Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Saxophone/1

Saxophone

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted per comments below. Uncited sentences needing citation per 1b can be found e.g., in the "history", "description" and "similar instruments" sections, and some sources may not be reliable. Geometry guy 22:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one source for the entire first three paragraphs of "history". That's not nearly enough IMO.
First paragraph of "description" is also unsourced, as is "Most commonly, however, the alto and tenor saxophones incorporate a curved 'crook' above the highest tone hole but below the top speaker hole, tilting the mouthpiece through 90 degrees; the baritone, bass and contrabass extend the length of the bore by triple-folding this section."
Redlink to P. Mauriat. It should be determined if this is a necessary link.
Third-party links in the text (Bauhaus Walstein under "Materials").
[citation needed] tag under Ensembles. This section also begins with a one-sentence paragraph.
Second and third paragraphs of "similar instruments" are unsourced.
"Composition" section is entirely unsourced.
A large number of references are bare URLs.
"The Raschèr,[24] Amherst,[25] Aurelia,[26] Amstel, Rova, Prism, and H2 Saxophone Quartets are among the best known groups." — this is sourced entirely to primary sources. Could a secondary source be found?
Dubious sources: What makes the following reliable? I see no evidence that these are sites by reliable authors with a history of fact-checking or accuracy:
At least three citations are simply individual pictures on slides, with no text accompanying. These citations are inherently WP:OR.

Overall, the article is quite terribly sourced in my opinion. There is a list of print references at the bottom, but none of them seem to be used within the article itself. How this ever got to GA, even by 2008 standards, is beyond me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so far from meeting the GA criteria, why do you not delist it yourself, using an individual reassessment? Geometry guy 23:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. Prose is al right, but there are big sourcing and comprehensiveness problems etc. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]