Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Insulin/1

Insulin

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: delist Boghog2 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this article's last good article rating, the article has undergone the following major changes:
 * split (insulin → insulin + insulin therapy)
 * merger (insulin + insulin gene → insulin)

In my opinion, there are still some rough edges to be addressed in the insulin article while the insulin therapy article appears to be in better shape. I therefore propose the following:


 * The good article rating be transfered from the insulin to the insulin therapy article.
 * The insulin article be given a B-Class rating.

In a somewhat related issue, I propose that these two articles be assigned to the following projects:
 * insulin – WP:MCB
 * insulin therapy – WP:MED + WP:PHARM

Thoughts? Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject ratings and assignments are a matter for the relevant WikiProjects, not GAR. Geometry guy 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments. After a quick look, I'm afraid neither article looks like a GA right now. Both are lacking citations, and have missing or stubby sections. So my initial impression is that insulin should be delisted. It may be not too hard to raise insulin therapy to GA standards, in which case it can be nominated at WP:GAN. Geometry guy 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist and comments. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but GA status cannot be transfered between articles - each article has to go through GAN on its own merit; this makes the status of Insulin therapy a moot point. Insulin should be delisted due to a lack of referencing and the presence of fact tags that have been in place since September 2008. There are too many lists, some should be changed into prose. Web references need to be formatted with a title, publisher and access date, rather than just a bare link. The further reading link to Famous Canadian Physicians deadlinks, as does the External link to Insulin in the protein databank. Also, as Geometry guy says above, which wikiprojects an article is under and which ratings they are given (other than GA or FA class) are under the authority of the individual wikiprojects, not GAR. Dana boomer (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. In checking this articles GA assement, it appears that this was done ad hoc without a formal assessment.  Therefore it is clear that this article should be delisted.  I apologize for not more carefully checking this before requesting this reassessment.
 * The conclusion of this reassessment is to delist by unanimous consensus. Boghog2 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)