Talk:Black Lives Matter/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

CLOSED

Editor proposing reassessment has apparently abandoned this. They haven't responded to multiple pings here or at the article talk. It's been nearly three months. Stated concerns have been addressed. Closing this as passing GA. —valereee (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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
Black Lives Matter currently has 3 banners, one at the top for it being "too long" and another for questionable neutrality and also an update section banner. Also there are a couple of 'clarification needed' tags. Having these do not meet GA criteria and should no longer include a GA icon.Tinton5 (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article has also (unsurprisingly) suffered from tendentious and POV-pushing editing, especially recently. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an easy removal of GA status. It clearly fails to meet the precise standards needed for good article status, and I'd argue that the page should be bumped all the way down to C quality. Jdcomix (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all are aware that Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is against the way y'all are trying to take down this article, right? It says, "Unless an article's issues are extensive, consider taking the following steps before initiating a reassessment: Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it."

This article has minor issues. It doesn't need delisting to fix them. Just clean them up. I'm against delisting this article. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article only has see two banners right now. One about updating and one about a section not being neutral. I have yet to peep on the talk page to see why that neutral tag is there, but the neutral tag might be bogus. So far, weak arguments have been put forth for delisting this page. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, there are only two banners, neither top level, neither inherently disqualifying of its GA status. There are a handful of issues, which should be either easily fixed, or discussed on the talk page. There is nothing here that does not fundamentally meet the GA requirements, or could not easily be fixed. I will try my hand at cleaning a few things up, and invite others to do the same. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the one "clarification needed" tag by majorly reworking said paragraph. I have also opened a talk page discussion about the one section level POV tag. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the update needed tag, there've been multiple updates to multiple subsections there —valereee (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a week of no response I've removed the POV tag. —valereee (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tinton5 are you still working on this? —valereee (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tinton5 do you have any objection to my removing the reassessment tag from the article? —valereee (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support closing this reassessment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 20 October 2020 (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.