Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Paris–Roubaix/1

Paris–Roubaix

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Paris%E2%80%93Roubaix/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This article has been a GA since 2009, but in my mind, it falls woefully short of the current GA standards. Problems I've identified are:
 * Lack of sourcing in places, many unsourced sections and lots of unsourced tables
 * Not enough about the history, only 10 years of the race are mentioned (and 8 of those are purely for "controversy" reasons). History section would be better laid out like in Tour de France, with summaries for different time periods.
 * Way too many long quotes, violates MOS:QUOTATIONS
 * Comments section seems like WP:TRIVIA, and should maybe be integrated into another section (maybe Course section)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I would like to give people a bit of time to try and start fixing these issues, but if not, then it should be delisted. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose and layout issues mentioned above.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Sources that are in article look fine. Multiple unsourced sections and paragraphs though.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article is overly focused on a small number of races, and doesn't have any text on 95% of the events at all. This therefore fails the major aspects and focused aspects of scope criteria.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images look fine, and seem relevant and freely licenced
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, this would fail the GA criteria by a long way
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, this would fail the GA criteria by a long way
 * I'm totally agree with you. Bordurie (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)