Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Geliyoo/1

Geliyoo

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Geliyoo/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept - while participants agree it would be nice if the article were more broad, no evidence of omitted references were found. The other two proposed reasons for a delist are not supported by the WP:GA criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi all. I came across this page reading through the engineering and technology GA pages, and think it still may need some work.
 * 1) Having read the page, I'm not confident the page is broad enough in content. The whole company history is covered in a couple of short paragraphs, and quite a lot of detail of interest is skipped over (ranging from more on the founders, early days, iterations, scaling up etc).
 * 2) The article could be illustrated, which it currently isn't (and the logo not having the background removed could be fixed to make the page cleaner).
 * 3) I think more citations would be great too, to illustrate the topic. Possibly use of quotes.

To me, the page feels like it would fit B-class. Would be great to get some community insight. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the notification. I did the GA review, and I agree it would be nice to have more company history, but I was unable to find evidence that sources had been omitted.  The scandals are what seems to have made it newsworthy, and I think it's likely there's little or no other coverage.  Lack of coverage of an area doesn't make an article ineligible for GA, so I don't think there's a problem there.  That also means more citations are not very likely to be found.  Illustrations are not required for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * So first, I honestly couldn't care if this was delisted. I'm not active here anymore, though having it stay would be nice.
 * For more history, there is nothing to add if you don't want to use paid-for non-RS sources. Several of these were removed during the GAN. As said above, the main reason why this company is known is because of the scandal. There are a few RS from before that, and those are already in the article.
 * A screenshot of the main page was suggested on the GAN, but that's currently blanked. I can't think of anything else to add.
 * Partially the same as the first note: no sources. For quotes—I don't know what you'd want. There are a few quotes from the owners, but I don't see them being really encyclopedic.
 * So yeah, those are my two cents. ~Styyx Talk ? 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And yes, if anyone was wondering, the whole point of getting this to GA status was to run it on DYK with the criticizing hook. ~Styyx Talk ? 21:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)