Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Giselle/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: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This article contains uncited statements throughout the article. Also, the "Early productions" section needs to be better organised, with more recent examples being included in this section. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting tidbit for onlookers: this article was chiefly authored by one of Wikipedia's worst and most prolific LTAs. As for uncited statements, I'm seeing the "Early productions" section; the "Sets and costumes" (1st para); "Additions to the score" (1st para & para before this section). I don't think the Synopsis needs citations. Aza24 (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Did this ever go through the CCI? If not, this should be presumptively delisted? This LTA has had serious copyright violation issues. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm not as far as I know. I do recall that the LTA claimed ballet knowledge as one of their many personas, so it's not impossible that they did know about the subject. Does CCI typically require proven examples of copyright before initiation? Or is a certain pattern of editing enough? Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I believe Wizardman is more familiar with the ItsLassieTime situation. Hog Farm Talk 01:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm not as far as I know. I do recall that the LTA claimed ballet knowledge as one of their many personas, so it's not impossible that they did know about the subject. Does CCI typically require proven examples of copyright before initiation? Or is a certain pattern of editing enough? Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Did this ever go through the CCI? If not, this should be presumptively delisted? This LTA has had serious copyright violation issues. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Per above, it looks like the primary editor was User:SeeSpot Run, who was indeed a sock of ILT. Unfortunately that was a later sockpuppet (the CCI was basically on all the 2010 and earlier socks) so I don't think those edits were ever closely looked at. Honestly I'd delist it for that reason alone, with the issues above being of course their own problem as well. Wizardman 01:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delist given the inherent concerns with the ILT authorship, in the manner of WP:DCGAR. Hog Farm Talk 19:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'd say Speedy delist as well then. Best to play it safe here, and it would take a tremendous amount of editor time to review the article line by line. Aza24 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 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.