Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hugh Culverhouse/1

Hugh Culverhouse

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: keep Clear consensus for article to be kept as GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

I was the GA1 reviewer and quickfailed it for general lack of wikification. Now it slipped through on GA3 with pretty shoddy wikification. Both the infobox and the citations are completely without internal or external links. I question whether this is really GA quality in terms of WP:WIAGA 1b.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, nowhere in the MoS does it state that the infobox or the citations need to have internal or external links. As to the wikification, the lead does look a little bare and perhaps a few wikilinks need to be added, but the rest of the article is fine. Personally, I can't believe you quickfailed an article for lack of wikification. The only one of the five MoS articles that mentions linking is Manual of Style (layout), which is basically a how-to guide for wikilinking. As none of the wikilinks are incorrectly formatted, I can't see how the article could fail GA because of that. Please note this is the first Good Article reassessment that I've commented on, so if I've done this incorrectly, please forgive me. Jenks24 (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikification is one of the most minor things out there in terms of development. I did acknowledge that it can be improved but it's not a GA requirement. More links have now been added. If that was your only concern about this article than opening this was a waste of time; adding the links took very little time. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 12:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did the infobox go. I also originally failed it for need of an infobox, which has just returned as a problem. I don't see how removing the infobox helps the reader. To many the infobox is the first thing that they look for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the infobox, as you seem to know, seeing as you have given the diff in that comment as well. I removed because, as I said in the edit summary, it adds nothing to the article. Everything in the infobox is covered in the first paragraph of the article. I understand how infoboxes can be useful (they are in the majority of articles I create), but in this case, a generic adds nothing and actually makes the article look worse. However, if you really think it makes a huge difference, you can add it back. All this said, whether the article has an infobox or not has nothing to do with WIAGA. In fact, there are quite a few FAs that don't have infoboxes. Jenks24 (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Although an infobox is not required it is a consideration at FA and I doubt that there are that many, if any, FA bios that don't have one. Sure wikilinking sources and such in the notes is not required and as a stand alone complaint is kind of minor, but it is correctable and would improve the quality of the article. If I had felt it was a terrible omission, I would have delisted the GA. This is a more minor form of substandard article passing. As a result, I left it as a GA and hoped to get someone's attention so that the article would be improved in this way. I was not looking for a fight about whether that alone is sufficient grounds for failure. If it was that bad, like I said, I would have delisted. Just hoping we might highlight an area for easy improvement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was so easily improved, why didn't you just add the wikilinks yourself? In any case, as we are all in agreement that the article meets WIAGA, this GAR should be probably be closed. Jenks24 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would take time figuring out which sources have links, which ones need to be dabbed and such. I don't really agree it meets WIAGA. Without the infobox, I would have failed it and with it I would have put it on hold until they were done.  I see that GAR is pretty clogged up, but it would help if people would close reviews that have gotten their fair share of attention like Gery Chico rather than this one where you are trying to run over me to get it closed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel like I've run over you; that wasn't my intention. It's just that the article is bloody good for a GA and minor thinks like linking and infoboxes (which I see you've added back -- not worth edit-warring over, but it looks pretty average, IMHO). Anyway, it took me about 15 minutes to wikilink the refs. As the article has an infobox and more wikilinks, do you think the article meets WIAGA now? (Not trying to run over you, but I'll try and improve some other stuff if you think it needs to be done -- would be a shame to see it be delisted after all the work Dementia13 did.) Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is pretty underlinked, but close it if you must. I still think we should ask for more completeness on this issue. I generally see each instance of a source linked in the refs because we can not assume the reader needed to see the first ref that it appeared in.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Many FAs don't have wikilinks in the citations at all (and it's not required at FAC), but *shrug*. If you want to wikilink them, I'm sure no-one will revert. As to closing, I wouldn't feel comfortable closing the first GAR I've commented on. I'll leave it up to you; if you feel that more comments are needed, that's fine. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I also do not think that underlinking is a reason to delist an article. Infoboxes are definately not a requirement for Good Article or even Featured Articles for that matter (see Daniel Lambert). AIR corn (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just read twice looking for holes, disappointed I couldn't find any. GAR is often an opportunity to fix problems which got forgotten etc. but I can't see much turning up. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)