Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Structuration/1

Structuration

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

Result: Delist Clear consensus here that this article does not meet the current Good standards. To my mind the biggest issue is the overuse of technical language that most lay readers would find impossible to follow. There are also the comments kindly provided by Lfstevens on the talk page that need to be addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for delisting due to GA criteria 1A "the prose is clear and concise". The article was created as a student project and was then promoted to GA by the student's supervisor. I think this is procedurally problematic. Two other editors made comments during the GAN which do not appear to have been addressed. The article has subsequently been copyedited by GOCE. The copyeditor has left a long list of unaddessed comments on the talk page which make it clear that the article is still full of unexplained jargon. SpinningSpark 09:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A long list of problems here. Will give the reviewer and nominator some time to address these issues, but at this stage it looks like it needs a lot of work to be kept. AIRcorn (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Should be delisted as per concerns above. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delist per above. Bad form all around in the original passage. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delist per concerns above, especially that an extremely thorough copyedit has been unable to fix systemic and extensive problems in the article. It clearly should not have been passed in the first place, and was done so despite clear issues raised by more objective reviewers. As Wizardman says, "bad form all around". BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delist I read the article for myself and read the list of concerns cited by User:Aircorn. For the article to have GA status those concerns should be addressed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delist. It was promoted out of process and against WP:WIAGA standards. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Delist for failing 1(a) the prose is clear and concise; 1(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections and list incorporation (the See also section is rather long for a Good Article); and 2(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for statements likely to be challenged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As regards the review being procedurally problematic - we only discourage reviews by significant contributors, and the reviewer was not a contributor. That the review is not up to normal GA standards is, I think, simply the result of inexperience with the GA criteria by the reviewer. However, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, it might be good practise for supervisors to allow GA reviews to be done by an independent reviewer. As regards grading the student, it would be up to the supervisor to judge the finished work by the university's own standards, not by ours. A supervisor wanting to award a grade purely on a GA listing would need to be advised that listings can be somewhat random depending on the experience and views of the reviewer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delist as quickly as possible Holy Moses this is a poorly written article. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note (post-closing) -- I would just like to state for the record that I was the Campus Ambassador for this class and thus was supervising this student's work. I had absolutely nothing to do with the GA nomination, except for perhaps planting the seed by mentioning it was a possible source for an article review. The student self-nominated the article and, again, I was not involved in the review process except as a bystander. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)