Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Demarest Building/1

Demarest Building

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: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As part of WP:DCGAR, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR to prevent it from being mass-delisted. I have a concern that the article may not cover all major aspects of the subject. The building is over 130 years old but has only three paragraphs about its history; there is a huge gap from 1920 to 2010. It may be the case that this gap exists because the subject may not be notable, but either way, I do not think it is broad enough to meet the GA criteria. Epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this can be accessed and looked at, chunks of content here may need to be deleted per WP:PDEL:

"Demarest Building". Las Cruces Sun-News. September 18, 1972. p. 11.

The problem I've seen in much of DC's work is that he sometimes lifted content from one source, but then cited it to another, so getting access to that source will matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding dates for

https://vdoc.pub/documents/famous-first-facts-a-record-of-first-happenings-discoveries-and-inventions-in-american-history-7rrvgckm7te0

Did we copy from them or they from us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the aforementioned issues, some of the content cited to https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/realestate/03scap.html does not seem to be in that source, raising the question of whether some of that content was lifted from elsewhere and then cited to the NYT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I belatedly noticed the source-text integrity issues as well. The NYT source is used to cite the fact that the building was designed in the Beaux-Arts style, but not only does the source not say that, the image does not even resemble a Beaux-Arts building. Anyone with moderate knowledge of architecture, or anyone clicking through the link to Beaux-Arts architecture, would have noticed this apparent discrepancy - the sketch in the article resembles a Romanesque or Renaissance structure more than it does a Beaux-Arts structure. I can only assume that DC saw "Beaux-Arts" further down in the NYT article and believed that this was the style used for the Demarest Building. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's as messed up as DC's articles usually are, and large portions may need WP:PDEL; sorry for the disappointing news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, all the usual needs to be checked here; that is, a line-by-line check of source-to-text integrity and for copyvio is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: can I delist, or do you intent to bring the article back up to GA level? Femke (alt) (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke (alt) and Femke:, yeah, you can delist the article. I may bring this page back to GA later, depending on how much information I find and how much time I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 20 February 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.