Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Christian Bale/1

Christian Bale

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

Result: Delist per unanimous consensus Cirt (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is no longer of Good Article quality status. A large majority of the article is unsourced. This is not appropriate for a GA-rated article - especially one on a WP:BLP. The article is also not stable, and includes way too many purported fair-use images (5) - and many of the image pages have inadequate fair use rationales. Cirt (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You express considerable certainty here. Why is a community GAR needed? Could you carry out an individual GAR? Geometry guy 22:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could. Honestly I don't recall ever carrying out an individual GAR before - all the GARs I had participated in, in the past, were those where multiple editors weighed in. I am not averse to it, by any means, I just wanted to stray towards the safe side with delisting an article. If there are no objections I guess the way to go would be simply to have a shorter Community-GAR. If no one objects after a couple days I will delist it. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that this became a Good Article on May 17, 2006; this was the revision. I am not sure if the article can be fixed up so quickly. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Cirt. The citation issues pose major concerns. I don't think a lengthy community GAR is needed in this case. Majoreditor (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per refs aren't as good as other BLP good articles. (consideration should be given to my lack of experience at this) — Ched (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Cirt. Needs more references, especially for a BLP article. Current references need work - several are dead, many are lacking titles, publishers or access dates. However, Cirt, just as a comment, all of those fact tags are a little annoying. In the future, perhaps just drop one at the end of the paragraph when you feel that the whole paragraph needs citations? Other than that, good work on finding this one and keeping GA standards high. Dana boomer (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, far too many unreferenced statements, particularly for a BLP, and of the sources there, several seem sketchy/questionable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]