Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/DeviantArt/1

DeviantArt

 * • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
 * Result: Delist per consensus below that article is not reliably sourced. Geometry guy 10:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this article meets the requirements for a good article. It is almost entirely sourced from primary sources. The vast majority of sources are from deviantart.com. A few are from Jarkolicious which is the blog of Scott Jarkoff. Of the very few sources that are not primary, not all of them support the content. The Time magazine article gives different numbers than given in the Wikipedia article (i.e., 50k submissions, not 100k submissions). Additionally, I do not think this satisfies WP:NPOV. Much of it sounds like an ad for the subject, probably because it is sourced so much by the DeviantArt website itself. Aleta  Sing 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, a number of sections do not site any sources at all. The implied source is the website itself, but it is not cited in many places. Aleta  Sing 18:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist too few in-line cites, needs more 3-rd party cites (most of the sources are from DeviantArt). Several sections are completely unsourced, unacceptable for a GA. Article also has significant POV problems, mainly in the "Features" section.  ♪Tempo  di Valse ♪  20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, mainly due to massive reliance on self-published sources. An article should not be based primarily on such sources. The article's prose isn't up to par, either; too many sections are stubby or list-like. The article's focus is problematic; it concentrates on trivial features and does little to demonstrate DeviantArt's significance. Majoreditor (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist The reference section includes 35 sources; 29 are self-published and four are not RS. Several sections do not cite any sources.  APK  thinks he's ready for his closeup  06:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)