Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Malcolm X/1

Malcolm X

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delisted per unanimous consensus PeterSymonds | talk  18:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This article, listed in 2006, has lost some of the GA criteria. Some paragraphs are short and stubby; there are tags in the article; and the "need additional references" banner is at the top of the article. The tags also indicate prose problems; for example: "Soon he developed a voracious appetite for reading, then astigmatism", followed by the "clarify" tag. PeterSymonds | talk  22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good tos have a section devoted to his beliefs. --68.161.152.76 (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I haven't looked at this in detail yet, but the article clearly has some problems. In support of the above concerns, it is not good that a large portion of the lead is a quotation. Also there are many unsourced assertions needing references, e.g., "Tensions increased between Malcolm and the Nation of Islam. It was alleged that orders were given by leaders of the Nation of Islam to "destroy" Malcolm". Alleged by whom, and what is the source? Geometry guy 18:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If the lead, tags, referencing and stubby sections aren't addressed then the article needs to be de-listed. Majoreditor (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist unless someone starts work on it soon. The cleanup/clarify tags are worrisome, as are the lack of sourcing on some statements. Some quotations lack source citations. The statement that someone had a nervous breakdown needs a source for that information. Prose flow suffers from very short paragraphs. Why is the template for the Nation of Islam series in the middle of the article? More probably should be mentioned about the aftermath of his death. Perhaps a Legacy section? The external links and further reading sections could use some pruning. The references and footnotes are oddly formated, shouldn't there be a References section if you're using short footnotes in the notes section? Lead section is probably a bit too short for the size of the article. Concerns about the fair use of Image:Savioursday041.jpg, as the picture is larger than the usual size for fair use. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The references issue needs to be resolved, but other that, it does seem like a good article.  Yahel  Guhan  23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist Nobody seems to be working on it, so it doesn't seem the issues wil be resolved soon.  Yahel  Guhan  21:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist (as nominator). The references are a big deal, and there are unreferenced sections, such as Marriage and family; as well as numerous unreferenced paragraphs. I'm also concerned about bias, as a number of references used to verify are by Malcolm X himself. Also, books used for footnotes should appear in a "References" section separate from the further reading section. Sentences such as "...is contested in part because his entire body of work consists of a few dozen speeches and a collaborative autobiography whose veracity is challenged...." don't appear to be neutral (underlined particularly by the ellipses at the end of the sentence, which I've removed). External links section is unwieldy and should conform to WP:EL. PeterSymonds | talk  21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist I think the article falls short of GA standards. In addition to the other points that have been made, the article is out of balance (Malcolm's childhood gets more attention than his work with the Nation of Islam), it provides very little context for his life, and it says almost nothing about what Malcolm stood for (it's merely a catalog of what he did). I had hoped to improve the article after PeterSymonds nominated it here, but other commitments got in the way. Until somebody is willing to sit down and fix it, I think the article should be delisted. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. Majoreditor (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)