Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Michael of Zahumlje/1

Michael of Zahumlje

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Michael_of_Zahumlje/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Per comment at Talk:Michael of Zahumlje this could be sketchy. Persistent anonymous edit-warring also seems to be involved, so this topic needs help. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This the diff between the version from early 2011 when it was edited by User:Kebeta and today. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove Per my comment at here I don't think this is was ever a valid good article in the first place and should be removed. Naleksuh (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding the note on the talk page that the GAN was passed by a nominator's sock, it appears to me this was not so (and I left a note in the relevant secton on article talk with a relevant diff on that). Had it been nominated and passed by the same user/sock, it would have been unreasonable to do anything but to delist it. However...


 * Without going into details of the article, there should be some effort to point out what's wrong specifically. For GAR, "the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it". In that respect, I think it would be fair to list what aspects of the article need work in terms of GA criteria before the article is fixed or delisted. The review back in 2011 certainly appears very superficial, so it is very well possible (or likely) there may be justifiable objections. The original GAN nominator appears inactive since 2013, but hey, there may be takers... or even if there are not any this week, a future editor will have something to work with.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * On a further examination (looking for edit warring in article history), I'm wondering if the original complainant at the article talk - was a bit hasty. It appears they thought the nominator promoted the GAN alone per this edit summary. Naleksuh could you please specify which GA criteria you feel are not met by the article and why/how? It would be very helpful for potential fixes to the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty simple. GA nomination. GA tag. By the same person. Both have similar usernames and one is a sock of the other by CheckUser evidence. Plus this is nowhere close to a complete GA review. Naleksuh (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're mistaken. What you linked as the "GA nomination" diff is actually diff of GA review page creation and there's nothing unusual there. The diff with the GAN nomination is this by user Kebeta while GA was taken up by Wustefuchs (sock, apparently unrelated to the nominator - at least no sock tag is linked to the nominator) diff and the review page Talk:Michael of Zahumlje/GA1 was made by Wustefuchs. I agree that the review was very superficial, but it would be equally incorrect to assume the nomination was in bad faith or not in compliance with GA criteria when it was not reviewed - then or now because two wrongs don't make a right. If the article is non-compliant with major aspects of the WP:WIAGA it should be simple to list such non-compliances.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's use the opportunity to just look at that diff from the last 10 years... I skimmed it and noticed the sentence "Zahumlje belongs to the oldest Serbian principality." that just doesn't strike me as something that would be referenced to John V. A. Fine. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. I have looked up Fine and it does not appear to support the claim. I have tagged appropriate references with the failed verification tag. This clearly makes the article non-compliant with the WIAGA criterion #2.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

In view of above non-compliance with the verifiability criteria and apparent lack of volunteers who might fix this article, I think it would be appropriate to downgrade its quality rating to C or start-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Struck C since at least criteria 2 (verifiability), likely 4 (neutrality), and 1 (prose) are not quite there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)