Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Shia LaBeouf/1

Shia LaBeouf

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Shia_LaBeouf/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review

Action: Already delisted. (non-admin closure) © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 16:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I think we're already in agreement about this. So let's get it over with—someone has to start by pointing out the obvious things anyway. For one, an article with multiple template issues that have gone un-rectified for a year and a half cannot be a "Good Article"; it's antithetical to what the Good Article badge represents and frankly a blotch to the certain level of integrity that Wikipedia seeks to achieve. It's supposed to be editors’ duty to keep the articles up, but clearly on this one... an article that gets millions of page views a year... well, evidently people around here have been derelict in their duty. How can an article be "good" if it relies almost exclusively on primary sources or absolutely unreliable sources (for example, what the hell is InterfaithFamily.com or fikklefame.com. Ridiculous.)? Independent, reliable sources are supposed to be used for in depth articles, but if almost all of the sources are just interviews with him then what's the point. Also, several of the sources either have empty citation template or they're redundant rather than invoked. That's just sloppy. I also think really irrelevant things like personal drama are given too much space and emphasis in this article instead of important, career-related things that need it or could use more expansion and/or detail. Those are just a few of the things I noticed, so have it. Trillfendi (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You really need to stop your aggressive approach here. We seriously lack editors willing to comment on reassessments and your hostility is not helping. If you just outline how the article fails the criteria without all the histrionics and you might find more editors agreeing with you. AIRcorn (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When people, like you, realize that there is no “hostility” in typing into a phone or computer nor can you detect a mood from a screen then maybe they can just read words instead of trying to psychoanalyze. How is it histrionic to say editors should have kept this article up to snuff and failed to do so? In way more ways than I said. Or was it pointing out that the emphasis on personal drama is the reason that led the article was given issue templates to begin with? Did I hurt your feelings? Did I call anyone out of their name? Other editors already pointed out that since this article has multiple template issues it blatantly fails the status. Citation with accessdate and no URL, CS1 errors: external links, ... Cites unreliable sources is what made this article get put on the Good Article reassessment list. If you want to keep it then do it. I really don’t care. Trillfendi (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Your hostility bleeds through like a very graphic horror film, and you just proved their point by responding in a manner even worse that your original statement. To say that "nor can you detect a mood from a screen" is not correct at all... your words are condescending in tone. You can add to your count all of the awards and edits here you like, but treating others in this manner is wrong, plain and simple.  Monsieur dl    mon talk 23:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)