Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland/1

John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Dudley,_1st_Duke_of_Northumberland/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Keep GA status. The consensus that the sources are adequate and not out of date has not been rebutted.  As usual, editors are free to improve the article if new sources crop up. SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The article was reviewed nearly 12 years ago, so I think it should be reassessed. It currently has the additional citations tag (since December 2021). Also there is no recent references with the most recent reference currently being a 2012 book. Sahaib (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The "additional citations" tag makes no sense since it currently has over 200 citations (in fact, there are 239 in the article). I am not seeing any citation issues - it appears that all paragraphs are cited, thereby meeting WP:WIAGA criterion #2. The lead does lack citations per WP:CITELEAD, but it is supposed to be a summary of information that is cited in the article. That tag is so ridiculous that I will remove it right now.I also don't see why Sahaib is concerned that the most recent reference was published in 2012. That is very recent considering that the subject of the article died in 1553, which is... 470 years ago. I would be concerned if we were using many 16th-century sources but, in fact, many of the sources in the article appear to be from the 1990s or early 2000s. In summary, this would not fail the GA criterion based on sourcing. Epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The additional citations tag has now been removed, quite correctly in my view: everything in the article is cited inline to a plethora of reliable sources, so I fail to understand why that tag was added in the first place. I don't think the quality of the sourcing is an issue, either. Comprehensiveness isn't a GA criterion, and in any event no one has pointed out any more recent references that could be added even if we wanted to. Without a complaint that's more solidly rooted in the GA criteria, there's no basis for delisting the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)