Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Big Fish/1
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Reassessment retracted by nominator. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Fails stability criterion due to massive number of edits (and users) playing around with the content over the last 30 days.[1] I have made a check user and sock puppet report, and discussed the issue with the primary editor,[2] but there is no sign of understanding the problem. As the original reviewer for the most recent review (2009), I recommend that the article be delisted because neither its stability, accuracy, or reliability can be guaranteed at this time. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note that per WP:GAR, "instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article." What is inaccurate or unreliable in the article Viriditas? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's true that the community has been fairly good at reverting bad edits, so the article isn't in as bad shape as it could be. Earwig shows no copyvio, so that's good. The Accolades section shows awards attributed to the "Awards Circuit Community Awards" and "Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards", both of which are unsourced, and which can only be found on IMDb (Internet Movie Database), which is considered generally unreliable. Other than that, recent edits did violate criterion 1, but it's been reverted. The sock farm has not stopped creating accounts and its editing poses a continuing problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I blocked a pile of socks and also semi-protected the page for a month. Hopefully that will calm things down a bit. RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I blocked a pile of socks and also semi-protected the page for a month. Hopefully that will calm things down a bit. RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's true that the community has been fairly good at reverting bad edits, so the article isn't in as bad shape as it could be. Earwig shows no copyvio, so that's good. The Accolades section shows awards attributed to the "Awards Circuit Community Awards" and "Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards", both of which are unsourced, and which can only be found on IMDb (Internet Movie Database), which is considered generally unreliable. Other than that, recent edits did violate criterion 1, but it's been reverted. The sock farm has not stopped creating accounts and its editing poses a continuing problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
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.