Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GA/D)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
  4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
    • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
  4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. Crash Bandicoot (character) 2024-04-28
  2. Leeds Country Way 2024-06-27
  3. Louvre 2024-08-11
  4. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  5. Pest control 2024-08-22
  6. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
  7. Bleeding Through 2024-09-15
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

Articles listed for reassessment

Battle of Britain (1985 video game)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article has had an orange "factual accuracy is disputed" banner at the top of the page since 2017. Since that remains unresolved, I am nominating it for GAR. Z1720 (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(quick skimmed through it) It might need more details overall, especially about its development and modern-day reception; as for the dispute (and as someone that is unfamiliar with these C64 strategy games), the Gameplay section appears to be written as well as it could be, describing key aspects of the game's modes and presentation. Are you sure it could note more clearly that it's based on the actual battle? Overall, the article does appear to address the main aspects of the topic; perhaps a little trimming at Gameplay will suffice. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 23:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page has a comment from the editor who added the disputed banner: Talk:Battle of Britain (1985 video game)#Disputed. I addressed the release date when I edited the article last year but I didn't touch the gameplay section. --Mika1h (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist This one seems to have been a faulty initial review, as many of the claims in gameplay, even in the original approved version, are outright made up and not mentioned in the cited source. Without a complete once-over it should not be a GA by any stretch of the imagination. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I did the GA Assessment for this article over nine years ago under my old username, and as my assessment states I was concerned about the lack of production information at the time. As I also noted at the time, I eventually chose not to penalise the GA nomination on the grounds there were no available sources. While I did question the relevance of the generic background section, the nominator rebutted my concerns, and I decided not to challenge it further as they had considerably more experience editing video game articles than I did, but I do indeed agree with the bold edit made last year removing this section. You'd have to check in with WikiProject Video games about whether a lack of available information on production automatically renders the article ineligible for GA status. I honestly don't know, I'm not overly active with any Wiki projects these days, though I note standards have risen considerably in Project Video games in the last decade since I did this review. If the fact a production section simply cannot be created due to a lack of available sources makes this article ineligible for GA, by all means, delist it.
As my review notes, I went through the reception references in detail to verify things, but I did indeed assume good faith of the nominators descriptions of gameplay as they were an established editor in the relevant project. I probably presumed they obtained the uncited information from playing the game, had no reason at the time to think that such an established editor would have "outright made up" gameplay, and also thought non-controversial descriptions could be sourced to the game itself as per WP:PRIMARY, in the same way that plots are. I try not to assume bad faith.
Bultro made a dispute in 2017, though nobody acknowledged the dispute until last year. Not surprisingly, the article doesn't get many viewers or edits; I didn't add it to my watch-list after doing the GA review, so I never saw the tag or comments until today. If the gameplay is inaccurate, I would absolutely encourage Bultro to fix it. If they aren't able to do that for any reason, is there a way to play this game today, such as with emulation? If so, I'd encourage you to find someone who has the time to play it, weigh in on the accuracy allegations, and make any required changes. Unless the lack of production coverage makes this ineligible for GA, I'm not seeing why simply addressing the dispute one person has made wouldn't save this from being de-listed. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as perfectly said by Zxcvbnm.
    Sorry about not warning you in 2017 or not fixing (sort of rewriting) the article myself, I'm just not a regular contributor of en.wiki. If you want a correct description of the gameplay you can see the article I wrote on it.wiki, based on both written sources (manual and magazine reviews) and checking the real game in action. I don't know if fixing the errors would be enough to save from delisting, but certainly there are tons of better pages around to enlist. Bultro (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely don't owe me an apology for not telling me about the dispute, or for not fixing it yourself. You don't have to fix anything you don't want to. But no one, including the original nominator, has raised a specific issue other than the alleged inaccuracy. In other words, no one has provided any specific reasoning for why fixing this lone issue wouldn't save it from delisting. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "lone" issue is an entire section (half the page) with many errors, which doesn't make me trust very much in the other section too. And there was another issue, the "development" section which was actually chatter, now fixed by full deletion, so there's not much left--Bultro (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Damien Linnane: Would you be willing to fix up the article to address the concerns? Editors have brought up concerns about how the text of this article does not match the sources: this needs to be resolved before I can endorse a "keep", and the availability of a good version in another language is not enough for me to endorse a keep on English Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Cheney

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

There are many short one-or-two-sentence paragraphs throughout the article. This makes the information difficult to read, and I am not sure that all of them are necessary in the article. These should be formatted better or evaluated for their inclusion. There is not much information about his early political career before his election to the House of Representatives. Is there any important information about the House campaign that should be included? The "Aftermath" section is almost entirely block quotes, which lowers readability for readers. I suggest that this information be summarised and removed or reduced. There is uncited prose throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beholder (horse)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The "Breeding career" section is unsourced and reads like a list because there are multiple one-sentence paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article as "Backgound" and "Breeding career" information is missing. Z1720 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like scads of cruft has been added since the GAN.[1] Will do a simple revert for now. Montanabw(talk) 18:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up did some extensive cleanup to remove the fancruft. Look better now? Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Montanabw: It looks much better. Was any of the removed information important information to keep for completeness? Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is there any post-2016 information to add to the article? Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I took all the breeding history stuff and consolidated what was actually notable — with sources — into the section I renamed “honors and legacy”. I also added the 2022 Hall of Fame indiction there, in the lede and in the infobox.Let me know if that works. Montanabw(talk) 03:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Phua

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article was promoted in 2009 and appears to have been the target of conflict of interest editing recently. In particular, these series of edits by Chocomudpie removed criticism about Phua and also information about her going against the party line. It also introduced puffery especially in the "Mayor of Central Singapore District" section. As such I believe the article now fails criteria 1b (particularly on words to watch), 3 (broad in its coverage, as it now omits criticism) and 4 (neutral). Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 04:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actinide

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The article contains uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead is quite long and should probably be reduced. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk carrier

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

There has been an "additional citations needed" orange banner at the top of the article since July 2023, and uncited statements throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

The article has several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. I don't think the lead summarises all major aspects of the article. The formatting could also be improved. Some sections are quite long and could be broken up with additional headings (my recommendation is four paragraphs maximum under each heading) while the "Top-fermented beers" section has short one-or-two line paragraphs that should be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well this was quite the mess. I've done a fair bit of tidying-up, reduced overlap with Brewing, added refs, edited, closed up, and extended the lead. I think it's serviceable now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anggun

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There are several very large paragraphs in the article, which makes the prose hard to read. I suggest that these are broken up into smaller paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, this article has too much detail and is WP:TOOBIG. A subject-matter expert could severely trim the content. There are some uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the article by 20%, splitting off the absurdly long philanthropy chapter, copy-editing, cutting off-topic materials (like lists of other performers), and removing uncited claims. If anybody wants to go further, they're welcome. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodoo Gurus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. There is no information post-2020, and the article seems to be missing several sections that might be included, like "Legacy" or "Musical style". Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Hughes Cannon

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The article uses a lot of long paragraphs. These should be broken up into smaller paragraphs to help with readability. This includes the lead and the first paragraph of "Plural marriage and exile". On the other end of the spectrum, "Legacy and honors" is a list of disjointed entries that are not formatted correctly. I suggest that this be rewritten as prose. There are also uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the note at WT:MED. I have to confess that this doesn't strike me as a list of very significant problems.
The lead is a single paragraph of 220 words, which is a not-unreasonable size for a paragraph (in academic writing; bloggers are doubtless encouraged to have shorter paragraphs). The first paragraph of ==Plural marriage and exile==, at ~440 words, did strike me as long, but that was easily fixed by pressing the Return button once. If you feel that the lead paragraph should also be split, then I encourage you to go find some plausible spot in that paragraph and press the Return button yourself.
==Legacy and honors== sections are frequently presented as lists. I searched for "Legacy and honors", checked the first five articles in the results, and found that three were bulleted lists and two were prose. The tendency towards being disjointed is probably due to the facts, as there's no obvious way to unify so many disparate things (e.g., there's a statue...they lobbied for a stamp...someone else used her as a character in a play...).
I grant that using - formatting instead of * is not how we do things on wiki, but having an IP editor not know how to wikify a list is not really grounds for de-listing. I've fixed it. It took me about 30 seconds.
As for the uncited statements, every paragraph (but not the first bullet point in the ==Legacy and honors== section, which was added just a couple of months ago) contains at least one inline citation, and I suspect that those (especially the books) cover more than just the single sentence the citation is attached to. Perhaps, if you are interested, you would check those sources and duplicate the citations. Unfortunately, earlier this year, we ran off the editor most likely to volunteer to do this for you, so if you want it done, you're probably going to have to do it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z, I appreciate the work that you've done with taking deficient older GAs to GAR, but I don't think this one needed it. Paragraph length is easily fixable and doesn't warrant delisting. Likewise, the legacy and honors listing formatting issues were easily fixable and not worth delisting over. The uncited text is not particularly significant in quantity or claims here. I'm at a keep with this one. It's not perfect, but not so deficient that I think it ought to be delisted. Hog Farm Talk 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm and WhatamIdoing: While some editors have wanted me to WP:BEBOLD, there have been times in the past when I follow that advice I am critised for making changes without being a subject-matter expert. This is why I am more willing to bring an article to GAR instead. Another reason to bring this article to GAR is to find someone who will adopt the article and ensure that it is maintained after the GAR is complete: an editor who makes the fixes now is more likely to check in on the article after changes are made to ensure that it maintains its quality. This article might have been smaller fixes than other articles, but if nominated now at GAN I am not sure that it would pass with the problems it possesses. I'm happy that this article has some easy fixes and hope this can continue. I added cn tags to the places where they might be needed. Z1720 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dealt with three of the four CN tags. The other one is not very significant and the information can be removed if nobody can find a good source. I did have to resort to LDS Living for one of the citations, though. BetterDays2020 should probably be replaced as a source - it's currently a double citation for a statement, although I have no idea if the other citation covers all of the information. utahbecky.com is the website of Becky Edwards (politician) so I think that one is fine for what is being sourced to it (information about a political caucus). Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are editors who are critical about everything – even for following policies and processes correctly (but not according to that editor's mistaken ideas of what's right) – but I doubt that anyone would criticize you for fixing list formatting.
Since the kerfuffle earlier this year about LDS editors, I doubt that anyone will be willing to adopt this article, or any other article about LDS subjects. I do appreciate you adding fact tags to show the specific concerns; that really can be a helpful contribution (especially when it's just four, and not, say, 40). I found sources about the health building, though neither of them specify the date of the dedication ceremony itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding Through

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

I have been aware of this article for some time, but have been reluctant to bring it forward to GAR. It is the last surviving music-related A-Class article, is a band I enjoy listening to, and for a while I believed I could save it. Alas, it has caught the attention of the community, and I believe that the time has come to restore it or delist.

When I was new to Wikipedia 10 years ago, this article was in good shape, and the band broke up only months into my time as a Wikipedian. Time has not treated the band's article kindly; they faded into obscurity while inactive, then regrouped and never really regained the spotlight, and consequently, proper care on Wikipedia. The GA nominator has been retired some 15 years.

The main concerns initially brought forward were lack of sourcing (2c), unreliable sourcing (2b), and a lead that's too short (1b). I personally that the article's breadth of coverage is suspect in its current state (3a), but the previous issues I would agree are the primary issues.

I believe this can be saved with some work, but I am probably too busy to do it alone in a reasonable amount of time, and would welcome any who are interested in assisting me. Also @Z1720: here we go. Sorry, been a very very very busy week. mftp dan oops 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the prose in this article is, at times, less than satisfactory, but I am up to the task. mftp dan oops 22:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a significant improvement to the lead. It is not quite what I'd consider ideal, as I need to read the rest of the article, but I took some notes from the original GA version (yes, believe it or not that old piece of 2007 junk helped) and it's certainly not as bad before. mftp dan oops 00:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Contest

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

There is uncited text throughout the article, especially in the "References in other works" section, and concerns about WP:POPCULTURE cruft. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned the article a bit but I agree that it doesn't seem GA level. Some of the sources seem very low quality. Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R v R

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The article contains many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The article also relies too heavily on block quotes, which make the text harder to read. This would be better if it was summarised as prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, there's tons of OR, and it would need to be completely rewritten and then go through a new GA review to ensure it's up to GA standards. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did have my concerns when the content in question was added but sadly I neglected to act on it and it snowballed from there. I have taken the BOLD move to remove all of the Primary and unsourced additions and restored it back to what it was prior to all these being added. So now its much closer to what it was when it was passed for GA status. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts and Z1720: does the above resolve your concerns? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. Refs 1,2,3, and 5 are all primary sources. Refs 4 and 6 are broken links. There's a lack of secondary source discussion, whih means this article does not cover major aspects of the case. Additionally, the History section has only one secondary source citation (ref 4) and the Judgment section is entirely sourced to the judgment itself, which in my view (and other editors at WP:LAW) is OR. I would almost certainly quickfail this article if it were brought to GAN today. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more sources and attached archive copies for broken links. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article. Some sections rely upon block quotes, which create copyright concerns, make the text more difficult to read, and increase the word count. This information might be better summarized in prose. The article, at over 11,000 words, is above the recommended length at WP:TOOBIG, I think summarising most of the block quotes will resolve this, but I think information can be spun out. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: you're our foremost expert(/masochist) at crafting articles on these large, philosophical concepts. No pressure to participate in this process, but just flagging it in case it piqued your interest. Ajpolino (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I agree with the points raised by Z1720. The lead covers only the problem of definition and there are several unreferenced passages and unnecessary quotes that should be replaced by regular prose. These points could be addressed in the scope of the GAR, but given the length of the article, this is not a quick fix. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the length, although I would not flunk it on just this basis if the reference issues were resolved.
Also, whatever the outcome of the rating reassessment, rewriting the lead would be a major improvement to the article. I'm not volunteering, but I think it would be possible to do a pretty good job in less than an hour.
If no one takes this on during the GAR, maybe consider sharing on the talk page? It's not often you encounter an active solicitation to rewrite the lead of such a general article. Someone will step up. Patrick (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Patrick Welsh: GARs are transcluded onto article talk pages, so this information will be there. You could also start a new section for the lead on the talk page, as it might lead to collaboration. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inanna

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The lead is quite long: is all of this information in the body of the article? Is all of this information necessary in the lead? There is also uncited text in the article, and the "In popular culture" is written as a list, which would be better written as prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. However, not exactly for the suggested reasons - a bigger issue is that much of the article predominantly depends on low quality sources and doesn't accurately reflect academic consensus. World History Encyclopedia is a mess predominantly written by non-specialists; publications from the 1960s and even earlier are considerably outdated; some self-published essay entitled "The History and Arts of the Dominatrix" has no place in an assyriological article; and so on.
This is a problem with a number of major deity articles - the other major offenders are Enki (even worse than Inanna), Adad (irresponsibly merged with Hadad into a wastebasket article), Nabu, Enlil and Ninurta.
Obsessive references to "fertility" are an issue, too. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RSN discussions of World History Encyclopedia:
Consensus seems to be that it's not reliable. Apocheir (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Link to the first time it went to GAR. I don't think that closure as keep was appropriate: instead of resolving the questions, the discussion became muddled and everyone gave up on it (including me, to be fair). The article still has pervasive neutrality and reliable sources problems, and possible original research problems. More issues have been raised on the talk page since the first GAR. I have little confidence that much will be resolved this time either, so I'm putting in a preliminary vote for delisting. If the article improves enough, I'll strike it. Apocheir (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link to Talk:Inanna/GA1 and Talk:Inanna/GA2 for good measure. It might be worth mentioning that the user who did the original GA reviews has been blocked since late 2018. Apocheir (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue not all of the talk page concerns seem equally sensible (ex. complaints about Gary Beckman, a reliable, well established author in a relevant field) - some of the complaints boil down to people being upset that academic sources do not support their ideas. The most recent ones are definitely valid, though, like the discussion of dubious flood myth coverage and the highly questionable interpretation of the "Queen of the Night" relief. This definitely lends further validity to the need for reassessment. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I gave it a lookover. I will leave aside the fact that I have always thought Ištar should have her own article because every town X I look at seems to own a Ištar of X. :-) Anyway, the article reads like something that was originaly cribbed from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica back in the day and then reffed to a fair thee well. The Date section is puzzling, beginning in the Ubaid and ending at the end of Ur III. And, frankly, and yes I know it is an important topic, the article is much too long. Lastly, I agree fully that some of the refs, like the world history thing, are soft.Ploversegg (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact the article doesn't really dedicate much space to the matter of names and the splitting off of local forms is a problem in itself - it seems like this is one of the more significant topics in recent (1990s-now) scholarship (ex. Beckman's Ishtar of Nineveh Reconsidered; Nevling Poster's Ishtar of Nineveh and Her Collaborator, Ishtar of Arbela, in the Reign of Assurbanipal; Allen's The Splintered Divine; and so on), and there are multiple other articles which go into the details.
I wouldn't call it too long, but the priorities are definitely off; too many myth summaries which feel like a book report for school, too little actual data. Too long barely relevant sections about "later relevance" which are barely about the subject of the article, etc.
I think a problem is that due to the sheer scope of the article one person will have trouble with fixing it; same issue I ran into with Adad last year. I think we'd basically have to come together on the ANE project talk page to really plan how to remedy the situation. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar of Johor

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There is uncited text in the article, mostly in the "Legacy" and "Honours" sections. There are also citation needed tags in the article, and one was placed in Aug. 2020. The lead is a little long and some information can be cut. It also contains references, so I am not sure if all of this information is in the body of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sibu

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article has a yellow "travel guide" banner at the top of the article, which I agree with. The lead is extreamly long and there is uncited text in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Glenn Columbus International Airport

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There is uncited prose throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. There are short, one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article. These should be merged together or expanded upon. The lead does not cover all major aspects of the article and should be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, a Good Article should be relatively stable. Seeing the number of edits in 2024, that is not the case. And too many non-independent sources, i.e. from the airport itself or from airlines using the airport. The Banner talk 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

Lots of uncited text, including many entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might take on this, but it won't be quick. Much of the uncited stuff is pretty WP:SKYISBLUE, like this para:

All the medieval buildings that are now cathedrals of England were Roman Catholic in origin, as they predate the Reformation. All these buildings now serve the Church of England as a result of the change to the official religion of the country, which occurred in 1534 during the reign of Henry VIII.

Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, as well as the amount of unsourced commentary, the article lacks focus on its title, particularly the rambling historical background. Maybe it could instead be re-structured around common features in English cathedral buildings with contrasting examples of each feature. Clearly a lot of work has gone into the article which needs to be kept somehow but, over time, it seems to have drifted away from its initial aim. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way of doing it, perhaps not the best. But it doesn't really have a bearing here. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of what we'd need to do to keep it meeting the criteria. Currently, in my view, it has problems in 2b (inline sources) and 3b (staying focused). --Northernhenge (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "we", are you intending to do anything yourself? Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant “we” collectively – I’m happy to help as part of a group but it’s not a subject I know anything about really. I agree with your previous comment! --Northernhenge (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technique (newspaper)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

A 2007 GA promotion that survived the original late-aughts GA Sweeps project. Sadly, like a lot of the older Georgia Tech-related GAs and FAs (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Traditions of the Georgia Institute of Technology/1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tech Tower/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/ANAK Society/archive1, and a few others) this isn't at the modern quality content standards. There is unsourced text, out of date information such as 15 year old circulation figures, an excessive use of non-independent sourcing (a hallmark of the Georgia Tech articles from this era), weighting issue, and some source-text integrity concerns. There is more detail in the concerns I left on the talk page. Hog Farm Talk 03:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it lacks prose quality on a quick first glance:
  • Lack of neutrality: The first issue also featured an article by legendary football coach John Heisman
  • Weasel wording: Several sources claim that the Technique is among a number of student organizations to be founded by the ANAK Society
  • Lack of conciseness: The Technique has been published weekly ever since, except for a brief period that the paper was published twice weekly. This period ran from January 14, 1948, to September 6, 1956.
Since solving all the issues (esp. sourcing and weighting concerns) would require a substantial rewrite, I think this should be delisted in the near future if no one volunteers. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's All Over Now, Baby Blue

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There are several uncited statements. There are lots of one-sentence paragraphs which were not in the article when this passed GAN. Is all of this information notable Can all of this information be merged together into multi-sentence paragraphs? IMDB is used as a source, which is considered unreliable. Can another source be found to replace these? Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not just roll it back to an older version or trim out the unsourced/poorly sourced stuff? It doesn't strike me as insurmountable personally, especially considering I doubt there's many recent/new developments to be retained in a song like this... Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GA version from 2010 also used IMDB as a source, so that would need to be resolved. The uncited stuff could be trimmed out, but some of it might be necessary in the article for it to be complete: I'll let subject-matter experts decide that. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The unsourced one-line statements can mostly if not entirely be excised. The IMDB source seems to be limited to soundtracks, which can almost certainly be sourced elsewhere (e.g., the movie credits) and if not those are not essential to the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if its at full FA/MOS-level acceptance, but generally speaking, the music WikiProjects don't even require sources for track listing unless they're unreleased or particularly contentious for some reason. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to work on the article. I think rolling it back risks losing some useful info such as the 2015 release. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few small changes and tagged where some more are needed. Please feel free to add other tags. I'll try to maintain NPOV despite seeing Dylan give three amazing live performances of the song at the Royal Albert Hall this month! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McCarthy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There are a couple of very long block quotes in the article: I suggest that these are summarised and put as prose instead. With over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the information be spun out. I think this is a sign that the article has too much detail and the text should be reduced. The "Post-censure reaction" has lots of small paragraphs that should be organised by theme and merged together. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Jets

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The "Logos and uniforms" section is almost completely uncited, and there are other uncited statements in the article. Many sections are very long. I suggest that any section with over 4 paragraphs be broken up with Level 3 headings for easier navigation. I do not believe the "Notable first round picks" is necessary for this article. I think this would be better if it was spun out into an article about the NY Jets's first round draft picks. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Allen

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article seems to lack information about several aspects such as preparations made besides watches and warnings, the impact in Haiti, and aftermath, the last of which there is no section for. Also, the impact section overall looks small for a storm this deadly. —JCMLuis 💬 18:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JCMLuis please remember to notify WikiProjects and significant contributors to articles when nominating GARs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that a storm from 1988 likely is not going to be as complete as we may like for a modern system of this strength and deadliness. But I'm willing to help keep this at a GA if you could detail some more specific places in the prose where it's lacking. JayTee⛈️ 21:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JayTee32:
  • In the meteorological history section, the third and fourth paragraph is almost entirely supported by one source, being HURDAT, but it failed to verify the text. It could probably be supported by this report or this website.
  • The preparations section is missing information about evacuations and measures taken by national governments, and maybe assistance from organizations or other nations before the storm's arrival (if there was any). There is a report on Haiti by USAID that I think contains a lot of useful information.
  • Some details in the impact section can be extended with the report on the season by Miles B. Lawrence and Joseph M. Pelissier, though I'm not sure which.
  • There's likely a lot of newspapers that can bring up information that could be put into the article, such as this newspaper.
  • And of course, there is no section for the aftermath, which I think the Haiti report could be useful in.
—JCMLuis 💬 23:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JCMLuis Thank you for the checklist, and thank God for Thanksgiving break. I'll get to work on this next week. JayTee⛈️ 00:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haile Selassie

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

The article uses lots of long block quotes: these create copyright concerns and make the text very long. I suggest that these are summarised, reduced, or removed. The article is over 11,000 words and contains too much detail: WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles of this size are spun out to other articles and the prose reduced. I think summarising the block quotes will help with this, as well as removing other material. The article also contains uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the quotes in this article provide no substantive contribution to it, and seem to be included only for aesthetic reasons. You could argue that this article also uses too many images for the same reason. Removing some of these would be for the best. As for prose issues, I've been working on cleaning up the worst of it (the Personal life section). genderBiohazard (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Arms (video game)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article has numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yet another driveby nomination with absolutely no attempt to fix the situation yourself, which would be easily doable since most of the article is still sourced. Seriously, stop with the frivolous delisting as it's tatamount to disruptive. Focus on fixing it first, and attempt to delist if the article is unfixable without a major rewrite of all content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He posted about it a month ago—Talk:Wild Arms (video game)#GA concerns—and apparently no one is maintaining the article. Degradation in the article's quality isn't the nominator's burden to correct. This is easily a multi-hour project to bring the article back up to quality. czar 13:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks very easily fixable. The plot summary is a little long by 2024 standards, but the uncited paragraphs are few and mostly stuff like "unneed details about Alter Code F that can easily be cut". Please don't close this without pinging me, I'll take a look. SnowFire (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vyacheslav Molotov

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs and the "Portrayals in media" section. There are also lots of large block quotes of secondary sources which should be summarised and used as prose instead. Z1720 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't think this meets the GA standards at the moment, but it's not the worst that I've seen. I think all the (remaining?) block quotes are quotations from primary documents (though they are quoted in secondary sources), which is generally forgivable (it's a textbook FUR when they are quotations of or about the article's subject) if not necessarily best practice. Most of the uncited material is short paragraphs, which makes me wonder if they are simply meant to be covered by the citation of the following paragraph? If anybody does want to pick this up, I don't expect it would be a huge job. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist @Chiswick Chap: fixed some of the block quotes, but the article still has lots of uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Ulrich Rudel

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Since the article was promoted to GAR in 2016, the article was significantly reduced in content. The reasoning being the sources put forward by me at the time were contested as unreliable. In consequence, I doubt the article still meets the criteria of significantly broad in coverage. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MisterBee1966, what do you think is not covered by the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 have a look at the article in the state it passed GA and compare it too its current version. His entire military career was reduced to a few paragraphs MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if the sources supporting those removed paragraphs were deemed unreliable, their content doesn't need to be in the article MisterBee1966 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion, justified or not, still makes the article incomplete, subsequently failing "Broad in its coverage". Consequently, the article should be demoted. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterBee1966 and AirshipJungleman29: it might be worth it for the both of you to take a look at this. Best, 750h+ 10:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to avoid a discussion about sourcing and the deletion here. Although the historian Sönke Neitzel used the same sources when he created the Rudel entry in the Deutsche Biographie (see Deutsche Biographie: Rudel, Hans-Ulrich and Publications at the University of Potsdam), the same sources which the original Wikipedia article also used, the deletions on Wikipedia were enforced. In my opinion, the current state of the article fails the GA criteria. I think the article should be demoted and rebuilt, potentially using other sources. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(here from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Old GARs needing participation). Reading through the article before I looked at this discussion, I would not have said that there was an issue with broadness of coverage. Even having read it, I cannot see what the issue is. What, specifically, do you think should be addressed in the article which currently isn't? Remember that (as WP:GANOT puts it) criterion 3 does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rudel was the most highly decorated German soldier of WW2, maybe comparable to the Audie Murphy. In comparison, the Rudel article does not tell us where and how Rudel was trained, when he was promoted, in what engagements he fought, his impact on the German propaganda. I find that a shortcoming. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Nevis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

There are multiple uncited sentences and paragraphs throughout the article. The climate table seems to cite sources from the early 1900s. Are there any current sources that can be used? Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the climate data: there was a weather station on the summit until 1904 and "The twenty years worth of readings still provide the most comprehensive set of data on mountain weather in Great Britain", to quote from the article. It would be more than could be expected to have comparable modern data. PamD 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sourced the content about Oor Wullie, and expanded and sourced information about the Peace Cairn. PamD 19:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Could you perhaps sprinkle {{cn}} where the issues are? That would help us fix them. — hike395 (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will look at it! — hike395 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hike395 do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I made a bunch of improvements on 5 November, fixing all of the {{cn}} tags, and PamD did further work on 5 November and 12 November. I believe the article now fulfills the good article criteria. — hike395 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD and AirshipJungleman29: The "History" section does not have any information between 1911 and 2018. Is there any information to add there, perhaps about the growth of tourism to the site or other major events? A smaller quibble is that the lead is missing some information Z1720 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

This article has many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is an empty "Legacy" section with an orange banner in it since July 2024. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720, I'll be looking after this; plan is to resolve the immediate issues that have crept in since the original GA nom (which I followed at the time), bring the referencing format current to 2024 fashions ;) — and will ping you for a further look once those relatively easy parts are done. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, do you intend to work on this article further? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AirshipJungleman29, yes...but is overall in pretty good condition. Will ping when finished. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems restored to GA to me now. Pinging Z1720, AirshipJungleman29. Ceoil (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and Ceoil: The "Exhibition" section has some blockquote coding that needs to be fixed, and I think the poem quoted should be removed as the prose can summarise the poem instead. I added a cn tag about the Detroit Institute of Arts. The lead should have information about the artwork's influence, including info about the literature and visual arts it inspired. Overall, this is very close to a keep. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 agree, the lead could be expanded via info from the body. Will ping when done. Have trimmed the poem, and your cn tag has been addressed by another editor. Thanks both. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, can I get another two weeks on this....have other commitments here, but is a painting and article am very fond of. Ceoil (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: No concerns, I'm not in a rush. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Animation Studios

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article has an orange "additional citations needed" in the "Production logo" section from 2023 which needs to be resolved. It is over 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be reduced. There are also a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to prune and source. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick update, here are the changes so far.
The article was 11705 words as of October 5, the last edit before I became involved, and now is 11470 words. I'll see what else I can weed, but this is a studio where even the unproductive eras are the sole focus of multiplebooks. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanimum: This article might be a good candidate to WP:SPINOUT sections of its history. This has already started with Disney Renaissance. After spinning out these sections, this article can give an overview of that time period (I recommend 4 paragraphs max per spun-out article) to reduce the word count. If readers are interested in finding out more information, they can go to the relevant article. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zanimum, do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29: I do not have four paragraphs as a hard and fast rule, but I use that as a rule of thumb as MOS:LEAD used to have that as the target number for the lead. Articles need to be readable: I do not believe sections with 10 paragraphs enhance readability. MOS:BODY talks about how headings enhance readability, and adding these headings to the table of contents help readers find information. WP:CANYOUREADTHIS talks about how "Readers of the mobile version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation."
In answer to the question about spun out information: "1989–94: Beginning of the Disney Renaissance, successful releases, and impact on the animation industry", which already has a spunout article at Disney Renaissance, "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", and "2019–present: Continued success, COVID-19 pandemic, expansion to television and financial struggles". If some of the information was cut instead of spun out, I would be OK with that too as the article has over 11,000 words. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me, these are not GACR-relevant issues which should not hold up the closing of the GAR, but as I'm involved now I won't do that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston upon Hull

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

I count 28 citation needed tags, some of which span entire paragraphs. True, the article is large, but I still think that's probably too many to ignore. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on this, you can strike about eight of the CN tags off the list of those needing attention. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The joy of all things and Keith D: do you two intend to keep working on this article? Thanks (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen of Hearts: Hopefully will be continuing with this, but time is a bit limited at the moment and will be without internet connection for 12 days at end of month. Keith D (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen of Hearts: Aye, 'appen tha knows! (translation: "Yes I do intend to carry on".) Sorry, will get round to it soon. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith D and The joy of all things: ?? 750h+ 06:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
750h+ ?? I have done as much as I can, Keith D is away. The joy of all things (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: what are your thoughts? 750h+ 13:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are still 3 cn tags. 750h+ 13:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
looks like a number of the sources added were to tourism sites? either that or they were in there already. hrm. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out a couple of bits I cannot find references for, also dead links and added a few to cover other parts requiring references. I think that covers all of the tags. The part about the Energy Plant needs an operational date and ref, I put in some update to say it would be operational by end 2019. Keith D (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts theleekycauldron? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USS Texas (BB-35)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 17 year-old GA to dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):

  • 1b. The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.
  • 2b. Some claims are cited to unreliable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
  • 2c. There are at least 18 portions of text that solely cite primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012)
  • 3a. The article lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024.
  • 3b. The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources.

Note: the above is modified from my request for MILHIST A-Class reappraisal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GAR coordinators: Per this discussion with the MILHIST coordinators, can this be placed on hold pending A-Class reappraisal? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wasn't involved in the Coord discussion, I don't think there's any conflict of interest, so granted. Unless I'm just blind, there's no place to amend this on the template itself, but it should be considered on hold pending the A-Class work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a notice at the top of the article talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue on waiting to close this until the A class reassessment is closed either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the A-class reassessment page. If A-Class is retained, this GAR can probably be withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How active is Operation Majestic Titan, which would seem/have seemed to be interested in polishing this article up? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan where does this polishing-job stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to post this at the A-class page? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No? That would be the job of the MILHIST coords, if anyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, going a little slow but should be done in a month. Matarisvan (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed II's Albanian campaign

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

During the discussion on awarding the Good Article distinction on pl:wiki (Propozycje do Dobrych Artykułów/Pierwsza kampania Mehmeda II w Albanii) for the translation of Mehmed II's Albanian campaign article, editors from the Polish version of Wiki noticed a number of irregularities and doubts about the actual use of declared sources.

  • Nolli's book (Noli, Fan Stilian (1947), George Castroiti Scanderbeg (1405–1468)) – does not provide sources for the information provided in the entry.
  • Schmaus (Schmaus, Alois (1969), Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients, vol. 8, Trofenik) is cited as the author of the periodical, but the title of his article in Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas is missing.
  • Franco, Demetrio (1539), Commentary on the cose of Turchi, et del S. Georgio Scanderbeg, principe d' Epyr (the publication from 1539 has an ISBN number? How could the author use the publication from 1539?)

We do not understand why the author, who declares knowledge of Albanian, did not publish the article in the Albanian language version of Wikipedia?

The discussants drew attention to the title of the article: in publications this era of fighting is called an uprising, and the actions of the sultan are called retaliation. We assess that the article Pierwsza kampania Mehmeda II w Albanii cannot be recognized on pl:wiki as GA, and we have grounds to believe that the article Mehmed II's Albanian campaign probably is a hoax.

In this situation, we request that the distinction of GA on en:wiki be revised. Jacek555 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this page, I can personally say:
This article is at most C-class. Setergh (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Setergh's assessment of C class due to referencing and citation problems. I also find the content suspicious. Other articles not by the same user do not mention campaigns involving the Albanians and Ottomans at the same time. Mehmed was concertrating on taking Constantinople during the same time period as the events in the article. The reviewers who looked at this could not find information in the article in some of the cited sources. Further research might show this is a hoax. A successful hoax along these lines would include real historical persons doing things they might have done along the lines of actual verified actions at other times in other contexts. I am not quite prepared to say this is a hoax article but it is certainly questionable. It should be downgraded for a start. Donner60 (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was invited to have a look at the MILHIST talk page. Right off the bat, I am surprised that the go-to resource on Mehmed's reign, Franz Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, or Setton's monumental and indispensable The Papacy and the Levant, were not used. Mehmed's preoccupation in the spring and summer 1452 is known to have been the construction of Rumeli Hisar in preparation for the siege of Constantinople, and the article itself makes clear that he did not lead the campaign; so the title of the article at least incorrect. Schmaus' contribution is, I assume this dedicated volume, so it is slightly mis-cited. I can also detect at least one error of fact: Skanderbeg's primary reason for allying with Alfonso was his fear of 21-year-old Mehmed II is untrue, since Mehmed was considered widely a non-entity at the time, a youth stepping into shoes too big for him to fill; Skanderbeg was motivated by the Ottoman threat, but also by internal rivalries. I had a look at the EI2 article, where the events of 1452 are not mentioned, and the İslâm Ansiklopedisi article on Skanderbeg, where it at least confirms that "The young sultan contented himself with sending forces against Skanderbeg in the first years of his reign and tried to keep him under pressure. It is known that during the siege of Istanbul, a unit under the command of Ibrahim Bey moved against the Albanian-Neapolitan forces, but was unsuccessful." However this only explicitly confirms Battle of Polog. In short, I would like more easily accessible (and of higher scholarly caliber) sources for verifiability, but fundamentally, assuming good faith, and given that the events in Albania prior to Mehmed's active involvement there are not well covered by Western historians (cf. Babinger or Setton), I would assume that the events recounted are factual. As such I don't think this is a hoax, but it does warrant improvements in sourcing, especially as Skanderbeg's life is heavily mythologized. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thorough review. Good information and sound conclusion. Donner60 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be able to get my hands on a copy of Schmaus within the next couple of weeks from the university library, will then definitely revisit the article then. Constantine ✍ 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cplakidas, are you still available to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 unfortunately not, I cannot say when I will be able to go to the university library as my schedule is packed. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, I'm willing to work on this rewrite. Will 1 month for it to be completed be too long? Matarisvan (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan can we get an update on progress? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, should be done in about 20 days since I'm working on another GA rewrite alongside this one. Matarisvan (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Plataea

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

This article has had an orange "relies on primary sources" banner at the top of the article since October 2023. Upon looking at the inline citations, I agree with that assessment. This would require a subject-matter expert to look through the citations to see what should be replaced with a more recent source. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly literature on the Greco-Persian wars is vast -- there's no excuse to be using primary sources here, and the sourcing for the article in general is well below what I'd expect of a GA. The modern sources cited are nearly all either non-scholarly, outdated, generally tangential to the field or from people whose scholarly standing is controversial. Fixing this would need a full rewrite, so I would advise a delist if nobody is willing to do that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Overuse of primary sources; secondary sources used are plainly insufficient. It's been well known that the ancient sources' description of the battle are not consistent and do not lend themselves to recognisable (today) topographic features. This is not a problem anymore, however, because we now have aerial ground penetrating radar. Jones (2020) p 196 The [battle] is particularly difficult to reconstruct using only literature from ancient sources... Modern historians [list of 10 names], many of whom visited the battlefield north of Erythres/Kriekouki, were unable to agree on the events and locations of the Battle of Plataea. There are too many complications due to lost topographical markers and reliance on ancient sources [list of 6] to identify locations from accounts of the battle. See also Konechny (2022) for detailed reconstruction. Ifly6 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I can work on this article and restore it to GA level in ~20 days. I hope that timeline is ok for everyone. Matarisvan (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for volunteering to take this up. I want to ask, however, whether any rewrite is (for lack of a better term) happening. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm working on 2 other GA rewrites so the timeline will be delayed quite a bit, but the rewrite is on. I've done the biblio formatting, I expect to complete the rewrite in 30-40 days instead of the 20 estimated above. I hope that is ok, @Ifly6? Matarisvan (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really matter how quickly it happens to me, just wanted to know that you're in earnest on it. Ifly6 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matarisvan, just checking in with your rewrite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, will need 10-20 days more because I am finding some newly published sources, like Konecny 2022, hard to access. Matarisvan (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking up again Matarisvan? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, should be done in 5 days max. My apologies for asking for a second postponement. Matarisvan (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1225482527"