Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 78

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 77) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 79) →

Mario Kart: Double Dash[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 March, Sergecross73 tagged this 2012 GA as needing cleanup, noting on the talk page that the article was "well below GA standards" and contained "unsourced content, trivia, sloppy stuff, etc." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in terrible shape - a victim of a decade plus of people slow degrading it into a worse status. I originally intended on cleaning it up myself, but I've lost interest and am focusing on other projects now, so that cleanup effort probably won't come from me anymore... Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and fixed the gameplay section on a whim, so there's that chunk of work done. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73 do you think the fix is good enough to keep the GA status? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say so personally. The reception section is still lacking even with the one paragraph I added to it, and I've been too lazy lately to fix it further. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nature[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Sources in the "Further reading" section should be explored for their use in the article as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the GA status. I went through and counted, finding 23 paragraphs without a single source. That would be an automatic declination of standard GAN.
Beyond this I have to question the coherence and relevance of grouping such a vast range of topics into one page. It is almost as if this page covers everything which has nature in the name. For instance I don't see how Microbes, Lakes and Matter and Energy belong together. I noticed that back in 2023 it was marked as a WP:COATRACK but this tagging was removed. I think it should not have been.
N.B., as I write this I noticed that some edits are taking place.Ldm1954 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the GA status: The problem with the article is that instead of systematically analysing the concept of 'Nature', it for the most part (90% of the text) blankly assumes one naive definition (the physical environment, implying what a philosopher might call Naive realism) and then lavishly describes that instead of the article's proper subject, i.e. the article is 85% off-topic, and 50% uncited at that (i.e. I more than agree with User:Ldm1954). The GA status is at the moment wholly unjustifiable. Worse, the article Nature (philosophy) covers the territory of 'Nature', the rest of the text being basically a WP:CFORK of Universe or just rambling any which way, so a merge and redirect should follow this GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aang[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in bad shape. It is not updated yet; there are a lot of unsourced statements, the "bending the elements" section is written like lists instead of prose and the reception section is too flimsy. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Póvoa de Varzim[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has numerous uncited paragraphs and sections. It is also over 11,000 words, so it is recommended that someone with knowledge on the subject evaluate if anything can be removed or spun out. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dartmouth College fraternities and sororities[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article, promoted to GA in 2007, seems to be a list. I think this should be delisted so that it can be reclassified as a list instead. The article also has a "updates needed" orange banner from December 2023. Z1720 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Galatian War[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An older GA from 2007, with a bevy of primary and old sources (the most recent author died in 1905). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iazyges, I am willing to work on this. What is your expected timeline for resolving the major issues before we can take on the specifics? I believe I can get done with the former in 5-10 days. Matarisvan (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Thanks! I don't have a specific timeline as long as progress is being made; the 7-day close is meant to be an accelerant for articles that attract no interest, not a hard deadline. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have started working on the article and expect it to get to GA level within 10 days. I will ping you once I'm done upgrading this one. Matarisvan (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Iazyges, I have reworked the article quite a bit. Do you think this is now back at GA level? Any comments you would like to add? Matarisvan (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polish minority in the Czech Republic[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. "Present day" section has no post-1991 information. Sources listed in the "Further reading" section should be explored for their inclusion as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has numerous uncited sections, a bloated lede, and the information is generally disorganised. Z1720 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portland Trail Blazers[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited paragraphs, bloated sections and a bias towards recent events. Z1720 (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Davenport, Iowa[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited paragraphs, information out of date in government section. Z1720 (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus to delist ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags and after a quick skim you will see other places that aren’t tagged but deserve cn tags. Also there are 2 maintenance tags but both are about expansions. 48JCLTALK 01:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to work on improvements to the article in order for it to comply with Good Article standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL I've fixed up the spots needing expansion and additionally cited several sections with citation needed tags (As well as Pokémon Platinum's section). Could you clarify what other spots need improvement? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Could [1] be moved to the body, making the lead more summary style? I’ll come back with more. 48JCL TALK 21:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL what else needs to be done? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fallout 3[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's like a lot of issues in the gameplay section. It was written a little bit awfully (for now) and has sourcing issues, and some of it is possibly unsourced. It also needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, there are also citation errors, no authors at the citation, and unreliable sources like ref 22. The retail version sub-section is written like a list instead of prose. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the good article reassessment for Fallout: New Vegas right now, and after that's done I intend on getting to this article. Outside of the gameplay section, it seems to be in much better shape than the Fallout: New Vegas was, so it shouldn't be too bad. But in case I don't get to this article in time, I agree with Greenish Pickle!, this article does not meet the GA requirements as is. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Hobo do you still intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just stumbled upon this and began a copyedit pass. It'll be next week before I can really sink my teeth into it, but I'm happy to do some work on it. This should be a salvageable article. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: @DrOrinScrivello: Sorry for the delay, but yes I do plan on fixing up this article, been working on other stuff. Ironically this is my favorite Fallout game, but it's been a bit of a struggle to work on this article. I did start working on it on my sandbox page. I've shortened the plot section and began work on the development section. Due to the extreme gameplay similarities between Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I asked the Video Games Project if it would be okay copying nearly entire paragraphs over from one article to another. The general consensus was yes, so long as the paragraphs that were copied are properly attributed in the original article they came from in the edit description. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo: your working version looks like you're doing the same sort of paring down that I started and you're much further along, so I'll pause my efforts for now. Feel free to ping me if you'd like a second set of eyes on anything. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo and DrOrinScrivello: I see the editing has slowed down now after some big chops. How are we feeling about the article now? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Hobo did some fine work on the article, and it seems to me as if the original issues have been addressed, so my opinion is Keep. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there's still some stuff that needs to be worked on. The reception section needs to be beefed up to meet modern standards, and the lede needs to be rewritten to reflect the content of the article. The reason I haven't edited this article in a while is because I hate writing reception sections for larger games, but I'll get around to it shortly. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Stanley Parable[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this article got so out of hand, but you can pretty clearly see something went very askew here. There are wayyyy too many fair use images now, the formatting's broken, a two year old expansion template...this article is in dire need of some weed trimming when compared to the version that passed GAN in 2020. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested on improving the article in the spots where it is broken. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest issue is the lack of reception for the new release. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a lot of academic analysis that hasn't been included that I found while researching The Narrator (The Stanley Parable), for example, and a lot of things mentioned in the nomination to clean up. I've been busy the past few days but I intend to hit this up soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man I've expanded the Reception to account for the Narrator's existence with additional Analysis, and I've also added reviews for the Ultra Deluxe game. I've tried reformatting the images per my discussion with you, but the infobox physically will not let me have no image there and it is confounding me. In any case, bar that image debacle (Which I will need some help with) is there anything else that needs patching up? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing left is to remove the infobox from the dev section, it's kinda superflous. But we should have the original release date mentioned in the body...kicker is I'm having a hard time finding a good cite for *when* that happened.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ryan Williams (women's soccer)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails criteria 3a "addresses the main aspects of the topic"; The "Club career" section has not been updated with any information since December 2020, meaning 90% of her professional appearances to date came after the dates covered in the article; this section is the most important since her professional soccer career is the reason she is notable. I also believe the article fails 3b "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", with over-reliance on primary sources from TCU's athletics website, and North Carolina Courage's official website. Joeykai (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blown for Good[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep. Problems solved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article bears little resemblance to the form it was when it was nominated 14 years ago, though at the time it had its own issues. For context, the article was created and largely written by someone who was 1) banned from this topic area for BLP and source misrepresentation, among other issues 2) later indefinitely banned. Afterwards the article had a chunk taken out of it, perhaps justifiably, but what is left does not meet the GA standards, and may still face the problems with POV that existed before.

An issue is particularly the incredibly short lead, which fails to sum up why the book is notable at all, not summarizing either its reception or contents (the old lead included this, though was perhaps too long) therefore failing criterion 1, and also parts of the summary have been changed for the worse to the point where I'm not sure it summarizes the book properly (failing criterion 3). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on this article, including:
  • checked all the references and updated with archived versions where needed
  • added book sources that didn't exist in 2009 when the book was written or in 2010 when the GA nomination passed
  • reworked the lead to include summary of the book's contents and reception
  • straightened out which loose bits belonged in the author section and which belonged in the contents section (author section used to be above contents; new author section has since been created below contents section to piggyback a mini-BLP in this article, leaving a few sentences and paragraphs in the wrong position, which I put in an appropriate place)
  • clarified the wife's escape
  • compared the version right after the article's creator's last version [1] and restored a few sentences and a paragraph
  • you weren't clear which version you were comparing or which "chunk" was missing in order to decipher what you meant by "bears little resemblance"

I have the book if you want me to check anything for you.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see user Sfarney did a lengthy hatchet job on the article in 2016; I'll check those edits next (for example, here they give a false reason for removing content)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grorp I'm quite busy at the moment IRL (unfortunate timing on my part starting this reassessment now Lol) so I can't check everything you changed, but the changes overall seem to be good improvements, thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well, apart from the lead, which could be a bit longer, the work you have done means that the article as now seen is coherent, covers "the main points", and is fully cited, so not much seems seriously wrong. I'd have thought you could just extend the lead a little (I could even do that, at a pinch: ping me if that's needed) and the article can remain as a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like you are !voting KEEP? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap @Grorp FWIW my problems with it have been solved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. Then you can simply withdraw, i.e. close the GAR now as KEEP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pipe organ[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Not enough improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has numerous uncited sentences. Deprecated and unreliable sources are used (such as Answers.com) while there is an extensive "Further reading" and "External links" sections that can be used as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put out a message to User:Cor anglais 16, who was a major contributor in the past, regarding this reassessment. I will try to address some of the issues but I'm in no way familiar with the literature so apologies if I fall short. Reconrabbit 12:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_78&oldid=1233560261"