Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Plasma (physics)/1

Plasma (physics)

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Plasma_(physics)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Delisted Consensus here is that the article does not meet the Good Article criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Plasma (physics) should be demoted of WP:GA status as the article has several tags. Some of the sections of the article such as "Degree of ionization", "Plasma potential", "Mathematical descriptions" are completely unreferenced. This means the article should be delisted as a good article as it does not meet criteria #2b as the article does not seem to meet "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;" with some unreferenced sections.-KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 23:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I initially added the GA reassessment tag mainly due to lack of sources. In addition to the above, the section common plasmas is very hard to source even a posteriori. The research section was taken from a questionable website [plasmas.com] (the link has since been removed). The quality of this (early-days GA) article has fallen below the GA standards we uphold nowadays. Yinweichen (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Half of the article is uncited, and a few of the existing citations are old, primary sources dating from 1879, 1897, and 1928, so this can be speedily delisted. In addition, the whole article would benefit from clearer descriptions and some copy-editing.Homemade Pencils (talk)
 * Before demoting, could you give me a little time with it? After coming to the article from a RfC discussion, I'm kind of wishing to take it as a personal project to improve the article. I'll tackle the citations first and do some copy editing on the way, and then could we see where it stands? (By "a little time", I should have a decent number of edits done by the end of tonight; but we'll see.) --Nerd1a4i (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This article could use the attention of several additional editors, as the on-going request for comment demonstrates. I favor demotion. Attic Salt (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)