Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/First Council of Nicaea/1

First Council of Nicaea
The issues with the article is two-fold; firstly the lead isn't comprehensive for an article this side. But secondly, and more importantly, there is a great deal of uncited information in the article. I believe that with these two issues in place that the article should be delisted from the GA status. Miyagawa (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/First_Council_of_Nicaea/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: delist —BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the GA nom, such as it was. Things were more casual in 2006, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to add, the reason why I brought it to a community assessment is that I don't have any knowledge of the subject whatsoever, so I couldn't say one way or another if it met the comprehensiveness requirement. Miyagawa (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of unsourced material, and there is no indication of any modern scholarly POVs from any religious/non-religious groups. The article does not fully meet GA criteria. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist: There are many pieces that need sources. The sources appear to be somewhat POV. The "Disupted matters" section appears to be unfinished. I'd recommend a bit more on that section and the lead. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist - source issues for sure, it needs some work to get to the GA level, I am not sure it's a quick fix either. MPJ  -US 04:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist: There are too many paragraphs without sources. Despite listing many well-respected academic sources in the bibliography, the majority of the article seems to come from primary sources, which raises Original Research concerns. Some of the external links also need to be fixed.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist Per my comment on the talk page before I noticed this, the article at present assumes a knowledge of The Da Vinci Code and its cultural impact but never once mentions the book itself. Not only does this lend undue weight to a relatively recent American pop culture phenomenon. The article has problems with WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMIC, and given that at present probably 90% of active en.wiki editors get all they now about this topic from Dan Brown these problems seem unlikely to be resolved. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist – This article has serious defects. All the above comments are true but some seem to underestimate the quantity of corrections that are needed. A good deal of copy editing is called for. In particular the section on attendees needs thought, as it stands I reckon it will put off a lot of readers.&mdash; Jpacobb (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)