Talk:Zimbabwe/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The article contains maintenance banners that are still valid in numerous sections, for over an year. Section Colonial era and Rhodesia (1888–1964) is tagged as needing additional references, with inline {{cn}} tags identifying the issues as early as 2015. The same goes for section UDI and civil war (1965–1980), although it does not have individual tags, it clearly needs additional references, as there are entire paragraphs unreferenced. Sections Geography and environment and the Flora and fauna sub-section are tagged as having no references for over a year and still lack them. Section Human rights, Armed forces, and Tourism are also tagged as in need of further referencing for over a year, and also with individual tags indicating that an update is needed in some aspects. Finally, the article itself is tagged as documenting a current event, and given the recent edit history, it's no longer stable. For these reasons I believe the article does not meet GA criteria anymore. I haven't made major contributions to the article nor am I very familiar with the subject to fix everything that has to be fixed myself, so I ask for input from the other editors if the GA status should be revoked or if the problems can be fixed. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnalia0, please be sure to notify the Zimbabwe WikiProject about your reassessment, and give them seven days to respond, even if they aren't as active as they once were. If no one does show up to begin addressing the issues raised—and there are many of them, especially regarding unreferenced sections and paragraphs—then I don't see any choice but to delist. Please note that being templated as documenting a current event is not grounds for delisting, nor are constructive edits to update the article accordingly. Improvements are not considered instability, though edit wars, if they are occurring and continue to occur, could be. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Saturnalia0: What is the current status of this reassessment? AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Abandoned. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, perhaps this should be converted to a community reassessment? On the other hand, there are indeed many sections with minimal or no inline source citations, and quite a few "citation needed" templates, so there clearly are problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would just delist it. It needs a lot of work and will likely sit in the community assessment pool for a few months before someone gets around to it (although I am trying to be more proactive). That alright by you Saturnalia0. AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]