Talk:The Boxmasters/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. The consensus is against delisting the article from being a good article. An editor with a conflict of interest had removed substantial material from the article. This removal has now been reverted.
TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) or Aircorn (talk · contribs), would you help me with any GAR paperwork needed after this close? Thank you.
Cunard (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This is clearly not even close to GA class.

Full of POV/informal terms like " brought chills down his spine."
Too many unsourced segments to bother with tagging.
Nearly the entire musical career section is just parroting quotes from reviews.
"Touring hiatus" is unsourced and only one sentence long.
"Return to album releases" section is just "In X, Y happened", "In X, Y happened" ad nauseam. Needs a major copy edit.
One citation was a personal blog on Blogspot, which I removed. There is also an external link in the body of the text, which is not allowed.
The article is extremely sparse. It contains no information on why band members changed; how Thornton chose to reunite, what kinds of songs were on the album, or even what style of music they play. There are overall only 13 sources, which is very sparse for a band that's been around this long.

I would say this is hardly even start-class, and I'm amazed that it was considered GA-class in even 2009. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I was notified of this by TenPoundHammer and I too am actually a little shocked a GA this subpar has escaped notice for this long. Really just further proof GAs are frequently approved as favours to editors and not always (as they should be) about the quality of the article and its sourcing. I'm sure more information could be found and it could be improved beyond the start-class it actually is, but a GA this is not and should not be. Ss112 22:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: Just a reminder that this is still open. AIRcorn (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: I didn't realize that at some point, an editor with an obvious COI removed a great deal of content from the article. I had initially closed this discussion, but decided to reopen upon this discovery. If you and @Ss112: would like to take another look at the article, that would be greatly appreciated. The pre-removal version still has faults, but I think this version is considerably more salvageable and deserves a second look before I close the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the Canadian controversy is a bit undue, but otherwise it seems fine. Easy fix if you agree. AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: @Ss112: could both of you look at this please? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise this either. I think the version with the restored information is quite a bit better. Of course an account named after the band (probably their management) had to remove a section about controversy—they always try to do things like that to make their acts look like they've never been involved in anything that might make them look bad. But yes, there's more to work with there now. Ss112 03:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.