Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012/1

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, some editors have expressed doubt about the article be WP:GA. RightCowLeftCoast was the last to do so. I request a community reassessment. Thank you. Casprings (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking @ WP:GA? -

Layout appears to be satisfactory

Words to Watch: 1 use of the word racist; 6 usages of the word controversial

Several counts of the usage of some people: some American pro-life activists say; some analysts identified; some called for him; some social conservative organizations

Reading the source only the Family Research Council is named: some commentators; experts said

1 use of the word supposed; 1 use of the word accused; 1 use of the word reveal

Content appears to be Verifiable to reliable sources, with in line citations, some minor syntax errors, but nothing significant

Given the specific scope of being only the 2012 election cycle in the United States, it appears to be primarily focused on two individuals, so to say it is broad is debatable.

Neutral, now that is where I have issue with. Although all the opinions are well cited, this article appears to be an attack page on two living individuals, largely being a collection of statements against the statements made by the individuals. Each of these separately received significant coverage, and although the events are related it would be like creating an article about all multi-person death events in year XXXX. Therefore, I am saying this article is not neutral on its face.

The article is stable.

The article contains supporting images.

Therefore, I would de-list this article, until its neutrality is greatly worked on, and it complies with WTW.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do disagree with that assessment, even if some of it may be useful in helping the article. I will have to look at the context of the words to watch. That said, I disagree with the article not being neutral "on its fact". I would note that the major issue has been discussed here. Casprings (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with RCLC's assessment en toto. I particularly agree with his view that the article's neutrality needs a lot of work, and given that at its heart, the very premise of the article is non-neutral, I can't even really see a path to real neutrality for it. Thus, my recommendation would also be to delist this article. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]