Bobby Kay

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No action. Reliance on one source is not per se a GA issue. In this case, additional sources have been found, so the issue is moot. A fresh GAN review is needed in any case. Geometry guy 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was failed for not meeting the criteria for verifiability. The concern was that too much of the article is attributed to the same source. I feel that this is in error because this concern is unrelated to the criteria listed under the verifiability requirements. Furthermore, while I agree that one source has been used quite a bit, I disagree that the article relies too heavily on that source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Currently about a half of the content relies on ref1, at most. I do not think that this is an impediment to its promotion to GA. Ruslik_Zero 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with Ruslik that this is not a GA issue. However, the article needs to be reviewed again, and has not received in depth comments here. I therefore recommend renomination at GAN: subsequent reviewers can be pointed to this reassessment if they are concerned about the reliance on this source. If there are no objections, I will close this reassessment as no action. Geometry guy 23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not thrilled with the idea. I waited 31 days for the initial review, 8 days trying to get a response from an absentee reviewer, and 20 days waiting for comments on the reassessment. It was nominated in November, it's almost February, and the idea of waiting another 30 to 60 days to get an actual review holds no appeal for me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I sympathise, but the popularity of GA and the shortage of reviewers impacts both at GAR and GAN. You have an offer from Wizardman to look at the article, which you might still be able to take up. Geometry guy 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have time tomorrow to review the article. If no one objects, I'll review it. I've gotten countless articles to GA, FA, and FL, so I understand what a good article is. Would be happy to help.--WillC 08:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Many thanks! I'm happy to close this GAR on that basis. Geometry guy 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Closing anyway per previous comments. I hope you or Wizardman will have time to review the article in the near future. Geometry guy 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]