Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQBacklog 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. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 month.
  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 month, 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.
  5. If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
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. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  2. Pest control 2024-08-22
  3. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
  4. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  5. Battle of Wilson's Creek 2025-02-27
  6. Cloud9 League of Legends 2025-03-13
  7. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
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

David Archuleta

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

This article has been at GA status for over 16 years and hasn't been reassessed since. There are a some issues that should be looked at if this article is to remain at GA status.

I brought these up at the talk page a week ago but I don't think anyone is watching.

Some issues I noticed:

  • The latter section of the Career section is very poor. Most of the more recent stuff (last 10 years) reads as a WP:PROSELINE list of chronological events that has been assembled piecemeal instead of written as proper prose. (WP:GACR6 #1)
  • Some of the paragraphs are very short - some only two short sentences long. These should probably be restructured to be more substantial. (WP:GACR6 #1)
  • There are a few citation needed tags (and other tags) interspersed throughout the article, once again mostly in the latter part of the article. (WP:GACR6 #2)
  • Not particularly a GA issue, but in general the citations in the lead & in the infobox should be moved into the body of the article (MOS:INFOBOXCITE, MOS:LEADCITE)
  • It doesn't look like there are any citations at all for the Performances table (WP:GACR6 #2)
  • The Filmography section is also missing many citations. (WP:GACR6 #2)

RachelTensions (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Anatomy

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

There's uncited text, including entire paragraphs. This article, at almost 14,000 words, is not concise. I think some information should be spun out into daughter articles. It also uses some unreliable sources, like IMDB. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Waldorf

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

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs and sections. The "Reaction to triangle" and "Controversy" sections under season 4 seem to be in the wrong location in the article, leading to some disorganization in the layout. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Home (Game of Thrones)

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

The "Plot" section has an "excessively long" banner, which might mean it is not concise. Is this still the case? The "Casting" section has uncited text, and uses IMDB as a source, which is not recommended at WP:IMDB. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • These problems are genuine but seem surmountable. The nominator has since been indeffed: as the reviewer I am willing to undertake shortening the plot summary (600 words currently, MOS recommends 400) and citing the brief sections currently unsourced or cited to IMDB. That said, the nominator was indeffed for sockpuppetry, and the SPI indicates they were actively misusing multiple accounts around the time this article was being reviewed. As such I'm somewhat undecided on whether we should simply let the GA status lapse. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Marion

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

I raised concerns on the talk page on February 22 about the quality of one heavily-used source and about source-text integrity; these have not been addressed or responded to. Hog Farm talk 02:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes from TwoScars

  • The Official Record (p.806) uses the term "Engagement" instead of "Battle", same with Dyer (p.958). Can it still be called a battle?
  • NPS calls it a battle in this article.
  • It needs to be explained that Marion is near the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad, between some important salt mines and lead mines. The salt mine, located on a spur of the V&T RR in Saltville, provided an estimated two thirds of the salt used by the Confederacy. The lead mines, located south of Wytheville not far from the railroad, provided lead used by the Confederacy to produce bullets. (This is mentioned somewhat in the Aftermath section. Professor Robert C. Whisonant has written some articles and books about geology and southwestern Virginia.)
  • The "Troops" section needs to be redone and labeled "Opposing Forces".
I changed the section header to "Opposing forces". Changed images, moved to right, resized. Text still needs work. TwoScars (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped Protection map. Inserted V&T RR map next to "Advance" section. It might be to big, but it always helps me to see a map of what is going on while reading the text. Moved "Stoneman's advance" map to the Background section. TwoScars (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Z. Starr's cavalry book Volume II barely mentions Stoneman. Stoneman's December 1864 raid gets one paragraph on page 775 in Eicher's "The Longest Night", and Marion is not specified.TwoScars (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the source other than Starr I have a copy of that I thought might include something (Welcher's two-volume "The Union Army: Organization and Operations"). The raid by Stoneman that gets a page and a half in volume I is his 1865 raid, and the Saltville activities that get several pages in Volume II are related to Burbridge's incursion earlier in 1864. Hog Farm talk 04:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to have no citations in the Intro and InfoBox, with any facts in those two covered in the main text.
  • There does not appear to be any mention of the Union soldiers being armed with Spencer repeating rifles.
  • Was Marion really and objective? I would think that the railroad and Saltville were the important things.TwoScars (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been difficult to find good sources for this battle. Perhaps a biography of Stoneman or Breckinridge? TwoScars (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you head over to the talk page I just posted an extract to a biography of Stoneman that could be cited;
    it provides information - mentioning that the union forces were armed with spencer repeating carbines and this was an important factor in the outcome of the battle
    it also discusses salt and the effect of the outcome of the battle on Lee's access to preserved meat
    --
    The article says;
    > As Union forces advanced south, the infrastructure near the town of Marion—located in Southwest Virginia on the Middle Fork of the Holston River,
    Perhaps it could be made clearer that the infrastructure that prompted the battle was fought over was the salt works and the railway. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TwoScars LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from TwoScars

  • Not impressed with the OR citations. In the OR corrections version, Stoneman's reports start on page 806. If somebody does not fix this, I will eventually get to it. The citation and reference should use the officer making a report as the author, with editors on the front page (Ainsworth, Kirkley, etc.) listed as editors. A direct link to the beginning of the officer's reports should be made. Burbridge, Breckinridge, and others gave reports. If their reports are used in the citations, let's use them in the citations and references instead of simply Official Records. If someone needs an example of what I am talking about, check out Action at Nineveh.
  • Under Union Forces and Confederate Forces, we should have a list of who was fighting and their leaders, how they were equipped (if known), and their experience. Some of the text (such as "On the night of December 18, Breckinridge and his troops moved out of Saltville, Virginia, in an effort to stem Stoneman's advance." for example) belongs elsewhere. TwoScars (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MkLeo

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

This article have used a lot of unreliable sources, such as by using random Youtube videos, GameTyrant, dbltap.com, EventHubs, panda.esportsify.com? Panda Global? Upcomer, and start.gg.The article lacks a competitive record section that documents each participation in tournaments. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what happens to this article and I'm not going to put in any effort to fix it. In 2020, several sexual misconduct scandals broke in the competitive Smash community, and after seeing how much of that community essentially went "we don't care as long as they press buttons good", I want nothing to do with Smash anymore. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé

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

After giving this some thought, I'm not convinced the article still meets GA standards. Starting a community reassessment to get input from other Wikipedians when I don't think I could take the whole article on by myself. Along with talk page complaints about it reading like a fan page (as of this diff), here are some issues I found from a glance:

  • "Early life" goes into excessive details about heritage. We could just stick to a general summary where her ancestors came from, and maybe mention some relatives outside of her sister and their parents who have articles.
  • The 2019 version of The Lion King doesn't need to be linked more than once within "Career" section (the 2018–2021 section is ideal when that's the first mention). It's also unnecessary to link things like Destiny Fulfilled and "Instagram" under "Fashion lines" after previous sections already do so.
  • I doubt there's any need for a whole quote box on Black Is King for "Videography and stage"
  • There's various redundancies when talking about Ms. Knowles' marriage with Jay-Z (who seems to be her only publicly known non-platonic relationship). When largely intertwined with both of their careers, it would probably be best to integrate details into the "Career" section and perhaps have a "Life and career" section (which I believe this article once did many years ago before getting restructured). Since she's also worked professionally with both daughters they have together (not sure about their son), such a rearrangement could also help avoid repetition of such endeavors.
  • Under "Activism", the tone of "our" from "persistent in our societies" is inappropriate
  • The whole "Interests" subsection seems trivial
  • "Music video" is a very commonly known term that doesn't need linking per WP:OVERLINK
  • Within "Legacy", it sounds like fan puffery to say "artistic innovations"
  • Lots of incorrect formatting (e.g. The Wall Street Journal is missing italics from the "Fashion lines" subsection while About.com, Box Office Mojo, Chime For Change, CNN, NPR, and Recording Industry Association of America shouldn't use them at all for citations, Elle is wrongfully written in all upper case)
  • I would try to find stronger sourcing than BuzzFeed, "Fashionlooks.com" Metro, and "quotefancy", also there's some dead links that need fixing/replacing

The above isn't an exhaustive list of the problems this article has, and others are free to list other qualms they have. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

icon, i think i'll have to take this on. 750h+ 13:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese–Siamese War (1547–1549)

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

Uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weed (manga)

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

There's uncited states in the article, particularly in the "Other series" section. The plot summaries for each episode are too long, and should be reduced. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Alekhine

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

The article uses some unreliable sources, like old geocities websites and an angelfire website. These should be removed, and the information sourced to them should be cited to other sources or removed. To help with this task, there are a lot of sources listed in the "Further reading" section that can be used instead. The large amount of sources listed in Further reading also makes me think that this article might not be complete. If some of these sources are not usable in the article, I think they should be removed. There is some uncited prose in the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the above a complete list of problems you have encountered? I would like something that I (or someone else) could use as a checklist. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett: This is a complete list for now. I'm happy to take another look when the above are completed. Other editors are welcome to also post concerns, and after a re-review I might find other concerns. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask you to do a little more work here. Before I commit hours to this effort, I want to know if there's light at the end of the tunnel. It is not realistic to kick off a GAR without some idea of how much effort it will involve. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett: The GA criteria is at WP:GA?. Any editor can review and determine what needs to be done so that the article meets the criteria. Wikipedia is a volunteer service and doing a deep review takes me several hours, which is time that I do not have. I am happy to re-review this article once editors finish making improvements and determine that it meets the GA criteria: pinging me here is the best way to ask me to re-review. Any questions about the criteria can be posted at WT:GA. Any questions about the article can be posted below. Z1720 (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Everest

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

There is a "promotional tone" orange banner at the top of the article since 2020: has this been resolved? Information about Everest's career seems to stop at 2011, when this article was promoted. It should be updated with the latest information. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article, and should be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick read, I agree with the promotional tone banner, and would support a delist on those grounds alone if not corrected. Fashion is something I have no interest in personally. Also agree with your comment about the lead, and quite egregiously there is no mention in the body of him leaving his own company as is stated in the lead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy Riot

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

There is uncited text throughout the article. At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that information be spun out. Is there information that can be summarised more effectively and moved to other articles? There is an orange "update needed" banner on top of the "Imprisonment" section that needs to be addressed. "Amnesty International concert and membership controversy" has a very large block quote that I do not think is necessary. Can this be summarised and removed? Lenta is used as a citation, which according to WP:RS/P is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist. These sources should be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over 5,000 words (half the article) are devoted to PR's 2012 protest in the cathedral, their arrest, trial, sentencing and subsequent worldwide reactions. I'm wondering whether than can be spun out into a separate article and summarised far more briefly in the main article. Sionk (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly the right thing to do, yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've made the subsidiary article Pussy Riot 2012 trial, and replaced its text with a "main" link and summary. This has halved the article's length and removed most of the problematic subsections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've paraphrased the Amnesty section block quote. I note that this will probably be part of the spun-off article, i.e. the whole chapter will probably be reduced to a brief section with "main" link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angevin kings of England

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

After a short review, it has become clear that the article contains original research and copyright violations, thus it does not meet GA2c and GA2d. Taking into account that the nominator has a long history of copyright infringement and they tend to copy texts from a source and citing an other work, we can hardly determine whether the unverified statements listed below contain closely paraphrased texts or texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA2c: Unverified claims

  • In 1171, Henry invaded Ireland to assert his overlordship following alarm at the success of knights that he had allowed to recruit soldiers in England and Wales, who had assumed the role of colonisers and accrued autonomous power, including Strongbow.
  • In Le Mans in 1182, Henry II gathered his children to plan a partible inheritance in which his eldest son (also called Henry) would inherit England, Normandy and Anjou; Richard the Duchy of Aquitaine; Geoffrey Brittany, and John Ireland. This degenerated into further conflict. The younger Henry rebelled again before he died of dysentery and, in 1186, Geoffrey died after a tournament accident. In 1189, Richard and Philip II of France took advantage of Henry's failing health and forced him to accept humiliating peace terms, including naming Richard as his sole heir.
  • After his coronation, Richard put the Angevin Empire's affairs in order before joining the Third Crusade to the Middle East in early 1190. Opinions of Richard by his contemporaries varied. He had rejected and humiliated the king of France's sister; deposed the king of Cyprus and sold the island; insulted and refused to give spoils from the Third Crusade to Leopold V, Duke of Austria, and allegedly arranged the assassination of Conrad of Montferrat. His cruelty was exemplified by the massacre of 2,600 prisoners in Acre.
  • Leaving England permanently in 1194, Richard fought Philip for five years for the return of holdings seized during his incarceration.
  • ….Eleanor would spend the rest of her life in captivity. John's behaviour drove a number of French barons to side with Philip, and the resulting rebellions by Norman and Angevin barons ended John's control of his continental possessions—the de facto end of the Angevin Empire, although Henry III would maintain his claim until 1259.
  • The rebellion of his English vassals resulted in Magna Carta, which limited royal power and established comon law.
  • Marshall won the war with victories at Lincoln and Dover in 1217, leading to the Treaty of Lambeth in which Louis renounced his claims.
  • William Marshall saved the dynasty, forcing Louis to renounce his claim with a military victory
  • Gillingham (2007a) is a chapter on pages 63–84, but pages 3–8, 10–12, 16, 18, 21–22, 119–121, 279–281, 286, 299 are cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA2d: Copyright infrigement

  • As far as it is known, there was no contemporary name for this assemblage of territories, which were referred to—if at all—by clumsy circumlocutions such as...
    "...the Angevin Empire was the dominant polity in Western Europe, there was, so far we know, no contemporary name for this assemblage of territories. When anyone wanted to refer to them there were only clumsy circumlocations available.."
  • Pope Adrian IV had given Henry a papal blessing to expand his power into Ireland to reform the Irish church.
    "In 1155 Pope Adrian ... gave Henry a blessing to expand his power in Ireland,...exhorting Henry to reform the Irish church."
  • ...Henry II tried to give his landless youngest son John a wedding gift of the three castles of Chinon, Loudun and Mirebeau.
    "To provide for John, Henry gave him a wedding gift of three castles: Chinon, Loudun and Mirebeau." Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volador Jr.

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

Volador Jr. is an active luchador at CMLL and occasionally performs at AEW/ROH and NJPW. His CMLL career section has not been updated since 2018. I believe it is an immediate GAC fail since it needs a large update tag. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Riess

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

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

@Tenpop421 For real, to your satisfaction? You can also make your statement and nomination without saying that, "I don’t edit Wikipedia to cater to your satisfaction, nor am I obligated to create articles for your approval. That said, every detail and piece of information in the article is supported by inline citations, and they align with every spot-check performed. If you believe something isn’t right, feel free to edit it yourself—I have better things to do than argue over this for weeks. Cheers, and happy editing! Afro 📢Talk! 19:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite alright, @Afrowriter:. I've said my piece and we can go our separate ways. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way you did put your message sounded like i am suppose to take permision from you before editing or publishing an article . @Tenpop421 Afro 📢Talk! 19:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend it like that, my apologies Tenpop421 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenpop421 @Grumpylawnchair i have fixed and replace or supported the tagged sections with reliable source please confirm Afro 📢Talk! 13:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spot checks

Footnotes 10, 11 do not verify After completing high school,; they say that she was 20 years old when they married David, nothing about her completing high school.  Done
Footnotes 12, 13, 14 do not verify They raised three children  Done
Footnote 15 verifies that she had a gambling addiction, but nothing about the timeline the article describes (i.e., that she had a hobby that eventually escalated into a significant gambling addiction)  Done
Footnote 16 does not verify An audit uncovered specific transactions, including payments to a deceased relative, withdrawals for personal "guardian fees" totaling $8,500, and $15,000 allocated as supposed gifts to nieces and nephews  Done
Footnote 17 does not verify Although law enforcement considered criminal charges for felony theft, no prosecution followed at that time or the date in Instead, a civil judgment was issued in 2017,  Done
i.e., 9 out of 10 of the citations in the "Early life" section fail to verify some of the content they are attached to. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenpop421 Cross check when you are less busy Afro 📢Talk! 08:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work to verify these! I will when I have some free time. Tenpop421 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Spot checks look good to me now. I will get to the other sections when I can. Tenpop421 (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom

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

Out of date Chidgk1 (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry was already delisted - script should have told me that Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: It looks like the script was confused because the title of the reassessment from 2020 is "Talk:Environmental effects of aviation in the United Kingdom/GA1" rather than the "Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n" format that would be expected. I'll close this manually once I remember how to do so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McGovern (American politician)

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. The article has too many small sections, some of which are only a sentence long. This doesn't follow criteria 2 regarding the article layout. (MOS:PARA) I also do not think the article meets WP:NPOV. It seems like this article is written to highlight the politician's adherance to popular Democratic policies in 2025. I think most of the prose about their political career needs to be removed, while his most important initiatives (not just votes on issues) are highlighted. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does stink of editors seeing news articles and adding quick 1 sentence mentions in an unorganized form, resulting in the plethora of small sections. Part of the GA criteria is organization, as Z1720 describes in the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

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

Uncited statements, especially in the "Gameplay" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Lexington and Concord

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

The article has uncited statements. It is also quite long, at over 10,000 words: I think some information can be spun out or removed because it is too much detail. The article has many block quotes, which are not needed for the reader to understand the context and contributes to its long length. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important subject. I'll at least take a look. Hog Farm talk 04:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this article appears quite notable, rated as high importance for US history, in that context I don't think I find its length objectionable or unmanageable.
Some quote could be removed and summarised;
"We ... find that a part of your Majesty' s subjects, in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme Legislature..."
"Whenever the army under command of General Gage, or any part thereof to the number of five hundred..."
--
Where as I would oppose the removal of the quote from participates in the battle that seems more relevant to the article at hand, so without some other reason to suggest they represent a POV that should not be included I think they are fine.
--
I am unable to find any statements in the article that are not cited at least at the paragraph level some uncited paragraphs exist but these appear entirely unobjectionable at least to me and the GA criteria are
> reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some touching-up that could be done here. I'm busy with work but I'll try to make a library run either this weekend or next weekend. Some of the tags confuse me - I don't know what needs further explanation about "Nearly a hundred barrels of flour and salted food were thrown into the millpond". I have doubts about the free license status of the Franklin Mint medal and have nominated it for deletion on Commons. Hog Farm talk 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry of Grosmont, Duke of Lancaster

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

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and quotations. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is without merit. I do not see any statements tagged "citation needed". Yes, the lede does not have footnotes, but this is not required from the lede, which is supposed to be article summary. If it contains suspicious statemnts, they must be tagged, so that thic can be fixed promptly, without drastic acttions. --Altenmann >talk 22:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Altenmann: Uncited statements do not need "citation needed" tags for them to be uncited, nor do they need the tags placed before it is brought to GAR. Nevertheless, I have added the citation needed tags so that editors can easily find these statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not place "citation needed on each sentenc4e. Often there is a single footnote for a paragraph. 15:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
  • @Altenmann: GAs are held to a higher standard and need a citation at the end of each paragraph. Per the GA criteria, "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". In my review of the article, I saw many sentences at the end of paragraphs that were uncited. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louis XVIII

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the entire "Film and television" section. Unresolved "citation needed" tags since June 2024. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree OrangeLolipopSnail (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the film and television section as unsourced & trivial (as most such sections are). There are still 6 CN tags, though. Hog Farm talk 01:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Coal Canal

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

Uncited statements throughout the article, and some unresolved "why" and "by whom" tags. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Littleton

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

Uncited statements. The lead's organisation is also unusual with several small paragraphs, and doesn't mention the subject's death. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Leeds

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Methoxyflurane

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

The second half of the third paragraph of the lead is not mentioned in the body. There is no explanation as to why this drug was withdrawn in the United States.

There are also several sections of the body which are not cited. Steelkamp (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp Did you mention these issues on the talkpage, as is suggested on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is only a suggestion after all. Steelkamp (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The second half of the third paragraph does not need to be mentioned in the body as it is cited in the lead. I do not believe this is against any of the GA criteria, please let me know which GA criteria that violates.
  2. I don't believe that the lack of explanation is a violation of any GA criteria. However it could easily be added to the history.
  3. I'll take a go at finding citations for the unsourced parts. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the lack of explanation fails the broad in its coverage criteria. It leaves the reader with questions that aren't answered by the article. The good article criteria also mentions Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which means the lack of explanation in the body and only the lead is an issue under the criteria as well. Steelkamp (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, where in WP:MOSLEAD does it say that all text in the lead must be in the body, I'm having a hard time finding that. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steelkamp I have fixed all the issues that were against GA criteria. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 06:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CREATELEAD, There should not be anything in the lead that does not refer to specific content in the [body of the] article. Hence, I have added a Legal status section that now supports the second half of the third paragraph in the lead. Boghog (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you boghog for adding that, as I belive that all of the nominators issues are addressed now. However for future cases, the GA criteria do not require this, it is just preferred, as WP:MOSLEAD does not require this. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 15:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I believe this is Steelkamp's interpretation of Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article., in that the opposite is also true. Reconrabbit 14:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Mission

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

A 2006 GA that has a number of uncited claims and citation needed tags. It's also pretty reliant on primary sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold B. Lee Library

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

Article has prose issues, particularly the active templates. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Cage

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

This article has lots of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The "Return to Impact Wrestling (2021)" section is after the "The Patriarchy (2023–present)" section, and the article is not concise. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Party of Austria

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

There are some uncited statements in the article. There is a "One source" orange banner at the top of the "Populism" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Way You Make Me Feel

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

Uncited statements in the article, and the "Music video" section has an orange "additional citations needed" banner at the top since May 2013. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friends

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

There's a lot of uncited text: while some of it describes plot, others (especially in the "Blu-ray and DVD" section) does need a citation. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that this reassessment hasn't turned into a long list of things that could be fixed or improved, maybe the reviewing editor got distracted and will get back to it? My two cents. I feel like the article has accumulated lots of bits of pieces and needs cleanup and refocus. Imagine an article that would explain and introduce the show to an encyclopedia reader who was not familiar with the show and had never heard about it before at all. The third paragraph of the lead section is also a cluttered unfocussed mess. This article is supposed to be about Friends, I would summarize more and reduce the details about the Joey spin-off to only one paragraph if possible (definitely remove the long quote from Bright). The international broadcast section feels a lot like boring list, editors might need to read MOS:TVINTL again. Rather than downgrading the article for failing reassessment, editors might better think of this as an opportunity to bring this up to Featured article quality. -- 109.77.194.177 (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • A reviewer does not have to list a whole bunch of problems in a GAR, and I think being succinct is more effective than an overwhelming list. Editors can address concerns, add concerns and fix up anything they feel they need. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Man on Hippocampus

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

Some uncited statements. IMDB is used as a source and needs to be replaced or the information cited to it removed. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 7

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

The "Route description" is not sourced. Is this information correct, and can it be sourced? The lead does not provide an overview of all aspects of the article, and is missing the history of the route, realignments, and suffixed routes. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was something I noticed as well, but I didn't bother opening a GAR. Wow, the route description really isn't sourced. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can use a mapping software as a source such as Google Maps? I know it should be used with caution, but it would be a good source if we can't find any others. ToThAc (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the best-case scenario would probably be to use the USGS maps as well, since they are official maps which were licensed from USGS and can be trusted easily. This is just a suggestion, so I'm not sure. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism

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

There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. When the article was first promoted to GA status, it was about 6200 words. It is now over 10,000 words, and WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out articles of that size. Is there any information in the article that can be spun out or stated with less words, to make this article more concise? The "Demographics" section seems to end at 2016. Are there more up-to-date statistics? Z1720 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The article already makes abundant use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and I am impressed that such a general article comes in at only 10,425 words, which is perfectly in accord with WP:TOOBIG. I have reviewed the article and tagged every instance of a missing citation. Since none of the statements are controversial, I expect editors will fill them in now that they have been flagged. Demotion seems unwarranted and nonproductive. Patrick (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Patrick Welsh: I have added additional citation needed tags. The GA criteria states "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph". The numerous citation needed tags (including for entire paragraphs and quotes) and the "additional citations needed" orange banners will need to be resolved before I can recommend that this article keeps its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you would add those redundant tags, which make the article look messier that it is.
    As long as the unsupported content is uncontroversial, which it is, I will remain opposed.
    Placing an artificial deadline on editors to make these improvements seems counter-productive. Patrick (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TOOBIG isn't a hard rule; note that it says "> 9,000 words – Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." (emphasis mine) I think a general article about feminism should be on the larger side, and 10,000ish words isn't an exhausting length. The citation issues aren't major and can be remedied easily, eventually. Yue🌙 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earth, one of the biggest scopes on Wikipedia, is under 9,000 words, so spinning off prose can be done. In my opinion, an article should be concise and spin out material into daughter articles instead of long, hard to load on slow internet connections, and have too much detail that distracts from the most important information. None of this negates the citation concerns which still exist in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
80% of the feminist theory content of the page could be removed, and the page would lose nothing in terms of detailing what exactly feminism is. After a talk page discussion, I once removed an entire subsection on "architectural feminism" that was based on a single article from a feminist journal. If you Googled the subject, all that it returned was the Wikipedia page and the article itself. This is what I'm talking about: this article has chronic issues with detailed descriptions of incredibly minor topics, in this case one so minor it couldn't even warrant its own article. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article has had serious length and POV problems for years now. The article received GA status in 2011, just before the advent of "4th wave" feminism, when feminism itself was significantly narrower in scope. The anachronistic issues that once plagued this article have mostly been addressed, but length issues are still present.
Feminism today has become something personal for many people, which I think is the source of the POV and length issues. I honestly believe the only reason this article has maintained GA status for so long despite its glaring issues is that feminist editors see delisting it as an attack on feminism itself. Because of that, I doubt it will ever be delisted, even though it hasn't deserved GA status for nearly ten years. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the POV issues? Patrick (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, we generally use "keep" or "delist" at GAR. It can be confusing to say "support" or "oppose" because it isn't clear if that means you're supporting or opposing the delisting or the keeping of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smithfield, London

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Haarsma

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

There is lots of unencyclopedic language throughout the article. The "School visits" section seems quite promotional and unencyclopedic: perhaps it can be removed. There is uncited text throughout the article, and not much information about his more recent work: he won an Emmy in 2021 for "Journey" but the article doesn't have much information about this. Z1720 (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Andreescu

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

Lots of uncited statements in the "2020-2021" and the "2022" sections. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is hard for me to do anything with because I don't understand tennis at all. Here's some sources though.
Should be an easy one for a tennis fan. Good luck folks. MediaKyle (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods

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

There are uncited statements, including an entire paragraph. The lead is quite long and I think it can be more concise. Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tirreno–Adriatico

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

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the issue detected by Z1720, the table is not complying with WP:COLOR. Rpo.castro (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impalement

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

Uncited statements and overreliance on block quotes. Z1720 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal damage in English law

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

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

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. The article uses lots of block quotes, when Wikipedia recommends a summary style. The article is quite long: removing some of the block quotes might help with this, but there might also be places where the prose could be shorter. Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in helping, although the timeline of GARs may be on the fast side relative to what I can contribute. I've put this and the article on my watchlist, and I'll see what I can do. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in helping also. Remsense ‥ 论 07:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: GARs now typically stay open for a month (or will be closed as "keep" early if concerns are resolved). If there's ongoing improvements it will remain open past that one month. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Plains of Abraham

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

Some uncited statements, and a Trivia section that needs to be integrated into the rest of the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not see anything wrong here. I guess I contest the assessment with no real points being made. The demotion request is based on a few sentences in a trivia section?Moxy🍁 00:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: The good article criteria 2b states: "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)" There is lots of uncited text in the article, including a citation needed tag from November 2016. Z1720 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've Source the one tag....but can you help out and at least tag what you think needs sourcing..you're basically asking us to Source every sentence because this is the most vague thing I've ever heard. Moxy🍁 01:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think this looks fixable - although the archived kronoskaf source looks like some wiki variant and I don't know that we'd consider britishbattles.com a RS anymore. When I saw this go to GAR, I was hopeful that I'd be able to help, but I own very little source material about the French & Indian War and it looks like my local libraries don't have a whole lot either. Hog Farm Talk 01:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide many sources I just don't know for what as every paragraph has sources? [1]Moxy🍁 01:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moxy. I cleaned up the cites, with the exception of one problem. Aside from the order of battle which needs better cites, an editor (I can't figure out who) added cites to MacLeod in the first section. Now there is a book by MacLeod in the further reading section, but I cannot tell if they used the French or English versions for the cite. I do not have that book, so I am hoping you might. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy and Llammakey: It looks like most of the citation concerns have been resolved: I have only added one citation needed tag to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
order of battle ---- some differences?[2][3] Moxy🍁 17:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info[4] Moxy🍁 17:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Moxy! I will incorporate this stuff. Llammakey (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All done and replaced all citations using Britishbattles.com. I hope this helps the review. Llammakey (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - herodote.net should be replaced with a better source when one can be found but that involves only a very small part of the article and the rest seems to be in good enough shape. Hog Farm talk 22:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Constantinople (860)

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

Several uncited paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree lacks its citation especially critically in the final section where significant claims are made in terms of historical sources interpretation.
A source is cited (Zuckerman 2000) I have done my best to try and find an online accessible version but all I am turning up is book reviews.
Perhaps Zuckerman provides information that would cite the whole paragraph but the editor who wrote that section cited only the first sentence - this is a mistake I have made myself so I would not be surprised. But I think someone would have to access the source to check and amend the citation.
And thus the article fails the verifiable criteria;
"reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);" LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chao

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

Unreferenced section in the "Acting" and "Professional wrestling" sections. Z1720 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Carey

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Some statements have been uncited since 2023. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It goes back a lot farther, the version kept at GAR in 2011 was full of uncited statements. By today's standards, it should not have been kept. I try and check the state of the article when it was last reviewed to see if the problems can be fixed by removing unsourced content, but that won't work very well here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trade route

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting there are ongoing talkpage discussions on the veracity of some of the article's information. CMD (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Germany–Japan relations

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

Uncited statements, including entire sections. Z1720 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that, there are exactly two (rather small) sections that have no refs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: The GA criteria states, "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph." I see lots of places that don't have citations. Would you like me to add citation needed templates to those places? Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are statements you think need a citation, then yes, you should mark every one of them. It's impossible to know which ones are potentially problematic otherwise. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: Citation needed tags have been added. The "Twin cities" section also needs expansion. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added a bunch. I'll let someone else work on it for a bit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I believe all of the "citation needed" items have been sourced now. I removed one sentence that I couldn't source from the end of the "Anime and manga" section:

In contrast to K-Pop, J-Pop is less popular in Germany and is mainly listened to by anime fans.

I've tried every which way of finding a source, and can't find anything outside of discussion forums (which aren't considered reliable sources). Any other items needing sources? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also removed the following from the same paragraph as I can't find a source:

Several hundred anime films and series have been dubbed into German and, since the 2010s, have increasingly been marketed with German subtitles on video-on-demand services.

Anyone who can find a source can add it back. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've added refs for the additional tags. There are no others at this time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: Citation concerns have been resolved. I am a little concerned about the length, at 10,000 words. If possible, can some of this information be spun out or the block quotes summarised? This would help the article comply with the concise requirement of 1a. I think just a once-over readthrough with a focus of summarising overly detailed information should fulfil this requirement. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the length and detail in the article. Would you mind taking a stab at it, or making a note here of sections you think are overly verbose? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States)

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

There is uncited content, including the entire Hurricane Katrina section. Additionally, there are a number of citations to Global Security, which is no longer considered reliable. Hog Farm Talk 01:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens' assemblies of the Roman Republic

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

Wildly out of date in terms of scholarship. Essentially wrong about the organisation of curiae, the nature of the lex curiata, age of the centuriate assembly, nature of the centuries (strange anachronisms like "means test"), nature of Sulla's reforms to the centuries. Anachronistically thinks the thirty-five tribes existed throughout the republic.

Heavily reliant on Abbott 1901 (incorrectly cited, contrary to modern policy, to a 1960s reprint) which is not a reliable source due to the number of discredited claims it presents uncritically. Writing fails to comply with modern style standards (strange italics and capitalisation everywhere). Fails to cover 20th century research on the topic entirely. Ifly6 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The article dates from the early years of Wikipedia (2008). User Romanhistorian made a lot of contributions at the time using Abbott, but it's now not considered a reliable source. T8612 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Carson

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

Article has 11 citation needed tags (at the time of posting) , so probably passes meets the quick-fail criteria. The good article review was also around 16 years ago. TNM101 (chat) 05:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly enough for a promotion this old, I don't see any glaring issues in the version that was reviewed and given GA status. But that was over 1,000 revisions ago, and the current article does not meet our standards. The CN tags appear valid, and honestly the article's organization isn't great either with excessive sectioning and very short paragraphs. If this doesn't get improved, it should be delisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chabon

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

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina

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

The "Demographics" section focuses too much on the 2010 census, and should instead be updated with the 2020 information. The "Economy" section is just a list of businesses: since the first sentence of the article describes this as a resort town, I think there needs to be more information about the tourism economy. There is some uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Japan naming dispute

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

Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. Source quality concerns have been raised on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to try improving this – please ping me if I haven't gotten around to it within a week. Toadspike [Talk] 07:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 I've gone through and added a few tags. Could you please check if all issues that should be addressed in this GAR are tagged? This would help structure my work. Toadspike [Talk] 09:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight/tone issues

I see a few instances of undue weight or an unnecessarily editorializing tone in the article and wanted to check with others if my view makes sense:

  • "In the French language, the word orientale includes both the meaning of "eastern" related to compass direction and the meaning of "oriental", the Asiatic region. The same ambiguity is present in the Russian language, with both "eastern" and "oriental" indicated by one word." – This part is uncited, though I have no doubt that it's true. However, it seems completely irrelevant. I have yet to check the sources to see if it is mentioned, if it isn't I would like to remove these two sentences.
  • "Thus, the Japanese side argues that the South Koreans misunderstand the history of the name." – This may be accurate, but it should be made clear from the examples earlier in the section and not tacked on to the end of the section. I would like to remove this sentence.
  • "As a result, the international name of the sea changed from no name to the Sea of Japan, on the maps drawn by countries other than Japan or Korea during the 17th to 20th centuries." – This is very poor wording, verging on POV.
  • "Contrary to the position of a few major countries..." – This whole paragraph is uncited and reads very POV. I would like to remove it, since the point it makes should be covered by a list of examples (which this section is) instead of evidence-free editorializing.

I haven't checked the referenced parts of the article yet, I assume there are more POV issues to come. Given the topic, I am not surprised. Toadspike [Talk] 09:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"comparison of surveys" table

I had to look at this table several times to understand what it is trying to say. It is extremely wide (going far off of my screen in Vector 2022) and the important trend it tries to show, the switch from "East Sea" to "Sea of Japan" from the 18th to 19th centuries, is hidden in a sea of irrelevant details. To fix this, at the very least the US, FR, and DE columns should be removed. Perhaps the table should be removed altogether and replaced with a graph. The citation (to an extremely partial Japanese government webpage – not ideal) needs to be reformatted to actually link to the data, not just to the main page of the report. Toadspike [Talk] 09:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse University

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

There are uncited statements, including almost the entire alumni section. The "History" section seems to stop at 1990. I am skeptical that there has been nothing of historical note for 35 years. Z1720 (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysł II

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

Uncited statements throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the relevant criteria is "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged.... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". IMO concerns should be expressed in that context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Content in good articles need to be cited. I am happy to add citation needed templates if requested, but there are some citation needed tags from 2018 that are unresolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not arguing either way, just for a clearly expressed-concern that uses the criteria as a guide. And so an uncited statement per se is not a violation. On another note, an unresolved CN tag is a whole different different thing than the general thoughts expressed here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do in terms of sourcing, but no promises. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found one source that partially supports the statement but I don't know about the rest. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Piotrus and @HełmPolski: Can either of you help? I'm sorry, I'm kind of grasping at straws here. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping folks more familiar with that history period active on en wiki: @Merangs @Volunteer Marek @Orczar Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: &@Grumpylawnchair: – I can try to fill the sections where the 'citations needed' notes are present in the text. Is there anything else that requires addressing? On a personal note, I think the footnotes/citations in the lead section make it very untidy and any referenced information there should already be in the body of the article. Merangs (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uncited statements are the entire basis of this GAR. I could help you tidy up the lead if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: On that note, the notes should probably be put in their own notelist instead of the reflist since it is unwieldy. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notes and refs should not be mixed, good point. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: & @Grumpylawnchair: – Just wanted to let you know that I was able to locate and place sources for the uncited passages in the article. Merangs (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: Thank you very much! I'll take care of separating the notes from the refs. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The article probably needs a good copyedit (maybe someone should place a request to the Guild of Copyeditors), especially the footnotes, and a lot of the info in the footnotes can be moved into the prose. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: @Merangs: @HełmPolski: Honestly, some of the sources need replacing. Polskie Radio, while usually reliable, is not a good source for a history article. The sources to news articles should ideally be replaced. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to take a look, but it seems you've resolved the issue :) HełmPolski (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also an overreliance of blockquotes. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hacker

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 an orange banner asking for more citations that was posted in 2016. There is also no information about the subject's retirement. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Munnerlyn

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

There are a lot of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, and not a lot of information about his later career. Z1720 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J-Air

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

Contains sections of uncited text:

such significant amounts of text uncited makes this no longer a GA. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spirited Away

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

I've been considering this nomination for a while. This is a 2013 promotion that underwent a peer review in 2016. My most pressing concern is the failure of criterion 2b (reliable sources), with multiple self-published sources, primary sources, and other problematic material used. I've added inline or banner tags for all of these issues (though some of these have gone unresolved for over a year). I also doubt the article clears criterion 3a (addresses main aspects) with the number of high-quality scholarly sources left unused in § Further reading. Delist. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked as one of the major contributors to the article, I've also notified the relevant WikiProjects of this reassessment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i concur, i'm surprised that the article doesn't even source napier's anime from akira to howl's moving castle. i see sources from travel websites and amazon (twice), and it seems as though the accolades section has been flagged as requiring attention for over a year. unless all of these issues are fixed quickly, i (regrettably) call to delist. Plifal (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this article can claim to meet current {{Good article}} standards when the Awards/Accolades table is not properly referenced. WP:VERIFY is fundamental. Unless there is an editor actively working to fix it soon then the article should be downgraded for failing to meet the necessary standard. -- 109.76.129.14 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive cleanup, thanks. (I would also recommend removing any Navbox for any awards that are no longer mentioned directly on this page. Relevance matters, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NAVBOX "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.") -- 109.77.194.73 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on § Accolades, EzrealChen! That section is now in much better shape. For the purposes of this reassessment, however, my !vote stays the same due to the other issues I mentioned in my nomination statement. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific - I see one overtly problematic paragraph (second paragraph of Sovietization), what other ones are of concern? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I have added citation needed tags where they are needed. Z1720 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making some progress with the uncited sections, will keep working on it, I'll need four or five days. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned with the broadness of this page. This is a polity of 70 years, but little is covered outside of History. I don't think a Geography section is needed given it would likely replicate current Armenia, but there should be coverage of the population and culture. Perhaps the article could have more on the raions and cities, and more on the economy and infrastructure. This was surely a time of huge change. Lastly, should there be an extended paragraph on the flag based only on the Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev? CMD (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is this is a page that will predominantly need to reflect a specific historical period and politics, population and culture will to a large extent be subsumed into that (for example, note the religious aspects discussed during the Thaw section). However, will try to address some of these issues. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Other aspects should not be subsumed under History on this article, that would only be the case for a dedicated History article (currently there is not one). As a comparison, consider East Germany. A much broader coverage of politics, administration, economics, demographics, and culture, as well as a Legacy section, possibly relevant here too. CMD (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW WP:SIZERULE; the DDR article is somewhat bloated. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we may need to quick fail/delist this. I'm seeing some sections which appear to be close paraphrasing of "A concise history of the Armenian people: (from ancient times to the present)" by George A Bournoutian. The text previously referenced was the 5th edition, however I accessed the 2nd edition at the archive.org library, and this shows sections which have been simply reordered. I'll need to do a full check. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The DDR article is long because of its 4,000 word History section, this has little bearing on the rest of the sections. That's also more GACR3b, not GACR3a, which is the issue here. Thanks for the copyvio note, that's a rough find. I don't seem to have access at archive.org. Looking at early revisions, the 2006 version was initially cited[1]. CMD (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, RL has delayed me on this, will be able to review the close paraphrasing within 48 hours. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a pass wielding the "Armenian concise history" book—added citation, expanded, shuffled info, etc. Only one citation-less paragraph remains, a list of Armenian people from 20th century who defined certain period of Soviet Armenia, but I have a feeling it's just a list of successful people from 20th century Armenia who have a wiki pages, and a wiki editor loosely connected them. Since they are popular and sucessful figures, it can be assumed that they are a part of Soviet Armenia zeitgeist, but the concise history and google didn't produce anything remotely useful to prove it. I would delete it. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Presidency

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aksumite currency

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

Numerous uncited statements, including the entire "Weight standards" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian National Revolution

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

Uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fund accounting

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

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optical properties of carbon nanotubes

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

Lots of uncited statements including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I placed tags in the most obvious places. I'll see what I can address when I have access to the university library later but it's quite a tall order for this article and I don't have expertise in the field of carbon chemistry. I'm also concerned about the seemingly flippant/casual tone used often ("can be easily calculated", "they are less important and not considered here"...) Reconrabbit 23:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did get a hold of the 2022 reference work Handbook of Carbon Nanotubes. Also may have success referring to the Handbook of Carbon-Based Nanomaterials. I do have further concerns as I skim through these that the terminology and some concepts in this article are now outdated or superseded by current research. Reconrabbit 14:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equine nutrition

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your nomination, as I see only one CN tag in the article, and I will fix that cite. If you could be so kind as to note the other "entire paragraphs" or problematic sections where WP:POPE does not apply, I will take a look at those and see what can be done. Montanabw(talk) 05:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Follow up Spotted a couple area where a cite could be added, so I did. Flag anything else you really think must be addressed. I hope we are done here. Montanabw(talk) 07:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Montanabw: I have added citation needed tags to the places that need citations. Per WP:POPE, that is an essay, which "...contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" and "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." (per the box at the top of the page). Meanwhile, the GA criteria 2b states that the content of good articles must be cited no later than at the end of the paragraph. The prose there I added cn tags needs to be cited. Z1720 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Montanabw that the article is adequately sourced and still meets the spirit of WP:GA?; IMO, a one-sentence "paragraph" does not require a citation. The only fixes I see needed are a couple to citation templates. Miniapolis 16:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miniapolis: WP:GA? 2b states, "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);" Yes, that one sentence paragraph needs a citation. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. I disagree. Miniapolis 15:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not adequately sourced, I've had to remove the Environmental Literacy Council, which is an obviously AI generated website masquerading as a long defunct organisation [2]
In addition to that other sources are not even close to meeting RS, such as: [3], blog from a commercial site; [4], ditto; [5], a dead link to a forum.
This was all from a very brief spot check.
I'm not going to review the GAR as I am involved but I'd fail an article using sources like these. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You tagged “Therefore, it is critically important for horses to have access to a fresh, clean, and adequate supply of water.” as requiring a citation. That is a logical conclusion from the evidence in the proceeding sentences. It does not need to be sourced. Please see WP:POPE.I removed tag.
  2. You tagged, “ There are numerous commercially prepared vitamin and mineral supplements on the market, many tailored to horses with specialized needs.” that is an introductory comment, and I don’t know how on God’s green earth we cite what you can find by clicking on any website that sells supplements and you will find hundreds. Again WP:POPE. Removed tag.
  3. Made minor rewording and added new source to tag about horses eating grain. Was also kind of an obvious explanation of terminology, but whatever, I choose my battles.
  4. The Foxden Equine and [Oakford sources are commercial sites, but both are from nutrition companies with expertise in equine nutrition and written as educational content, neither pages is selling a product and they meets the verifiability criteria of WP:RS. I see nothing in the GA criteria that makes these sources unsuitable.
  5. I’m restoring the environmental literacy council citation for now, because I don’t see what is “obviously AI generated” about it – I am open to your evidence, but as far as I can tell the content is accurate.
  6. the AUSPET source is acceptable in the archived link. The original source was cited to the University of Illinois. Linkrot sucks, but I think this one’s OK now
  7. I added some sources to the unsourced paragraphs, and yes some more of them are from commercial horsefeed manufacturers. These again are reliable sources even if they are for-profit cites, there is often some excellent educational material provided. Again I see nothing in the GA criteria that says a for-profit site does notWP:RS]]. .

I remain open to further discussion on this topic, but I am also concerned that you are being excessively fussy for the GA criteria – the commercial site information is reliable and I am careful not to use sites that say “buy this cause it’s the best.” I do not see evidence that the sites you claim are AI generated or either AI generated or inaccurate. Montanabw(talk) 01:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Montanabw: In a reply above, I posted that WP:POPE is an essay and cannot be used as an argument for a statement to not be cited. If editors would like to change this, it can be proposed for a promotion to guideline at WP:VILLAGEPUMP. If the information is so obvious that it does not need to be cited, then in my opinion it does not need to be stated in the article. If it needs to be in the article to help with understanding, it needs a citation. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Environmental Literacy Council' website contains an obviously AI generated logo: [6] in addition to the text being clearly LLM generated. The actual Environmental Literacy Council hasn't existed since 2008. [7] Traumnovelle (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: The "AI source" at issue has been removed and replaced with another high quality source, so that issue is moot. Please review WP:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article which describes the different quality level of sources between a GA article and an FA article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 2b. says: 'reliable sources are cited inline.' The sources in question (blogs from commercial websites, a forum) are not reliable sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all the citations, combined some duplicates, cleaned some up, found archived links where current links were not found, and found some current links for a few. At least now all the citations have a working link, except for The Horse magazine which is a print magazine and their online has always been subscription only.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Every one of those {{citation needed}} tags were placed on sentences or paragraphs that didn't have citations in the 2009 GA Reassessment, which passed. The article has been pretty stable since back then, and now the article is even better because of my and Montanabw's work to clear your recent cn tags. Each of those now have citations, and there are no remaining {{citation needed}} tags. This seems to have been the only reason for you nominating this article to GAR, but the sourcing has now been handled and could have been handled with just {{citation needed}} tags without a full blown formal procedure to reevaluate the rest of an article which hasn't changed in well over 10 years. We're not aiming for a featured article, and a GAR for an article this length would take a lot of editor's hours... on both sides of a GAR. Do you agree that the issues you initially saw are now handled? Will you withdraw your nomination?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My citation concerns have been resolved. @Grorp: GA standards were raised in regards to citations: while a GA article in 2009 did not require citations at the end of every paragraph, the 2025 criteria does. I removed some unnecessary, uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivar

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, some of which have been labelled as uncited since 2024. Z1720 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragraph 3, states: "Since the creation of the Plant Patent Act of 1930[8] the naming of cultivars has been complicated by the use of statutory patents[9] for plants and recognition of plant breeders' rights" – this is of course, of highly localised relevance, and does not affect the situation generally (not relevant to 194 of 195 countries). Delete. - MPF (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Plant breeders' rights (UPOV) has a much wider scope than just the US. Even plant patents are not unique to the US. I think that an equivalent statement should be retained, but perhaps placed in the Cultivar Names or Legal Protection sections. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lavateraguy @Z1720 - yes, something worded generally without being specific to any one country would be good - MPF (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking further, that sentence is only of highly localised relevance if you read it that way. I suspect that the US Plant Patent Act of 1930 was the first instance worldwide of extending the intellectual property regime to plant varieties and as such is the starting point whether you take a US or global view. The rest of the sentence doesn't have an explicitly restricted scope.
    It remains that the best way of meeting the challenge of providing a clear concise and accurate statement in the lede might just be to defer the topic to the IPR section. On the other hand "Since the extension of the concept of intellectual property to plant varieties in the US in 1930 and subsequently in much of the world complications have been introduced to the naming of cultivars" may do the trick.
    I note that references 9 and 10 have the same archive link. I suspect that the one for reference 9 is incorrect. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • a change was made from "known cultivar" to "named cultivar". This had led to me thinking about edge cases to the definition of cultivars. For example, while taking a distinctive variant from a wild population into cultivation establishes a cultivar (named or otherwise), taking a typical variant from a wild population doesn't. I expect that there's some language requiring cultivars to be distinctive not just from other cultivars, but also from the wild type. But I also wouldn't be surprised if someone has introduced a trade designation for a wild type. (Wild types in cultivation are usually known either by the botanical name, or the collection number.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"taking a typical variant from a wild population doesn't" This has happened many times and I do not know how one would be able to prevent someone from giving such plants a cultivar name. As long as the plants are propagated in a way that all the resulting plants grown in cultivation maintain the same charteristics it is a "good" cultivar.Hardyplants (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavateraguy @Hardyplants - the change from 'known' to 'named' was me, I just thought it read better like that; change it back if you think 'known' was better. But yes, there are plenty of named cultivars that wouldn't stand out as obvious in their wild species populations, like Abies procera 'Glauca' or Cupressus nootkatensis 'Pendula'. And of Chamaecyparis spp., "... three are very variable and have given rise to a ridiculous flood of selected seedlings and mutations, many of which are so similar to others as to be just not worth perpetuating. Unfortunately this flow still continues. Very great restraint should now be exercised in introducing fresh forms that will add more names to our listings but no more beauty to our gardens." [followed by a list of over 500 named cultivars of Ch. lawsoniana!] (Welch & Haddow 1993, The World Checklist of Conifers p.54 ISBN 0-900513-09-8). - MPF (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think many cultivars are also vanity affairs. I am not that versed in what occurs with woody plant names, but with Hosta, Iris, and daylilies, a lot of plants are named, though there is no intention of introducing them into wide cultivation. Ideally, a cultivar should be distinctive and produced in enough quantities that its distribution is not confined to a limited location But, that is not what happens.Hardyplants (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical terms of location

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

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am willing to try and fix concerns --Iztwoz (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say "wow" to all the work you've put in to this, @Iztwoz: You've definitely changed this for the better. I've tweaked a few things from the veterinarian's standpoint. Thanks for your dedication on this page. Getwood (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Getwood --Iztwoz (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros.

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

The article has a lot of unsourced statements and 2 active orange banners. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DecafPotato has worked on this; are your concerns resolved Boneless Pizza!? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really at the reception section. It has an active tenplate, unsourced statements, and possibly might need some rewrite. If not, then expansion. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Business Communicators

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

Whilst it past GA review in 2013, the article has not been updated to reflect organization history since 2014. There's a few uncited statements and number of staff is not verified. Also article says it's based in San Francisco, when this says Chicago. https://www.iabc.com/about/contact. Also although an organization, it would benefit for example with a photo of its activities or leaders to meet GA criterion 6. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup of spammy, trivial, and/or uncited content. It would be great to have some history covering the 2013-2025, but I didn't find anything we could cite for this at-a-glance. CorporateM (Talk) 00:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the University of Santo Tomas

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

There are uncited statements, including the entire "Filipinization of the university" section and several paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reminding, will update in the coming days. I hope youll give me a sufficient time to overhaul the article. just a bit busy. KingTiger1611 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some temporary references to that section; please read the edit summary. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Me Up

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

Unreliable sources, sources used in wrong sections, and lots of unsourced statements. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I was told that MOS:PLOT doesn't apply however since it is not the main subject of the article. So, I've added sources to that section (and the unreliable source was already removed). However, the "sources used in wrong sections" part sounds questionable to me since...well, why can't it be used in other sections? ~ Tails Wx 12:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for now. There are still sources being used in the wrong places. For example, Apple Music should not be used to assign a genre for the song. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Taking a quick skim through the article, I am surprised at how little detail there is about the Background of the song's creation. There's also not much information about the song's composition (other than its lyrics). Are there sources that describe this information? Z1720 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington Bank Stadium

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malvoliox - you addressed some of the sourcing issues back in February - do you have any further thoughts on this? There is still some uncited content, including most of the table of highest attendance per seasons. Hog Farm talk 04:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swissair Flight 111

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

Uncited paragraphs, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" since September 2020. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks, I was actually taking a look at this earlier before you nominated for GAR. I think it's unlikely that we are going to find the exact references used for many of these statements, for example:

The search and rescue (SAR) operation was code-named Operation Persistence and was launched immediately by Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax (JRCC Halifax), which tasked the Air Command, Maritime Command and Land Force Command of the Canadian Forces (CF), Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary (CCGA) resources.

I can find quite a few sources for Operation Persistence, but they each reference different agencies, some of which aren't even listed above. I think some re-wording and copy-writing is appropriate for cases like these. FozzieHey (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've managed to cite Swissair Flight 111 § Safety recommendations and a sentence of Swissair Flight 111 § Search and recovery operation. I've managed to find a few other sources for the "Post-crash response" that I'll add to later. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight: The aircraft details are excessive, tending towards WP:CRUFT, in my opinion. Here is the key paragraph, with my suggested edits.

The aircraft involved was a seven-year-old McDonnell Douglas MD-11, with serial number 48448, and registered as HB-IWF. It was manufactured by McDonnell Douglas in 1991,[3]: 21  and Swissair was its only operator. It bore the title of Vaud, in honor of the Swiss canton of the same name. Until 1992, the aircraft bore the title Schaffhausen, after the canton of Schaffhausen and the town of the same name.

  1. Serial number; as I have recently explained on my Talk page, the link to registration takes you specifically to a full article on aircraft registrations. In contrast, the link to serial number takes you to bank notes, firearms, smartphones, and military aircraft serials, none of which apply to this Swissair MD-11. WP:AIRMOS, and specifically WP:REGISTRATION make it clear that the preference is for the registration wherever possible, not both forms of identification.
  2. Name; it barely matters that this aircraft was named Vaud; it certainly does not matter that it bore a different name before that. These aircraft fleet names are mere decoration, and not in the same league as "The Spirit of St Louis" or "Enola Gay".
  3. Age; I am sure that the remaining words could be straightened out to bring seven-years-old and 1991 together in a concise manner, but that is just fine-tuning.

Hope this helps. WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the name of the aircraft, whilst I agree it is not the most relevant addition to the article, the name Vaud is included in the infobox. I've shortened the original phrase from It bore the title of Vaud, in honor of the Swiss canton of the same name to It bore the title of Vaud.[5] (previously uncited). If not, I've addressed your points. The section now reads as:

The aircraft involved, manufactured in 1991, was a seven-year-old McDonnell Douglas MD-11 and registered as HB-IWF. The aircraft was powered by three Pratt & Whitney PW4462 turbofan engines and the aircraft had logged 36,041 airframe hours before the accident. It bore the title of Vaud. The cabin was configured with 241 passenger seats. First and business class seats were equipped with in-seat in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems from Interactive Flight Technologies. [...]

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most excellent! (And yes, I reluctantly accept that Wikipedia quotes these fleet names in every case, but I'm not sure that was the original intention when the Infobox fields were set up; however it's way too late to argue that point) WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FozzieHey, Aviationwikiflight, and WendlingCrusader: It looks like the entire article is now cited – are there any objections to closing this as keep? If anyone is looking to improve this further and needs access to Swiss sources, let me know and I'll get them for you. Toadspike [Talk] 08:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I have just noticed that three time zones are referenced, two of them very similar in presentation, hence easily confused. As with most/all air crashes, UTC is provided as a datum. After that, we come to the real problem.
  1. Firstly we have 20:18 EDT (00:18 UTC), local time at JFK at take-off.
  2. The main text refers to ADT, which is a variation of AST, neither of which are particularly well-known. Indeed, the United States National Hurricane Center's official advisories typically report AST and UTC when tracking storms in the Caribbean that threaten the U.S., but acknowledge that this may confuse the mainland public not familiar with the time zone designation.
Meanwhile the article on the Atlantic Time Zone states that various Canadian provinces have differing legal or official positions, but generally observe AST in practice, so there is that to consider.
I came across a similar problem with a recent event, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, which took off in one time-zone, was (allegedly) hit my a missile in a second time zone, but then flew on to crash land in a third time zone. That was a bit of a nightmare too! In that case, once the edit-warring had settled down, in addition to the abbreviations AZT, MSK and AQTT, the names of each of the time zones were added in full, together with a separate table that listed everything together under one specific time zone.
The guidance on time zones MOS:TIMEZONE mentions the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as another classic example, with events encompassing the exact timing of the declaration of war (in Washington D.C.) versus the actual timing of the events in Hawaii. Perhaps you should consider how that article deals with the differences, in terms of the events in Washington being ranked incidental to the main action in Hawaii.
In this respect, I would identify the timing of the take off in New York as 20:18 (New York local time), linking it to EDT but avoiding using that specific acronym because of its similarity to ADT. The addition of UTC provides the necessary continuity.
(further apologies for rambling on at length)
WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we clarify what each time zone is relative to UTC (UTC-4 and UTC-3) we can expect the readers to do some of the math in their heads, rather than listing everything in two or three time zones. Only the first use and most important points need side-by-side conversions. In this article, that means nearly everything should be ADT alone, and after the first ADT time we don't need to put the letters "ADT" after each time. Toadspike [Talk] 21:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

Uncited information in the article, including several very large paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to which exact portions need to be sourced? There was some uncited content added to the analysis section back in 2020, which seems to be the only major (uncited) additions to the article since the GA promotion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drovethrughosts: I have added citation needed tags. Some of the information in the Background section is in-universe, which might be better placed in the "Plot" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kempegowda International 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. Unresolved citation needed tags have been present since September 2024. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to close this as I don't think the issues have been addressed. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to leave this GAR open for a bit longer? I'm currently trying to address the issues brought up as they seem fixable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Is it a requirement that citations <like> <these> be expanded? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding of the GA criteria and past practices, a link to the source allows an editor to verify the information, thus is good enough for GA status. A full citation is not required for GA. Z1720 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for the clarification. I’ll run a few more spot checks but I believe that all the issues that you’ve raised have been addressed. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beryllium

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

The article contains uncited statements, some tagged with "citation needed" since 2023. Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an easy "save". There are a lot of citations. One area that is weak is isotopes, may be @Double sharp or @Nucleus hydro elemon knows sources?
I Looked in to the two citation needed and simply deleted the sentences as unsourced and not notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton: I added cn tags to the places where I think citations are needed. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...beryllium is, uniquely among all stable elements with an even atomic number, a monoisotopic and mononuclidic element. I'm not sure is CIAAW enough to cite this. It verifies that beryllium is the only monoisotopic element with an even atomic number, but not the only mononuclidic element with an even atomic number. If we list all 21 mononuclidic elements, we can see that beryllium is the only one with an even atomic number, but I'm not sure is that allowed.
  • The shortest-lived known isotope of beryllium is 16Be, which decays through neutron emission with a half-life of 6.5×10−22 s. Is it notable? Even it is, as the half-lives of 15Be and 16Be are 790±270 ys and 650±130 ys, there should be a footnote as in the article technetium to explain why the shortest-lived known isotope cannot be determined based on existing data. It is quite a trouble to me.
  • No beryllium silicide has been identified. I can't verify this. Perhaps it appears somewhere else where I missed, or it adds another [citation needed] into the article.
  • Although Wöhler first used to term "beryllium" in 1828, it is not the first word derived from beryl. The names "beryllina", "beryllerde", "berylline" (all from doi:10.1007/s10698-022-09448-5) were used before "beryllium", and perhaps should be mentioned in the article.
Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have some answers (?) to the first and third bullet points.
Reconrabbit 16:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an Etymology section where I moved come content about "beryllina". Johnjbarton (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are still 3 "citation needed" tags on this article. They are somewhat hard to find references for:
  • It thus has very high ionization potentials and strong polarization while bonded to other atoms, which is why all of its compounds are covalent. This seems hard to prove - there are no ionic beryllium compounds? What about the fluoroberyllates? It may be better to just find a reference for Beryllium's chemical behavior is largely a result of its small atomic and ionic radii..
  • the attached carbon still bears a negative dipole moment. May be supported by the reference immediately preceding it, but I can't access the work.
  • Naturally occurring beryllium, save for slight contamination by the cosmogenic radioisotopes, is isotopically pure beryllium-9 [...] May be in Chemistry of the Elements or another reference work. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry only touches on its nuclear properties briefly.
Reconrabbit 21:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed two of those. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some citation needed tags still remain. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I looked at the article just now, I found two citation needed tags remained. I added a few sources that should address these specific issues, and one elsewhere (the new Handbook of the Chemical Elements from Springer is a nice reference work, but didn't have much regarding nuclear properties), but the claims seemed at least in one case exaggerated (and in one case definitely based on a preprint, though it's been published by now). Thanks to everyone else working on this and it's appreciated if you could take a look at these additions and see if they're appropriate - I could just be missing something in regards to the nuclear cross section sizes, which is why I didn't go as far as to include numbers, since they appear to change with every publication and there wasn't an obvious recent source I found. Reconrabbit 17:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire folklore by region

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

There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire sections. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article came about after being excised from the (large) parent article. Been ages since I looked at it - will do so at some point this week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A few bits and pieces (citing or removing the Cambodia section, also pondering about what to do with the Folktales section at bottom) and rejigging the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, follow up poke, just checking you're still interested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Will do over weekend. I have commented out unreferenced section as I suspect it will require more snooping than I am prepared to do currently - I'll make a note on the talk page for later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't seen any activity since December apart from one section being commented out, I'm inclined to close as delist unless someone intends to make improvements soon or there's a consensus to keep. Potentially this could be kept by excising the remaining unsourced material. @Casliber and AirshipJungleman29:, any thoughts? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had commented out the main chunk of material (I thought all of it...??? Oh, found and removed some more). The outstanding issue was rejigging the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not too sure what to do about the lead. Is a little small but as much of the article is quite listy in its content, it'd be making a mini-list in lead, which I don't think is that helpful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. ^ "Home". The National Battlefields Commision. Retrieved 2025-02-26.
  2. ^ "The British Army > Positioning of the troops > The two armies face each other > Battle of the Plaines of Abraham > The national Battlefields Commission". Batailles de 1759 et 1760. Retrieved February 26, 2025.
  3. ^ "The French Army > Positioning of the troops > The two armies face each other > Battle of the Plaines of Abraham > The national Battlefields Commission". Batailles de 1759 et 1760. Retrieved February 26, 2025.
  4. ^ "Northern Armageddon : the Battle of the Plains of Abraham : MacLeod, D. Peter, 1955- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive". Internet Archive. October 23, 2016. Retrieved February 26, 2025.
  5. ^ "SR111 – Die Tragödie der Swissair" [SR111 – The Tragedy of Swissair] (PDF). Cockpit (in German) (9): 14–16. September 2013. Retrieved 11 February 2025.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1225482527"