Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Southworth Library (Dartmouth, Massachusetts)/1

Southworth Library (Dartmouth, Massachusetts)[edit]

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Below points are taken from the note [1] I left on the reviewer's talk page (they have not been active since March) before I went ahead with reassessment. Their overall reviewing style is very concerning and the editor has virtually no experience in content creating (less than 500 edits overall, 68 edits in mainspace, and no single article created) yet they took on multiple GARs, all of which were hastily performed. One of them was recently delisted. They have not responded and this article is in clear need of reassessment:

passed while leaving "(b) (citations to reliable sources)" box "Undetermined"; leaving that box unchecked is unacceptable, especially without any more feedback
relies largely on one article from Dartmouth Week Today, a local newspaper that seems like a helpful reference but I have serious reservations about using it as a primary a source on which to base an entire article; that is something the reviewer should have raised during the review but they let it pass without even resolving it
gaps in content, especially regarding the building's history during the 20th century
very short MOS:LEAD which does not sufficiently summarize the content
the structure of the article should be improved per MOS:LAYOUT; reviewer offered no guidance regarding formatting ("Public Usage" section is a list of sentences while "At the Dartmouth Cultural Center" just sounds awkward)
at least one important source link is not working (Footnote 4, an MA thesis with a wealth of information and sources on the subject)
at least one WP:REFBOMB was left unaddressed; multiple other MoS issues (m-dashes, insufficient links etc.) Ppt91 ^talk 21:37, 22 April 2023 (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.