Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps/1

Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Hispanics_in_the_United_States_Marine_Corps/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Overwhelming consensus to delist. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). There are also problems with criterion 3b), as the article doesn't know what it is about and is overloaded with tangents on the lives of individual Hispanic Marines, and criterion 4), as the wikivoice tone is distinctly non-neutral.

I am additionally unsure whether the article really meets the notability criteria, but that is not within the purview of GAR. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Many of these articles are essentially train wrecks. I've been involved with a few, and there's always a great deal of work involved getting them into shape. Typically you have to check every citation and source, since they are often either misused or misrepresented. Here's an example of one that's similar. Getting this to GAR will take some serious work. Intothatdarkness 21:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom. Schierbecker (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as is - This is a Good article which has 156 reliable sources to back up it's content. The article in itself is important to the Hispanic community whose contributions to the United States and the world in general have often been overlooked or ignored in the history books and so on. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom and my earlier note. Getting this article up to standard will take a great deal of work, and if past experience is any indicator that work won't get done. I don't disagree about the importance of the subject itself, but the topic deserves much better than what we see here. Intothatdarkness 12:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom. Particularly per 3b; article is all over the place.  ——Serial  13:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delist lead isn't written in an encyclopaedic manner. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delist per nom and Into the Darkness. Neither I nor anyone else who has comment is suggesting that the article be removed, only that the classification be lowered unless more work than is likely to be done is both promised and done promptly. If one or more editors want to put in the work to fix the apparent problems after delisting, and maybe to split it into more than one article, it can be nominated for another GA assessment. Donner60 (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delist as per previous noms. This article may have been deemed GA back in 2009, but GA criteria has tightened up considerably since then. It is now a long way from current GA standards and a lot of work is needed to bring it up to scratch. Zawed (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)