Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Blown for Good/1

Blown for Good

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: Keep. Problems solved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article bears little resemblance to the form it was when it was nominated 14 years ago, though at the time it had its own issues. For context, the article was created and largely written by someone who was 1) banned from this topic area for BLP and source misrepresentation, among other issues 2) later indefinitely banned. Afterwards the article had a chunk taken out of it, perhaps justifiably, but what is left does not meet the GA standards, and may still face the problems with POV that existed before.

An issue is particularly the incredibly short lead, which fails to sum up why the book is notable at all, not summarizing either its reception or contents (the old lead included this, though was perhaps too long) therefore failing criterion 1, and also parts of the summary have been changed for the worse to the point where I'm not sure it summarizes the book properly (failing criterion 3). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on this article, including:

checked all the references and updated with archived versions where needed
added book sources that didn't exist in 2009 when the book was written or in 2010 when the GA nomination passed
reworked the lead to include summary of the book's contents and reception
straightened out which loose bits belonged in the author section and which belonged in the contents section (author section used to be above contents; new author section has since been created below contents section to piggyback a mini-BLP in this article, leaving a few sentences and paragraphs in the wrong position, which I put in an appropriate place)
clarified the wife's escape
compared the version right after the article's creator's last version [1] and restored a few sentences and a paragraph
you weren't clear which version you were comparing or which "chunk" was missing in order to decipher what you meant by "bears little resemblance"

I have the book if you want me to check anything for you. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see user Sfarney did a lengthy hatchet job on the article in 2016; I'll check those edits next (for example, here they give a false reason for removing content) ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grorp I'm quite busy at the moment IRL (unfortunate timing on my part starting this reassessment now Lol) so I can't check everything you changed, but the changes overall seem to be good improvements, thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, apart from the lead, which could be a bit longer, the work you have done means that the article as now seen is coherent, covers "the main points", and is fully cited, so not much seems seriously wrong. I'd have thought you could just extend the lead a little (I could even do that, at a pinch: ping me if that's needed) and the article can remain as a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you are !voting KEEP? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap @Grorp FWIW my problems with it have been solved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. Then you can simply withdraw, i.e. close the GAR now as KEEP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (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.