Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Golubac Fortress/1
=[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Golubac Fortress/1|Golubac Fortress]]=
{{atopr}}
: {{al|Golubac Fortress|noname=yes}} • • GAN review not found
: {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Good article reassessment/Golubac Fortress/1|Category:GAR/77}} Result: More than a week, no stated intention of fixing article nor effort to do so. Delisted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
One of the GAs from the 2023 GA Sweeps listing. This 2007 promotion last formally reviewed in 2008 contains some uncited material, but more importantly, as I noted on the article's talk page in March, many of the web sources used are of questionable reliability. Hog Farm Talk 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:Delist: in addition to the issues above, which are serious enough in themselves, it also blanket-cites two Wikipedia pages with an editorial note. This is suboptimal practice on a number of levels and means that it now fails the citation requirements of the GA criteria. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:Delist: for the reasons stated by Hog Farm and UndercoverClassicist. Not only are there sources of dubious reliability, most sources are foreign language sources. I think it is safe to assume that there are only a few users who can access, understand and determine the reliability of the sources. Unless someone objects and will make an effort to improve the article in the near future, I doubt that deficiencies in the article will be remedied. It may have potential but I think it is not up to current GA standards in its current state. Donner60 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}