Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scouts South Africa/1

Scouts South Africa

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Scouts_South_Africa/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

This 2006 listing contains significant uncited material and large amounts of excessive detail (many sections on the minutiae of scouting could probably be cut), meaning that GA criteria 2b) and 3b) are not met. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the two reasons given: Article has 64 cites and IMO meets the norm for GA's in that area. Regarding excessive detail, IMO I didn't see any. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, the GA criteria require inline citations for everything bar WP:BLUESKY and plot summaries; as it stands in the article, entire subsections such as "Patrol Leaders Training Unit", "International links", and "Air Scouting" are not cited.Nearly all of what is cited is verified only by non-independent sources, meaning that there is significant risk of WP:UNDUE information. If that is the norm for GA's in the area, I shall have to bring all of them to GAR.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, have you had a chance to consider the above? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. My overall opinion, is that it meets the GA norms in both of those areas. On your first point, I think that you inadvertently rewrote the criteria instead of quoting it. Using vague guess numbers,IMHO probably 20% of material is likely to be challenged, and at the other extreme maybe 5% is sky-is-blue. So while the criteria set the 20% as the minimum, in your re-write substituting sky-is-blue you raised the 20% minimum to 95% minimum. In the second area, boring encyclopedic information is seldom covered by independent sources and so an encyclopedic article needs to substantially use those.    IMHO you are applying an unintended overly broad application of WP:UNDUE which is intended more to cover areas where opinions differ. IMO "independent"  comes more into play regarding the 1-2 GNG sources for wp:notability.  I'm not overly worried about GA status but you asked and I answered. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , GA criterion 2b) links to Content that could reasonably be challenged, which you might find helpful. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks and thanks for your work.  A reasonably good essay but does not equate to your "anything but sky-is-blue".  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The article could use more comprehensive sourcing to meet current standards. The extensive use of primary/non-independent sources is a separate question, and its interaction with OR is per WP:PST a bit of an art. At a first read, I would say this article uses them for great detail, but without much interpretation. CMD (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delist: I agree with the problems regarding criterion 2b. Good articles should be properly sourced inline and the expression "content that could reasonably be challenged" does not mean that there is an actual disagreement in the reliable sources about the fact in question. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * any comments? if not, can you please make a closing decision? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delist as failing to meet 2b for insufficient citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)