Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lostpedia/1

Lostpedia

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist. There have been minor improvements to reference format and some of the nominators concerns are not GA criteria. However, the article does not meet these criteria yet. Please renominate when it does! Geometry guy 23:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I really, really don't see how this is GA class. Out of the 20+ sources, we have more than half of them being from the site itself. We also have a blog, and a freaking JPEG image of all things. I really, really fail to see how this site even meets WP:WEB, much less how the article is GA class with almost everything cited to a primary source. Beyond that, the critical reception section and subject matter sites seem horribly undeveloped (gee, maybe because there aren't any secondary sources, you think?). Yes, this may be a little snippy coming off my withdrawn afd, but the concern isn't the notability, so much as it is the lack of secondary sources and the overall skimpy nature of the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Counting the references, I count seventeen that are secondary sources. While more would be an improvement, that's not more than half, and that's not really "almost everything cited to a primary source".  You also may want to mention on the talk page that the article is under reassessment.  --Minderbinder (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, didn't I? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry I missed the template at the top. You might want to also add a new discussion section about it so it's more noticeable.  --Minderbinder (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist. The lead does not summarize the article. On the other hand I only see a few issues with citations. Instead of saying half of the citations are to the primary source, ask instead what material needs to be cited to a secondary source? Is there anything controversial here? Published opinion, statistics, analysis? Yes, there is some, but not much. Mostly the article describes uncontroversial factual information about the site. The use of blogs as sources is disappointing and the references are poorly formatted and disorganised. However if a lack of reliable secondary sources prevents the development of the critical reception and subject matter sections, then these sections do not need to be and should not be developed! Geometry guy 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article still has a tag. More concerning is that most of the citations are from blogs or Lostpedia. Unless the article's referencing improves it will need to be delisted. Majoreditor (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)