Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bruce Willis/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Delisted after almost two months at GAR without any "keep" votes, and there has been no effort at all to address the concerns outlined below since this was opened. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This article passed GA in 2007 (oldid) – see Talk:Bruce Willis/Archive 1#GA pass for the review. As more information about the subject has become available, the article has since been expanded with additional details, and as an unfortunate consequence, I think the additions have detracted from the quality of the article. Additionally, in the 11 years since we passed this article, some of our policies regarding reliable sources have shifted. The main impetus for this GAR was the dependence of several portions of this article on a Daily Mail article – the Daily Mail is nowadays discouraged as a citation on Wikipedia per this 2017 RfC, and it should be replaced where possible.
There are also a few other questionable sources, such as this "celebrityness.com" article (website is now dead). There are several {{citation needed}} tags sprinkled throughout the article that need attention, and IMDB is cited quite a few times, which may or may not be appropriate. Particularly for things like awards that probably have sourcing elsewhere, I think if this is to be a good article, we should seek to replace IMDB with something that's not user-generated. Also, the lead section doesn't seem to adequately cover the content of the body – I could plausibly add {{Lead too short}} and have the tag stick. Mz7 (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)