124:
This article was promoted back in 2007 upon its second nomination. Even then, the promotion was controversial because of perceived issues with the sourcing. Looking at this today, there are major sourcing issues, some of which I have highlighted by adding maintenance templates to the article. Large
156:
In its present form this article falls far short of GA requirements. Much of the original research and synthesis, especially in the
Variants section, is unlikely to be sourceable to anything reliable, and I'd suggest stripping all that out as a first step. Much of the rest (scientific rather than
171:
Some parts almost certainly are sourceable. I expect that the article would fail the broadness criterion if all the dubious material were removed (in fact, it might already do so). I agree that removing it would be a good first step, but I don't think it would be sufficient to meet the criteria.
125:
portions of the article are unsourced. Several references are to sources that do not appear to be reliable. Spotchecking sources reveals both material failing verification and plagiarism. The article consists to a large extent of
133:, where sources are used to verify the underlying factual basis for the assertions made in the article (rather than verifying the assertions themselves) in a manner one would expect to find in an essay, rather than being cited
157:
fictional/speculative) looks better, and there might just possibly be enough of that to save the article. Before things are removed wholesale - does anyone think the tagged material is at all sourceable?
80:
17:
76:
61:
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
193:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
53:
113:
126:
181:
166:
150:
117:
109:
162:
177:
173:
146:
142:
130:
158:
69:
206:
200:
138:
46:
107:: Problems with OR, and plagiarism, and general sourcing issues. Delisted.
96:
88:
57:
8:
134:
7:
35:The following discussion is closed.
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
24:
189:The discussion above is closed.
97:Watch article reassessment page
1:
182:16:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
167:17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
151:23:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
118:18:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
223:
191:Please do not modify it.
37:Please do not modify it.
135:in context and on topic
100:• GAN review not found
110:~~ AirshipJungleman29
129:by way of editorial
127:WP:Original research
38:
36:
214:
108:
99:
93:
84:
65:
222:
221:
217:
216:
215:
213:
212:
211:
197:
196:
195:
194:
103:
95:
74:
51:
45:
41:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
220:
218:
210:
209:
199:
198:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
122:
121:
120:
101:
42:
33:
32:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
219:
208:
205:
204:
202:
192:
183:
179:
175:
170:
169:
168:
164:
160:
155:
154:
153:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
92:
91:
87:
82:
78:
73:
72:
68:
63:
59:
55:
50:
49:
44:
43:
40:
29:
26:
19:
190:
159:MichaelMaggs
131:WP:Synthesis
123:
104:
89:
85:
71:Article talk
70:
66:
47:
34:
28:Dyson sphere
27:
58:visual edit
174:TompaDompa
143:TompaDompa
141:mandates.
201:Category
81:history
62:history
48:Article
207:GAR/69
139:WP:NOR
105:Result
90:Watch
16:<
178:talk
163:talk
147:talk
114:talk
77:edit
54:edit
137:as
203::
180:)
165:)
149:)
116:)
94:•
79:|
60:|
56:|
176:(
161:(
145:(
112:(
86:·
83:)
75:(
67:·
64:)
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.