Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pearson's Candy Company/1

Pearson's Candy Company

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Pearson%27s_Candy_Company/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Kept Issues seem to be dealt with and what consensus that can be found here is that it currently meets the GA criteria. AIR corn (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am troubled by the fact that the references seems to be in such bad shape: And both of the preceding sources are used to identify key people (President, CEO, etc.) in the infobox. That leaves a total of 3 references - #5, #8, #9 - that seem to be valid. If this article came up for a GA Review today, it would not get that status at this time. The references need to be almost completely overhauled before any further GA Reassessment consideration can take place. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref #1 is using outdated info from 2008.
 * Ref #2 is dead.
 * Ref #3 is dated from 2003 and therefore the information it is sourcing is outdated.
 * Ref #4 is using outdated info from 2007 - Pearson's was sold in 2011, they don't even have the same owners anymore.
 * Ref #6 is dead.
 * Ref #7 is dead.
 * Forgive me if I'm curt, but this is not particularly helpful. Good Articles are assessed based on the Good Article Criteria, not opinions from the ether ("If this article came up for a GA Review today, it would not get that status at this time.")  Please identify with specificity (number and subsection, if applicable), as you have not done, which criterion/criteria you feel is/are no longer met.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that my comments were unhelpful, I did not intend to be unhelpful. I have struck through my GA Reviewing comments but am leaving them so the throughline of our responses will be maintained.
 * Specifically, the criteria which are not being met by this article in its present state are the following:
 * Criteria 2B: all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * The references for this article are overwhelmingly stale and/or outdated, so any statements are not attached to the cited sources.
 * Criteria 1B: it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Fails this because the statements made in the lead section 1)That Pearson's is in the Top 100 and 2)It was sold in 2011 - rely on dead links for verification. Also, I tried to find verification that Pearson's is in the present Top 100 (of confectioners) and that seems to not be the case at this time.
 * Criteria 3A: it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * Fails this criteria because, again, the cited references cannot back up the main aspects of the topic.
 * I hope this is more helpful. I do stand by my conclusion above that the references need to be almost completely overhauled before any further GA Reassessment can occur. Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The above is, frankly, nonsense. In order:
 * "The references for this article are overwhelmingly stale and/or outdated, so any statements are not attached to the cited sources."
 * WP:RS, and indeed criterion 2B, relates to the reliablity of the source, not to whether the information referenced is up to date. Shearonink provided no cite to the WP:RS section that prohibits "stale and/or outdated" sources, as, indeed, such a section does not exist. WP:CS, for example, says "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Follow these steps when you encounter a dead URL being used as a reliable source to support article content. " (emphasis mine), which implicitly establishes that "reliability" and being "a dead link" are not mutually exclusive.
 * "Fails this [criterion 1B] because the statements made in the lead section 1)That Pearson's is in the Top 100 and 2)It was sold in 2011 - rely on dead links for verification. Also, I tried to find verification that Pearson's is in the present Top 100 (of confectioners) and that seems to not be the case at this time."
 * The manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation do not prohibit dated information and, conversely, do not require contemporaneous information. The manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation do not prohibit dead links.  Again, that a link is dead does not mean it is not reliable per my cite above, WP:DEADREF and WP:DEADLINK.
 * "Fails this criteria (sic) because, again, the cited references cannot back up the main aspects of the topic."
 * Shearonink has not indicated which "main aspects" are uncited. Yet again, that a given reference may be dead 1) does not mean the article does not "addre[ss] the main aspects of the topic" and 2) as per above, is not prohibited.
 * Although I believe the concerns related to GA status are entirely without merit, I have updated the article in the interest of its improvement. There is now only a single dead link, which I understand to be perfectly acceptable, and other information is as contemporary as is available for a closely-held firm.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a Reassessment, a chance for a GA article to be improved, I wasn't voting Delete in my previous comments and am sorry that they have been interpreted to be so. Per my referencing comments, I was thinking of the WP:IRS section regarding age matters.  I am just glad that the article has now been updated, that is what is important to me.  I like Pearson's Candy, saw the article had been listed as possibly needing a GAR since 2014 and thought it deserved a community Reassessment and some possible improvements - that's all.  Thanks to User:elcobbola for all their hard work. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "In 1985, the company was purchased by Larry Hassler and Judith Johnston, the current CEO and COO, respectively." I did adjust this sentence to reflect that Hassler & Johnston bought the company in 1985 but that they are not the current CEO & COO.  (Michael Keller is the current CEO/President.) Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – I think that the problems have been dealt with sufficiently. All text appears to be accurately sourced, and the article is broad and well written. I would maintain this article's current status.StoryKai (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)