Talk:Varanasi/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has a lot of verification problems and does not deserve the GA status. User:Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier assessment is at Talk:Varanasi/GA1. Difference between that version and this is here. I don't think that two other currently active editors, User:Rosiestep and User:Ipigott, were notified. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ikhtiar H: I think it would be useful if you could point to the problems you think need attention. Perhaps we could sort them out without a reassessment. Unfortunately the two main editors of the article are no longer active. cc (User:Rosiestep)--Ipigott (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott Unfortunately, I cannot really be specific with the problems; I will try my best to point out the issues over the next few days. However, one clear-cut reasoning for this reassessment is the number of WP:CITENEED added ever since its GA review in August 2015. If I were to give an overview as a casual reader, I would say it looks engaging (especially the lead section). It is understandable that verifying information and adding sources is not that simple, but this article can stay GA if someone is willing to make the changes. I am now leaving this on hold for a couple of weeks, maybe even a month. Ikhtiar H (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ikhtiar H: You are quite right about the Citeneeds but I see that in all cases the additions were made after the GA review. I'll see if I can find sources justifying them, otherwise the text will just have to be deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the citation problem and see that ORES now again rates the article as GA (5.19). I therefore see no further need for a reassessment. Thank you Doug Weller for bringing the problem to my attention.--Ipigott (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems convincing to remain GA. Regardless, I still think the article requires engagement and I highly recommend a peer review. Nonetheless, thanks for your contributions Ipigott! Ikhtiar H (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]