose necessary to remain a GA. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyvios and the like removed, and while there weren't a huge amount, there are nonetheless clear spots that need improvement in this article for retention. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. Overall, it's a promising article. However, it suffers from stubby sub-sections and embedded lists; see the demographics section for examples. There may be other issues as well; I've not read the whole article with care, nor have I checked references.
 * Despite its shortcomings, this article can be brought up to GA standards if editors are willing to pitch in and help. Majoreditor (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; Sure there are a few issues with the article, but I am not sure that it qualifies being delisted for that fact. Stubby sub-sections and embedded lists are only a minor issue, and it should not be delisted for that reason. See the Cleveland, Ohio article. It is full of embedded lists and the like similar to the Dayton article and it is a featured article. Also, the Dayton article is mostly neutral, well written, factual, well sourced and recently underwent some cleanup. I feel that is deserves the stay a GA, but is not near ready to go further than GA status at this point. 99.23.126.7 (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, see the most recent review (Talk:Dayton, Ohio/GA1) of the article, this was performed only a year ago and the article has not changed much since then.99.23.126.7 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I took a closer look at the article and there were several issues that needed to be addressed. I removed some unsourced content, removed some unessessary sub-sections as mentioned above, removed some red-links, and cited places that required citations. After the cleanup, I can now agree with the IP above, the article should remain GA status. There are still a couple of minor issues with the article, but not enough to delist.Texas141 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - history of Dayton is very sparse section. Content for 19th century and between wars largely non-existent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Delist – The "History" section is an integral part of a city article and this one is severely lacking. Unlike the Cleveland article that has been mentioned here, Dayton's "History" section reads like a list of factoids and does not tell the story of what shaped the city that exists today. (Only the sentences about the canal and flood acknowledge lasting impact on the area.) There is also about a hundred-year gap in cited history in the section, starting in the 1890s. So the article does "not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study", which is characteristic of a C-class article according to WP:ASSESS. Plenty of books on the topic are available to anyone interested in improving the section. No doubt they contain sufficient information for a FA-level History of Dayton, Ohio, article.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle  /  fish ) 14:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Striking my "delist" based on Texas141's expansion of the "History" section. It's serviceable now. The article is still a little too list-y on the whole, but I believe it meets the GA criteria.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 16:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - took advice from Two Hearted above and added significantly more information to the history section. Texas141 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Could publishers be provided for refs? Right now they're pretty much all url, title, and accessdate, and some don't even have that. If all the refs can get those four points added I'd be willing to consider this a GA. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)