Talk:Lebanon/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

There are at least 6 requests for citation, one of of which dates back to December 2007.

There are at least eight dead links.[1]

Some of the language seems to portray a particular point of view, for instance "The reason for this is that Christians generally do not relate to Arabs or their language ...", a sentence that has been flagged as needing attention.

Significant sections of the article are uncited. For instance, Sports, Creative arts, festivals, and most of Arts and literature.

The redlinked List of Lebanese businessmen in See also seems inappropriate.

"There are 17 religious sects recognized.[58]. An 18th sect, the Copts was added recently to make the total official religious sects in Lebanon 18." If there are 18 recognized religious sects, why claim that there are 17?

"Lebanese music is known around the world for its soothing rhythms and oriental beats." Around the world? Really? Peacockery?

"... the country became part of numerous succeeding empires, among them Persian, Armenian, Assyrian, Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, and Ottoman". Not sure the "empire" is always the right word to use here. For instance, there was no "Crusader Empire", I'm dubious about "Arab Empire", and Macedonia was a kingdom.

I'm unclear what the section (incorrectly) called Book References is supposed to be. If these books were not used as sources for the article, then this section should be called Further reading. If they were, then these books should be appropriately referenced from the Notes and the section renamed Bibliography.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that this article should be delisted from GA. At this point, it is totally unbalanced, POV and poorly written. Lately I tried to improve some bits of it, however, my real world job and my poor english prevented me to be a great help for this article. Eklipse (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I agree that the article does not meet the GA criteria as it stands. I think that the work needed is significant, and I was tempted to delist it straight away, as the issues I raised above are not necessarily exhaustive, simply representative. I'm particularly concerned about the POV and citation issues. However, it may be that some editors can step in and do what's needed over the next seven days or so. Let's hope so anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- As these issues remain outstanding this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]