Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Garry Moore/1

Garry Moore

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: No consensus to delist (Keep by default). "No interest" would probably be more accurate, but at least the article has been improved. Geometry guy 18:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is still GA class or not. I have a couple concerns regarding content, namely: Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No info on his life prior to college.
 * Sources 2,3,7,8,9,13,14,17 look unreliable.
 * Seems very short overall, just barely covers bases.


 * Comment - I believe the lack of information about his childhood is an acceptable gap - "articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic" are permitted as GAs. The "college" referred to seems to take students up till the age of 18, so he could have been from 15-17 or so when he dropped out. Have you asked at WP:RS/N about the sources? I'm unsure how you feel the article is perhaps too short?  --Malkinann (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There're only two sentences for his tenure on To Tell the Truth, for one. Overall, it just feels underdeveloped. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that I agree. Moore was a minor celebrity, and as such we'd expect a brief article. Besides, Good Article criteria focus on breadth rather than depth, per criterion 3; that's one of the major differences between GA and FA. Majoreditor (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep. The sources are not great, but they are not generally supporting controversial statements. Relative to this version, I've resourced [2] and [3] to [1] and [7] to [6]. [8] is primary, and is partly backed up by a secondary; [9] is also primary, and I've clarified this, and supplemented it with [1]. I've supplemented [13] with the Internet Movie Database, and removed the likely-to-be-challenged material supported by [14]. I've fixed the weblink to [17]: this is again primary source material. Note [11] and [15] are also primary source material dressed up with weblinks to unreliable-looking sources. I've merged them, so it is clear that the weblinks are not the source: the primary material is, just as it would be in a plot summary.
 * I agree that the article only just covers the bases, but it covers them just enough for broadness in my view. Expanding the article further would involve dragging the barrel of borderline source material, and would do readers no service. Geometry guy 19:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)