Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Speech is silver, silence is golden/1

Speech is silver, silence is golden

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Speech_is_silver,_silence_is_golden/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Feel free to rv if you think this is controversial; GAR coords haven't bothered, so closing as no consensus to delist. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Only four sources in the whole article? Seems like a massive 3A/3B failure. Also it skips from antiquity to the 20th century without hinting much at the in-betweens. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * most of the article is dedicated to "the in-betweens". There is no GA criterion for minimum number of sources—the only relevant requirement is that the article should address the main aspects of the topic. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I still feel there is not enough content to satisfy 3A/3B. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with TPH's assessment. More troublingly, it's a little difficult for me to determine the scope here. The proverb is most recognized in English by its abbreviated "silence is golden" form; is this meant to be discussed in this article or somewhere else? "Somewhere else" seems overly splitter, but there is no discussion of it here, and none of the disambigs are on the proverb itself. Shouldn't the article touch on how the proverb evolved, given this is certainly a main aspect of the topic? I don't think in and of itself a low number of sources is problematic, especially when books are involved (though on a personal level I'm not a huge fan of the "book cited once as a solid chapter, with rp for pages" structure), but I wonder about things like this. Vaticidalprophet 09:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

please close. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I will take a look tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If it passes notability guidelines, there's no requirement for an exacting amount of sources. I'm not sure we can delist on a 3A/3B as I don't think the article misses much about the history of the phrase - any ideas if anything happened pre-20th century we need to include? It's certainly not "in unnecessary detail" for 3B either  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article, I question if it's really notable, but that's outside of scope as far as GA goes and therefore does not impact keep/delist. I don't think it's really a worthwhile article personally, but I also can't point to any criterion it fails to meet. However, I am concerned by the overreliance on one source for almost all of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)