Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GA/D)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQJanuary backlog driveMentorshipReview 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. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  4. Pest control 2024-08-22
  5. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
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

Fizeau experiment

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

The "Controversy" section is mostly uncited: there are mentions of the works where others disagreed (with a year placed in parenthesis) but these will need to be converted into citations and the prose afterwards also cited to their works. The section also has several, long block quotes. Even though many of these quotes are from the 1800s, and probably do not fall under copyright anymore, I think the information can be better explained and more easily understood by the reader as summarised prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teleological argument

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

There is uncited prose in the article, and another editor on the talk page mentioned that the article is missing key information because of underdeveloped sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I guess I am the other editor? I don't see any posts using the words you've used. I would encourage other editors to read my real remarks. But in a nutshell, in terms of what I understand to be important for GA status I think this article has never yet reached a stable structure. It is still in a phase where people add new "stub" sections, and are likely to send the article in new directions, which might become stable. I'd encourage any editors who are interested in the topic to see what they can do, but I doubt that the article was ever really at GA quality, and I don't think that getting that label too early is necessarily a good thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UConn Huskies women's basketball

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. I also think the article can be summarised more effectively to make it more concise. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Monthly

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

This article does not contain any post-2008 information, and thus does not cover all aspects of the topic. Z1720 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song)

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

There are several uncited statements throughout the article. Also, I think this song, its lyrics, and the album it is part of has been the subject of academic analysis, but other than the structure there is very little analysis. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist – no surprise here. The article is incredibly dated and as you said is no longer broad in its coverage (literally zero reception). And the way the references are laid out... woof. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)

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

In 2012 and 2016, significant amounts of the article's content [were removed Buckshot06 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)], mainly by Buckshot06. There is a discussion supporting the removal of this content at Talk:1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)#Lot of content removed after GAN review, but the article's honors section (which is unsourced) is a series of tables that still assumes that the removed content is relevant to the article subject. This relevance of this content needs sorted out and finalized whether or not this belongs. Much of what remains in the article is sourced to Global Security, which is no longer considered to be reliable. In fact, as almost all of the remaining content is more about the division as a whole than this subunit, I'm not even convinced that this warrants a separate article - even with the content removed since promotion included, as that is focused on the HQ unit of the 7th Division. Hog Farm Talk 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temper (film)

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

This article contains many uncited sentences, included entire paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). Some of the sources may also not be reliable. @We are the Great, Rotideypoc41352, and CNMall41: pinging those who previously commented on the talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for inviting me. I initially started the reassessment because a large chunk of sources cited such as IndiaGlitz, 123Telugu, Oneindia.com, and International Business Times, were unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. The Times of India’s reliability is under question, but that’s for another day. RangersRus, after taking my suggestions, removed all the citations that were unreliable. Benison did opine that the article’s GA status could survive if we found more reliable sources, but this has not happened yet. Additionally, many Tollywood movie articles on Wikipedia rated GA have sources that are unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES, which I have removed in some of them such as Srimanthudu, 1: Nenokkadine, and Attarintiki Daredi. These articles mostly use International Business Times as citations for Box Office sections, which is deemed unreliable per WP:IBTIMES. I believe most of them were rated GA at the time when the reliability of these sources I mentioned were not challenged. We are the Great (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the {{cn}} situations are handled either by being deleted or replaced with better refs, this article can retain GA status. Does Veera Narayana have time or interest? I have neither. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think anyone would have the time to do this since I have not seen much activity on this article ever since RangersRus removed the unreliable sources. We are the Great (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait and see whether others join in the discussion. Otherwise, if nobody does, then the article could be delisted. We are the Great (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, i was the contributor for this and many other Telugu film GA articles in the past. We are the Great here was right in assuming that i worked on these GAs when the abovementioned sites' reliability was not challenged. And i am thankful that Kailash took the time to respond to this when i was away, and i must admit he echoes my sentiments too. If you think this article, or any other GA/FA/FL i have ever contributed towards, does not meet up the criteria anymore, please delist them. You dont have to reach out to me for this, and i assume this message here would stand valid for all of those. After all, despite all the hours i passionately put into these articles, i own nothing and i am mature enough to understand the gravity of the situation. Thanks for intimating me. Hope you all have a happy holiday season. Cheers! Veera Narayana 06:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anuel AA

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

Lots of uncited prose, including almost everything in the "Career" section post-2019. Some "citation needed" tags have been in the article since March 2023. Z1720 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan da Cunha

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

There is a large amount of uncited text, including entire sections such as "Religion" Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 World Series

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

Uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed three of them. The others can be addressed and I will soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1997–98 Manchester United F.C. season

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

The entire "Transfers" section is uncited. While some players in the chart are cited, most are not. There are also some uncited statements elsewhere in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Daniels

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

There are uncited statements and paragraphs, including some tagged with "citation needed" since July 2022. The article is also very long, showing that the language is not concise. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noctilucent cloud

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

Uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Citation needed tags in the article since 2021. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protein

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

Several unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{citation needed}} to the statements that seemed to be most obviously needing references, to aid in the process of cleaning up the article. I never got too far in molecular biology so forgive me if I can't completely fix this up to GA standards. I also noticed (as Smokefoot did specifically with the use of "key") that the tone of this article is unusual. Reconrabbit 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a basic biochemistry article. We do not need to add citations for facts that can be found in any textbook. Genome42 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Genome42: No, WP:V says that information needs to be cited. Textbooks can be used as the citation if it is a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basic facts about proteins fall into a "sky is blue" situation; you would either be laughed at or shown very concerned looks for your well-being for challenging them. Still though, this article does cite textbooks and other round-ups for most of these things anyways as it is still specialized knowledge at the end of the day.
I was wondering though, is there some policy or guidance on how to select a textbook for referencing out of the hundreds (thousands?) that exist with the same information? I ask as a high-traffic article like this might unfairly elevate one textbook over others, inadvertently. Should textbooks be prioritized for referencing by ease of access? Are there even open-access textbooks kicking around for biochemistry/science topics generally? Is this something that Wikipedia is even concerned about? ― Synpath 17:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Synpath: SKYBLUE is an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." WP:V is a policy, and "describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow." To select which sources to use, the WP:MEDCITE essay will give some advice. More recent sources are more favourable than older sources as it will have the most up-to-date information. For articles with a lot of literature like this, sometimes Wikipedia has to pick some of the highest quality sources and exclude others. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MEDCITE is only an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." and is not really relevant to a basic biochemistry article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I should have piped the phrase "still specialized knowledge" to WP:NOTBLUE to balance the emphasis of my comment. Regardless, MEDCITE doesn't give advice on how to select one reliable source from a sea of reliable sources saying the same thing. Just opting for the most recent textbook is not an ideal solution if no one can read it without dropping a hundred dollars or more (being generous there). ― Synpath 19:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synpath is correct. We do not need to add citations for obvious facts. Overcitation is a problem on Wikipedia because it makes articles difficult to read. Perhaps Z1720 could show us what bits of information he thinks should require citations by inserting tags after every bit of information in the introduction?
The issue about which textbooks to use is also a problem. I'm a biochemistry textbook author so, as you might imagine, I have definite opinions about which textbooks are the best ones to cite. :-) Surely we don't want citations to four or five different textbooks after every sentence in the introduction?
I marked the article with citation needed tags where I thought they were needed. Information only needs to be verified by one source, so that will solve the overcitation concern. The lead of the article doesn't need citations, per WP:LEADCITE, as the information is supposed to be the body of the article (and cited in the body). Z1720 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Thank-you for inserting those citation requests. I disagree with all of them but it helps focus the discussion. I don't think we need a citation when there's a link to another article that explains the topic. Genome42 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Genome42: Per WP:CIRC, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source and the reader should be able to verify the information in the protein article without going to another Wikipedia article to find the source the verifies it. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Gimme a break! The citation you want inserted is a textbook reference. How many readers have that particular textbook at hand in order to verify that "The field of bioinformatics is now indispensable for the analysis of genes and proteins" or that isopycnic centrifugation is a useful technique? There are times when Wikipedia's picayune rules get in the way of common sense. Genome42 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Genome42: Editors do not have to ensure that every reader has access to a source. Rather, the source has to verify the information if someone looks it up. If Wikipedia policies are against common sense, editors can propose changes at Wikipedia:Village pump. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four in film

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

This article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. I am also concerned that this article might be mostly Wikipedia:Fancruft, with real-world information about its development or various studio rights underdeveloped. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this only for the reason that a new film and possibly film series about the Fantastic Four is coming out and this page will very fast become a magnet for multiple edits. Criteria #5 requires the article to be stable, which it will fail. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: It might be good to reevaluate when that happens but for now I think we should evaluate the article as it is today. Z1720 (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the edit history? 50 edits since September 26, maybe 4 have an edit summary. The article is in no way stable, again a criteria for GA. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places

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

There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The "History" section doesn't seem to have any information post-1996. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsonville, Oregon

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

The "History" section ends in 2007, and I think more recent information should be included. The "Demographics" section is largely uncited and contains a lot of information about the 2000 and 2010 censuses. I think this section can be reduced and should be cited more effectively. The lead needs to be updated with the latest demographic information. There are some uncited statements in other areas of the article not indicated above. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as all of the issues have now been addressed due to the hardwork of various editors. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Airport

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

This article has several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "History" section does not give much information after 2006, which is surprising considering that many airports were affected by COVID-19 lockdowns. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buenos Aires Underground

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

The article has some uncited passages throughout the article. The "Current fleet" has an "update needed" orange banner from October 2022 and its prose might be counter to MOS:CURRENCY. Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On uncited passages: It doesn't look that bad at the moment. Can you tag stuff you think is problematic with citation needed?
  • On "update needed": This issue is unimportant and not a reason to remove GA status. A top-level Wikipedia article on a topic like this is WP:NOT a railfan current fleet update, but rather a historical overview of the 100+ year history. Detailed information on the past few years would not be required even at the featured level. New_York_City_Subway#Rolling_stock stops in 2019 too and is a GA. (I suppose the update banner is a mild warning sign, but only in that it implies there weren't maintainers to simply remove such a banner.) SnowFire (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States constitutional criminal procedure

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

First of all, the content seems like a good contribution to free & shareable media. It seems competently written and is probably a great start for developing a GA-class article. Unfortunately there is a gigantic blocking issue here that means it really can't be a Wikipedia GA article as is: WP:PRIMARY, massive overdependence on primary sources, failing GA2b, referenced to reliable sources. Maybe this is the style for an article in a legal review journal, but it's not Wikipedia GA-class referencing style. Of the 179 references, 3 of them are to secondary sources, and 176 are to case law or the Constitution directly. Now, having case law citations "on the side" is fine and useful (whether integrated into citations like "Secondary source p. X, citing Devouard v Wales", or in a separate references group), but there needs to be sources to, say, the kind of textbooks law students in the US read. Citing case law directly is even worse than articles that are heavily reliant on, say, Herodotus; at least with classical-era writers, what they wrote is all we have to work with at times and clearly relevant even when wrong. But there are tens of thousands of modern case law decisions handed down, many of which are ignored as far as precedent, and others that are outright overturned. And others where the dissent is considered more controlling and cited! Citing these can potentially be very misleading. We need a secondary source to mediate which cases are considered relevant. If we're lucky, maybe the article doesn't have to change that much, but someone really does need to go check it against modern high-quality secondary sources and add in references to the secondary sources.

As a secondary concern... and this one is less pressing.. GA3A, broad in coverage. The references mostly peter out after 2012 or so. My understanding is that there has been some changes since due to the Roberts Court (e.g. weakening the exclusionary rule, which seems not to be discussed at all currently). Further, this article appears to be heavily set in the contemporary of ~2012. Maybe a new spinoff article needs to be created on "Evolution of United States constitutional criminal procedure" or the like, but the history of US law is relevant, too. What was procedure like in 1783-1955? That seems completely unexplored currently. So we need both updates on 2012-2024, and possibly some more acknowledgement of historical criminal procedure (even if this might be spun out into a new article). SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 16 December 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]

Delist. Not a fan of the overlong and confusing prose, and that line in lead about being a "band to watch" in 2004 really makes them look like a former hype band. I think it has the groundworks to become a good article (you could try speedrunning??) and has plenty of citations to work with, but as it is now, it's pretty bad. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boron

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

Uncited text, including an entire section. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I checked I found two sections, #Boranes and #Organoboron chemistry without sources. However, both have "Main" or "See also" which is a place where there are probably a few sources. I think a post to WT:Chemistry is appropriate, plus perhaps a little tagging to make it clearer what the concerns are. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ldm1954, an article with GA status is required to have all the sources in the article. Otherwise, you could have an entirely unsourced article with lots of "Main" or "see also" links and none of the article's content actually verified. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted to WT:Chemistry (the right Project, it seems they were not notified on the talk page), and it looks like @Plantsurfer, Preimage, and Smokefoot: are making edits. I will defer to them to respond to any concerns @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29 have. I have only done a few GA (both sides), they are not as bad as applying for tenure, but there are similarities. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954: Thanks for doing that. Feel free to ping me when this is ready for another review, or if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smokefoot, thanks for your excellent work improving this article. Some uncited material remains; do you intend to take care of that? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khandoba

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. The "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:" section is a list without context. What is this, and why is it important? The lead is quite short, and doesn't address all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720 for pointing it out. Over time, various users have added uncited text in the article. Will cleanup Have removed the uncited section "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:", which seemed as a random list of temples. However, most of the article is still cited.
Will rewrite the lead. Redtigerxyz Talk 12:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Z1720, have cleaned up the uncited text. About the lead, IMHO it covers major aspects. However, welcome to hear suggestions about which sections need to be covered in more detail. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtigerxyz: The lead looks a lot better with the expanded text. I added two "citation needed" tags: these need to be resolved. There's also a lot of sources listed in "Further reading": does the article address the main aspects of the subject, or can these sources be used to add information on a major aspect? Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz do you intend to continue improving the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 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]
@Johnbod and Northernhenge: can you provide an approximate timeframe for your work on this article? No rush. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won’t be directly involved. It’s not my subject and, as Johnbod said, my idea was “not the best. But it doesn't really have a bearing here”. I’m happy to leave it to the experts, but can help with length, phrasing, reference formatting etc where appropriate. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made a start, but I'm not making promises. This is a very busy time of year for me (until c. 10th January), but I'll see what I can squeeze in. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I think I'm finished. Re "Maybe it could instead be re-structured around common features in English cathedral buildings with contrasting examples of each feature" - that seems to me to pretty much how it is structured. A number of generalizing sections followed by concise individual entries. If anything there are too many longish lists of ones with feature A, followed by a list with feature B. Fortunately I have 2 strong book sources, one taking the generalizing approach, and the other with several pages on each example. The basic material was good, & I haven't needed to change much, in fact mostly just adding touches. I'm very confident this meets GA requirements. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the list should be in this article, but if others think its fine then I'm fine with it as well. I added some citation needed tags in places that I think need a source to verify the information. This would need to be resolved before I would recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy for this GAR to remain open and to wait a long time for concerns to be addressed. If the Sherborne Abbey information isn't needed, I'd support removing it. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no view on Sherborne Abbey, but as a general point I imagine an article called "Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England" could legitimately discuss centres that were cathedrals in medieval days, assuming that wouldn't add an enormous number of them. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, where?? Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the bit about "Winchester, St. Albans and Peterborough" having short towers. I took it out. You put it back! --Northernhenge (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the aircraft carrier (not in fact "hangar") bit he/you didn't like. It is certainly true that they are long, with short towers, and that's a part of the Pevsner etc analysis of the English cathedral style. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So could you source it to Pevsner? I don’t have a copy. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve drawn a blank on finding a reliable source for this. Having failed to do that, I tried claude.ai which confirms that: "St Albans Cathedral has one of the shorter towers among English cathedrals - it would fit between Winchester (150 ft) and Peterborough (156 ft) in our earlier ranking of shortest towers. However, despite its relatively modest tower height, its length makes it one of England's longest cathedrals, even longer than Winchester Cathedral (558 ft)", so there may be something published “out there” but otherwise investigating the significance of this would be original research. I propose deleting the sentence again, but I’ll leave it alone myself. It’s not worth an edit war just to see an article stay in GA. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:08, 24 December 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"