Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Imbrex and tegula/1

Imbrex and tegula

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Imbrex_and_tegula/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Delist Relevant issues have been brought up and are unaddressed AIRcorn (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment
This article gained Good Article status in 2006. It was briefly reassessed in 2007. I think it should be reassessed again now. I do want to note that the criteria in 2007 are pretty much the same as the current six criteria criteria. However, I believe that the thoroughness by which it was applied in 2007, and it is applied now, is different. Besides the history of assessments, I believe that at present this article needs to be re-assessed:


 * 1. Well written: Allow.png in my view the prose is clear and concise, and well structured
 * 2. Verifiable with no original research:
 * Allow.png no original research
 * Questionmark-icon.png Some inline citations are missing. It is an issue that could be easily solved.
 * Questionmark-icon.png So far this article's lead presents no inline citations. While it is optional to have inline citations in the lead section, usually most of the information summarized in the lead section needs to be presented in the main body of the article, and have there cited sources. However, there are some parts this lead section that are only mentioned in the lead. That presents with one or two shortcomings: first, there is definitely a lack of inline citations. Second, I also wonder if the information presented in the lead should be presented and expanded in the main body of the article, per manual of style.(examples: "The roofing area was generally surrounded by antefixae which were often decorated, and had several decorative anthemia to cover each end row imbrex.", " is still in use today as an international feature of style and design")
 * 3. Broad in its coverage
 * Questionmark-icon.png that I think is they key question here. A short length of an article is not per se a disqualifier from being a good article, but this article nevertheless does not seem to cover the topic well. Some potential gaps in coverage are:
 * The lead section states that Imbrex and tegula are "still in use today", but the History and development section stops its coverage more than 2000 years from the present day.
 * Also possibly a new section on the use in modern architecture could be included
 * As mentioned above, there are several pieces of information in the lead that are not mentioned in the rest of the article. That seems to indicate a lack of breadth in the body of the article.
 * 4. Neutral: Allow.png yes, it is neutrally written.
 * 5. Stable: Allow.png yes, seems stable.
 * 6. Illustrated: Allow.png yes, well illustrated with six well-selected images.

Don't get me wrong, what is written, is well written, and is very informative-- great job so far by those who have contributed! I just think that the classification as Good Article is maybe not the most suitable at this time (unless the article is expanded and citations added). This is my first time initiating the reassessment of an article's quality, so I very much would like to see what the community thinks.

I would like to invite who was the largest contributor to this article, as well as any other interested editors, to respond. Thank you (talk) user:Al83tito 5:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)