Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sistine Chapel ceiling/1

Sistine Chapel ceiling

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Sistine_Chapel_ceiling/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted—major issues identified by the Eddie891 have not been fixed, and no one is volunteering to fix them (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This article has extensive citation needed and other maintenance tags. There's a lot of discussion about quality on the talk page, but work on the article itself has largely ceased since 8 April. Until the tags can be resolved, this article should not be listed as a GA, as it fails criteria #2. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm amazed the rambling nature of the article and its chronic lack of sourcing ever merited the term "good article". It also contains bizarre OR, like an idiosyncratic translation of the book of Joel, which has amusingly been there so long it's been plagiarized and published into (non-reliable) published sources, including some vaguely repsectible(-lookin) ones. GPinkerton (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The current messed-about state of the article, including the wierd disfiguring style of cn tags, is very largely the fault of User:GPinkerton, who has driven the longstanding main editor into retirement, at least for the moment (here was just a spill-over from their rows at Gothic architecture). He has removed a lot he doesn't like & added a load he does. Once he chased the main editor off, he stopped working on the article.  His views should not be taken into account.  For a 2007 GA the referencing is actually pretty good.  Personally I think it still meets the low standards of a GA - there are thousands much worse.  Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed some outright OR and added some cited sources on the history of the ceiling. I removed only what was both unsourced and untrue. Why should your views be taken into account, especially your ridiculous views on who gets to be "main editor"? What work have you done to improve matters, beside partisan attacks on me? The messed-about state of the article existed long before I arrived and the tags are an improvement and an exhortation, apparently unheard, to do something about it. Are you suggesting that because you claim policy was different in former times, this article somehow still meets policy as it exists in the present decade and that makes all my views on the matter invalid? Not acceptable! GPinkerton (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had very little involvement in the article over the years, and am uninvolved. You are most certainly not. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am the editor who has found it necessary to bow out because of the senseless changes to several articles by a couple of persistent editors who do indeed know how to format references, but who do not know their subject matter, and who write a mish-mash of unintelligible rubbish!
 * Amongst the important articles that I have felt forced to abandon are both this one and Gothic architecture.
 * If Wikipedia actually values itself as an encyclopedia, rather than a repository for unrelated chunks of information, then I could consider returning, if asked politely, and if not continually plagued by interference and the insertion of massive slabs of irrelevant stuff into the article upon which I am working..
 * I am going to make this point yet again, a knowledge of the subject about which one is writing, is a very useful thing.
 * In its present state the article is not GA by any means.
 * The first section of the body of the text, essential for understanding the history, is absolutely unintelligible.
 * Amandajm (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)