Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Geliyoo/1

Geliyoo

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: Kept - while participants agree it would be nice if the article were more broad, no evidence of omitted references were found. The other two proposed reasons for a delist are not supported by the WP:GA criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I came across this page reading through the engineering and technology GA pages, and think it still may need some work.

Having read the page, I'm not confident the page is broad enough in content. The whole company history is covered in a couple of short paragraphs, and quite a lot of detail of interest is skipped over (ranging from more on the founders, early days, iterations, scaling up etc).
The article could be illustrated, which it currently isn't (and the logo not having the background removed could be fixed to make the page cleaner).
I think more citations would be great too, to illustrate the topic. Possibly use of quotes.

To me, the page feels like it would fit B-class. Would be great to get some community insight. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the notification. I did the GA review, and I agree it would be nice to have more company history, but I was unable to find evidence that sources had been omitted. The scandals are what seems to have made it newsworthy, and I think it's likely there's little or no other coverage. Lack of coverage of an area doesn't make an article ineligible for GA, so I don't think there's a problem there. That also means more citations are not very likely to be found. Illustrations are not required for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So first, I honestly couldn't care if this was delisted. I'm not active here anymore, though having it stay would be nice.

For more history, there is nothing to add if you don't want to use paid-for non-RS sources. Several of these were removed during the GAN. As said above, the main reason why this company is known is because of the scandal. There are a few RS from before that, and those are already in the article.
A screenshot of the main page was suggested on the GAN, but that's currently blanked. I can't think of anything else to add.
Partially the same as the first note: no sources. For quotes—I don't know what you'd want. There are a few quotes from the owners, but I don't see them being really encyclopedic.

So yeah, those are my two cents. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, if anyone was wondering, the whole point of getting this to GA status was to run it on DYK with the criticizing hook. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:56, 5 December 2022 (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.