Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lois Riess/1

Lois Riess

Article (edit | Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Spotchecks by myself and Cielquiparle have revealed significant integrity problems with the citations provided, in that they often do not verify the content they're attached to. A citation spotcheck does not appear to have been done in the GAR by 750h+. This was first discussed at the DYK nom for this article, where the nom was closed as a fail on these grounds. Further discussion with Afrowriter on the talk page hasn't resolved these issues to my satisfaction. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenpop421 For real, to your satisfaction? You can also make your statement and nomination without saying that, "I don’t edit Wikipedia to cater to your satisfaction, nor am I obligated to create articles for your approval. That said, every detail and piece of information in the article is supported by inline citations, and they align with every spot-check performed. If you believe something isn’t right, feel free to edit it yourself—I have better things to do than argue over this for weeks. Cheers, and happy editing! Afro 📢Talk! 19:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright, @Afrowriter:. I've said my piece and we can go our separate ways. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way you did put your message sounded like i am suppose to take permision from you before editing or publishing an article . @Tenpop421 Afro 📢Talk! 19:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend it like that, my apologies Tenpop421 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenpop421 @Grumpylawnchair i have fixed and replace or supported the tagged sections with reliable source please confirm Afro 📢Talk! 13:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Tenpop421: @Afrowriter: I added some unreliable source templates since it is not ideal to use infotainment sites for a BLP GA and Metro should not be used for BLPs, per WP:METRO. Grumpylawnchair (talk)

Spot checks

Verification fails on the "Early life" section current version

Footnotes Done

Footnote Done

i.e., 9 out of 10 of the citations in the "Early life" section fail to verify some of the content they are attached to. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenpop421 Cross check when you are less busy Afro 📢Talk! 08:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work to verify these! I will when I have some free time. Tenpop421 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Spot checks look good to me now. I will get to the other sections when I can. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenpop421 Hello friend whats the update on this ? Afro 📢Talk! 12:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afrowriter: I apologise, things have really gotten too busy recently. I should be able to get to this by this weekend. Apologies again, Tenpop421 (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]