Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 79

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 78) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 80) →

D.C. United

[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) 12:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, including multiple paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 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.

Batman: Anarky

[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. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text throughout the article, and the reception section is too long and disorganised. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof aye, this article has problems, definitely major enough that I don't think they can be easily fixed. The reception section, aside from being too long, consists largely of very confusing and contextless block quotes. The "themes" section might as well be written off as original research, as it is almost entirely cited to the comic itself, so it appears as though this is the editors own interpretations of the comic. It is severely lacking in citations to reliable, secondary sources, citing only a hand full. And as the nominator said, a lot of the text is entirely uncited, in sections you'd expect to be fully sourced. This is definitely a delist from me. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the "unsourced" bits aren't really unsourced. Here's an example: Cam Smith, Ray McCarthy, and Josef Rubinstein completed the ink work for "Anarky: Tomorrow Belongs to Us", "Anarky", and "Metamorphosis, respectively. That might be false, but it's not unsourced - the front of each issue will say who inked it. If there are other parts that are a problem, can you point them out specifically? I've only just skimmed it, but it's things like that that I found, so they're fine.
I removed the disorganized part of the reception section and it already looks way better. I haven't followed up with any of those sources though, nor have I checked to see if there are major omissions in that section. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Asilvering: I have added cn tags to the article. If the article is citing the comic as its source, it will need an inline citation (with the exception of the comic's plot summary). I agree with Grnchst above that the Themes section should not be citing the comic, but rather what secondary sources have said about the comic. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for breadth. Biggest issue for me is the Themes section based on primary sources. It's synthetic/original research to say that those primary source mentions constitute a theme. We need secondary source analysis to warrant those conclusions. czar 22:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources that could be useful to fix up some of this:
    Klaehn, Jeffery (1 July 2020). "An interview with Alan Grant". Studies in Comics. 11 (1): 193–204. doi:10.1386/jem_00021_7.
    Berns, Fernando Gabriel Pagnoni; Veteri, Eduardo (2023). "Batman, Defender of the Status Quo?: On Anarchy and Anarky (Guest Villain: The Ventriloquist)". In Favaro, Marco; Martin, Justin F. (eds.). Batman's villains and villainesses: multidisciplinary perspectives on Arkham's souls. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 1-66693-083-0.

asilvering (talk) 21:02, 22 August 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.

Milkman Conspiracy

[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: Speedy kept, nominator didn't leave a proper rationale as you're supposed to. λ NegativeMP1 15:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

goes in unnecassary detail, skewed more towards the games favor, seems unnecessary for a article on just one level just for its humorous content, not well written NoKNoC (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inactionable GAR, so you are going to need to elaborate more than that.

  1. Can you provide examples where the article goes into unnecessary detail?
  2. Can you provide examples of how the article skews towards the game (and, frankly, what that even means)?
  3. Can you provide the GA criteria that "seeming unnecessary" fails?
  4. Can you provide examples of issues with the quality of the writing?

As it is, it just seems to me like you don't like the article, and are in turn coming up with reasons to have it deleted that are not relevant to any guideline or policy on Wikipedia. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I did some minor cleanup and did not notice anything unusual. The article still meets the WP:GA? criteria after 4 years of its first GA nomination. Looking at the article history, its talk page, and the recent AfD, this rather seems to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:GAR states: "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." The nominator did not specify or provide examples, so I'd recommend to speedily close this if the nominator does not respond. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 August 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.

Tropical Storm Don (2011)

[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) 23:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following merge. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 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.

Carl Tanzler

[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) 23:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing that was last reviewed in the 2009 sweeps fails GACR 2a, having multiple unsourced areas and a largely unsourced crufty "pop culture" section. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the pop culture section. Not only was it unsourced but there were hardly any items that were notable on their own. The one thing I kept was a note on the mausoleum pieces being used in an exhibit (which is also unsourced). I will try to look at finding where the unsourced info came from but I don't know if I can find relevant information. Reconrabbit 04:17, 19 August 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.

Laura Robson

[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) 23:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains many uncited statements and paragraphs. The lead should be reformatted into 3-4 paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the lead slightly, but I don't see any need to reduce it any further. It adequately covers her junior career, her singles career, her mixed doubles success, her injuries and her retirement (and future career, should that receive coverage). Also, the reason this article gives more weight to earlier years of her career than later years is because those are the most notable parts of her career, when she was a junior champion and rising star on the WTA tour. Iffy★Chat -- 12:36, 22 August 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.

Galveston, Texas

[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) 23:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited text throughout the article. The end of the "After World War II" section contains many one-sentence paragraphs which should be merged together. The "Demographics" section only lists the racial composition of the city and does not include other demographic information like income, religion and age, nor does it talk about historic patterns in demographics. Some information from "County, state, and federal government" is sourced to 2008 information and needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 13:56, 22 August 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.

Ucu Agustin

[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) 23:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no post-2011 information, and should include some of her recent projects. More sources should be found to expand the "Personal life" section. Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 22 August 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.

Kony 2012

[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) 23:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is incomplete. Nothing about the $12.6 million in donations raised or how it was spent? Nothing about the legacy of the film or the current whereabouts of Joseph Kony? Schierbecker (talk) 19:41, 21 August 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.

Arab migrations to the Maghreb

[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: WP:CLOP not resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a spot-check on this article's sources, and I have, unfortunately, found a non-insignificant amount of close paraphrasing and direct copyvio from the article's book sources. I'm going to list all the examples I've found so far, but it's going to take a while to fix them and more thoroughly check the rest of the article. I have also found a few cases where the close paraphrasing either distorted the meaning of the text to the point of inaccuracy, or was accidentally cited to the wrong source.

  • Article: The organization of the Aghlabid army was largely based on the Arab tribes who settled in Ifriqiya in the late 7th and 8th centuries. The troops were paid at clearly defined times, while cavalry received twice as much as infantry because of the greater cost of their horses and equipment.
    • Theotókīs, Geṓrgios (2020). Warfare in the Norman Mediterranean. Warfare in History. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-78327-521-2.: The organization of the Aghlabid army was largely based upon the Arab tribes who settled in Ifriqiya in the late seventh and eight centuries. Its troops were probably paid at clearly defined times, with the calvary receiving twice as much as the infantry because of the greater costs of their horses and equipment.
      • The close paraphrasing also distorted the meaning of the original text; the source merely says that the discrepancies in pay "probably" existed, while the paraphrase makes the fact seem much more definitive.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: To persuade the Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym to migrate to the Maghreb, the Fatimid caliph gave each tribesman a camel and money and helped them cross from the east to the west bank of the Nile River. The severe drought in Egypt at the time also persuaded these tribes to migrate to the Maghreb, which had a better economic situation at the time. The Fatimid caliph instructed them to rule the Maghreb instead of the Zirid emir Al-Mu'izz and told them "QUOTE" and told Al-Mu'izz "QUOTE".
    • El Hareir, Idris; Mbaye, Ravane, eds. (2011). The spread of Islam throughout the world. The different aspects of Islamic culture. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing. ISBN 978-92-3-104153-2. OCLC 779275979.To persuade the Arabs of the Banu Salim and the Banu Hilal to emigrate to the Maghrib, the Fatimid caliph gave each tribesman a camel and money and helped them cross from the east to the west bank of the Nile. He also instructed them to rule the Maghrib instead of al-Mu'izz. Yazuri told them: 'QUOTE' He then wrote to al-Mu'izz saying: 'QUOTE'
    • El Hareir, Idris; Mbaye, Ravane, eds. (2011). The spread of Islam throughout the world. The different aspects of Islamic culture. Paris, France: UNESCO Publishing. ISBN 978-92-3-104153-2. OCLC 779275979.In the eight years from 446/1054 to 454/1062, Egypt suffered from a severe drought due to a fall in the level of the Nile. This was followed by a plague that is the subject of many terrible and horrific stories. The ensuing economic crisis encouraged the Banu Salim and the Banu Hilal to embark on their celebrated westward march to the Maghrib, which at that time enjoyed a better economic situation
      • This line is fine paraphrasing-wise, but the source states that the drought and plague caused an economic crisis that led to increase migration. The article only attributes the migration to the drought.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: The Banu Hilal conquered lands which they largely destroyed, whose cultivation then began to decline, leading to the rise of nomadism
    • Benouis, Farida; Museum With No Frontiers, eds. (2022). An architecture of light: Islamic art in Algeria. Islamic art in the Mediterranean. Vienna: Museum With No Frontiers. ISBN 978-3-902966-14-8.: The Banu Hilal took land which they had largely destroyed, and whose cultivation then began to decline. As nomadism spread, territories of the local tribes changed and shrank
      • The close paraphrasing distorted the meaning of the text; while the source connects the rise of nomadism to changes in the tribe's territories, our article links the invasions to the rise of nomadism. While that seems likely, I'm not seeing our source make that connection.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: According to Ibn Khaldun, the lands ravaged by Banu Hilal invaders had become desertified and turned into completely arid desert
    • Potential source: (info seemingly fails verification in the given one) "Populations Crises and Population Cycles". web.archive.org. 2013-05-27. Retrieved 2024-08-25.he also noted that the lands ravaged by these invaders had become completely arid desert.
      • This example might have fallen under WP:LIMITED, except for the fact that it wasn't cited. In addition, the preserved creative language of "ravaged" really should be in quotes and more directly attributed to the original author.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: The study found out that the majority of Eu10 chromosomes in the Maghreb are due to the recent gene flow caused by the Arab migrations to the Maghreb in the first millennium CE.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: Therefore it has been established that the Eu10 chromosome pool in the Maghreb is derived not only from early Neolithic dispersions but to a much greater extent from recent expansions of Arab tribes from the Arabian Peninsula.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: These Bedouin tribes accelerated and deepened the Arabization process, since the Berber population was gradually assimilated by the newcomers and had to share with them pastures and seasonal migration paths. By around the 15th century, the region of modern-day Tunisia had already been almost completely Arabized.
    • Holes, Clive (2018-08-30). Arabic Historical Dialectology: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches. Oxford University Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-19-100506-0. These immigrant Arab tribes accelerated and deepened the Arabization of the Maghreb since a large portion of the Berber population (in particular those living as pastoral nomads) was gradually assimilated by the newcomers who had to share with them pastures, as well as seasonal migration paths. It seems that by around the fifteenth century, the regions occupied by modern Tunisia had already been almost completely Arabized
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: According to Ibn Khaldun, they were accompanied by their wives, children and stock. They settled in the Maghreb after repeatedly fighting battles against the Berbers, such as the Battle of Haydaran.
    • Potential source (it's not cited to this)el-Hasan, Hasan Afif (2019-05-01). Killing the Arab Spring. Algora Publishing. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-62894-349-8. According to Ibn Khaldun, the Fatimids sent them to settle in the Maghreb accompanied by their wives, children, and stock. After repeatedly fighting battles against the Berbers, they eventually co-existed with them.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: The Arab Muslim conquerors had a much more durable impact on the culture of the Maghreb than did the region's conquerors before and after them, and by the 11th century, the Berbers had become Islamized and Arabized.
 Done Skitash (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GreenLipstickLesbian, do you feel the issues are resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 That's what I found with a 30 minute spotcheck - I genuinely have not had the time to look further, but thank you for the reminder. And while I also thank Skitash for making a good faith effort to fix the close paraphrasing and copyright issues, they appear to have done so by swapping out words with their synonyms. (Special:Diff/1242269783 shows this).
But picking two paragraphs at random, I'm seeing
Upon arriving in the Maghreb, the Arabs had to decide between settling in existing Roman and Byzantine towns or constructing new Arab towns in new locations. Archaeological and historical evidence suggests that they did both. Arab groups settled in old Roman towns such as Setif and Cherchell in Algeria and imposed their own architectural needs on the old, while other groups built totally new towns such as Basra, Fez, Qsar es-Seghir and Sijilmasa in Morocco.
and the source:
In crossing North Africa, the Arabs faced the choice of settling own in an existing Roman or Byzantine town, many of which were still inhabited, or of building a new town in a new location. Archaeological and historical evidence indicated they did both. Some groups moved into old Roman towns, like Setif and Cherchel in Algeria, and imposed their own architectural sensibilities and needs on the old. Other groups built completely new towns, such as al-Basra, Fez, Qsar es-Seghir, and Sigilmasa in Morocco.
and
The number of Arab migrants of Ifriqiya concentrated in the army and the cities, mainly Kairouan, has been estimated at 100,000. Most of the Arab migrants came from Syria and Iraq, which from the start supplied numerous migrants to the Maghreb
versus the source:
The number of Arab immigrants concentrated in the army and the cities, chiefly Kairouan, has been estimated at one hundred thousand. Most of them had come not from Arabia, but from Syria and Iraq, regions from which from the start had supplied numerous emigrants to the Maghrib.
Unfortunately, my random picks again show close paraphrasing. So no. I'm not convinced the issues have been resolved. If somebody else more familiar with the process would like to weigh in, however, that would be much appreciated. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and as a copyright violation is a quickfail criterion, I have delisted the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:53, 2 September 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.

2008 Mumbai attacks

[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) 08:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is difficult to follow because it is written poorly. Every statement should answer the five Ws: who, what, when where and why. This article does not do this. For example: "NSG Commando Sergeant Gajender Singh Bisht, who was part of the team that fast-roped onto Nariman House, died after a long battle in which both perpetrators were also killed."

How did he die? He just died?? Poof, dead?

Here is another example of bad writing: "Before his execution in 2012, Ajmal Kasab,[25] the sole surviving attacker, disclosed that the attackers were members of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba,[26] and were controlled from Pakistan, corroborating initial claims from the Indian Government.[27] Pakistan later confirmed that the sole surviving perpetrator of the attacks was a Pakistani citizen."

We are neck deep in this article and we are confirming the identity of the terrorist group as if this were new information. Also Pakistan found out he was Pakistani after they executed him? Schierbecker (talk) 01:20, 20 August 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.

British people

[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) 18:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about out-of-date information brought up on the talk page have not been addressed. There is uncited text, including the entire "Chile" section, and the demographics section needs to be updated, as it uses sources from 2005 and the 90s. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, immediately, without going too far, in the lede, reference 28 about CUKC is not explained correctly and doesn't address the situation British people in regards to an influx of Caribbeans identifying as Britons. And the infobox regarding Regions with significant populations is onto the right idea, however again, poorly constructed. Perhaps something on the lines of e.g. Canada 603,000 ~ 17,325,860, as the notes are hidden and don't offer a clear explanation of the figures. Cltjames (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has 69kB of readable prose, so is on the large side - would be good to trim to under 50kB prose. Lots of things to look at. Lots of direct quotes that should be de-quoted and written differently (if they need to remain at all) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist 1) The infobox is mainly about the diaspora, while the lead mentions the diaspora only in the last sentence. Languages like Virgin Islands Creole are mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article (against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). The infobox starts with the Union Jack. A few lines later we read that there are more than 100 mill. in the USA. Do we really want to give our readers the impression that 100 mill. Americans fly the Union Jack ?
2) Arbitrary selection of pictures of people: There are four photographs of individuals: Rowling (why select her, and not nobel laureate Abdulrazak Gurnah ?), Rhodes (without even mentioning his connections with colonialism and racism), Paddy Mayne and three gold medalists of the 2008 World Orienteering Championships (the most famous British sportspeople ever ?). All of them are White.
3) Is the diaspora really so important for British identity ? About a third of the whole article is about British diaspora, with a long sub-section e.g. for Chile.
4) Why are the British Overseas Territories and Northern Ireland (in the sub-section on Ireland) covered in one section with the diaspora ? Rsk6400 (talk) 11:38, 29 August 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.

Brown v. Board of Education

[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) 18:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. This was brought up in the 2023 GAR, and uncited text seems to have been brought back into the article. Also, the "Other comments" section should have a heading that describes the text more effectively or have the information moved to more appropriate places in the article. There are several sources listed in "Further reading" that should be evaluated for their inclusion as inline citations or removed, and too many external links listed. The "Legal criticism and praise" section is quite long, and I think lots of that information and block quotes can be more effectively summarised. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, but the reason why it was kept originally mainly has to do with it being okay for GAs to have general references back then. However, with updated quality expectations I'm not sure if this article would pass reassessment now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:54, 27 August 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.

Rocky Balboa (film)

[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) 18:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The "Release" and "Other media" suffer from MOS:OVERSECTION: either these should be expanded or the level 3 headings removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to WP:OVERSECTION there appears to be one editor with an obsession for adding "Other media" a section heading and cramming subsections under it with no regard whatsoever for the 'oversection guidelines. They also have persistently moved the Home Media section and put it as a subsection of Release, where before it had been a separate section near the end of the article. For years they have spammed their personal preference across many articles, including this one(diff) and they've done it so persistently and obsessively and for so many years that editors might be tricked into thinking there was any actual consensus for any of this.
I see no logical reason to force Sequels under "Other media". I see no reason not to give "Video game" its own top level heading. -- 109.79.169.171 (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very skeptical of the Soundtrack section and the suggestion that there was "debate". I don't think it meets current standards at all. -- 109.79.169.171 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 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.

Fancy rat

[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) 18:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The "Fiction" section contains too many short paragraphs and needs to be reformatted, with the text cited and evaluated for their inclusion in the article. The "Health" section uses a lot of sources from 2009, which is when this article achieved GA status: this section needs to be updated with more current research. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 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.

Civil Air Patrol

[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) 18:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an old GA that hasn't stood the test of time, unfortunately. Large number of uncited sentences and paragraphs, some from as far back as 2010. The article also overwhelmingly cites the CAP itself, which is a violation of WP:RS's requirement that articles be based on independent sources. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:02, 28 August 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.

A Hard Day's Night (film)

[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) 18:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion has some parts lacking citations, may not follow the current MOS in some places, and uses questionable/self-published/unreliable sources. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:50, 27 August 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.

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)

[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. Queen of Hearts (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a lot of uncited text. While some of it can be covered under MOS:PLOT, other sections like "Syndication" should be cited. The article is also quite long, and I think suffers from too much detail. Someone familiar with the topic should go through and cut down the prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 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.

Cathay Dragon

[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. Queen of Hearts (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. There is an orange "more sources needed" banner from May 2024 that needs to be resolved. The "Demise" section needs additional information. Z1720 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 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.

Golden Ambrosian 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 • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article relies on "Ady & Armstrong 1907" for most of its sourcing. A quick Google Scholar search found additional, more recent sourcing that should be used instead. The lead is too short and does not summarise the article's contents. The battles listed in the "Aftermath" sections should be moved to the "History" section. "Aftermath" needs to be expanded with more information. Very little information is given on the governance structure (in the "First capitani e defensori" section) and no information is given on the demographics, culture, or traits of this entity. Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 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.

Burger King products

[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. Queen of Hearts (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is missing lots of post-2011 information, which is when this article was promoted to GA status. It also has lots of uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 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.

Heavy metal (elements)

[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: Procedural close. @Ldm1954: this article needs a featured article review, not a good article reassessment. See WP:FAR for instructions. Queen of Hearts (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During checking the sources a month ago, I found 14 that failed verification. This ranged from truncated quotes to inappropriate use of sources to support points that they don't make. At about the same time Johnjbarton (talk · contribs) also found a significant number of errors and irrelevant information; everything can be found in the edit history or in main page tags. As such it fails GA 2b, 3b, 4 and perhaps others. I posted on the talk page that I was considering a GAR, and the original FA nominator responded with comments that violate the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Until these major issues are resolved not only does it not merit FA status, it does not merit GA. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:15, 6 September 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.

Archaeoastronomy

[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. Hog Farm Talk 00:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple uncited statements throughout the article. Lots of one-sentence paragraphs should be merged together. External links are used in the article prose and should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 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.

Jewels of Elizabeth II

[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. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains numerous uncited statements including entire paragraphs. The article also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION that makes the article appear more like a list. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 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.

Flag of Ecuador

[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. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "more sources needed" orange banner at the top of the "History" section since 2020 and a few uncited statements and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 31 August 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.

Coat of arms of England

[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. Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The article's history ends at 2001: are there any recent usages of the coat of arms? Z1720 (talk) 03:34, 31 August 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.

Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems

[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. Hog Farm Talk 00:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. There are also sources listed in "Further reading" which might be considered for inclusion as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 30 August 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.
[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. Hog Farm Talk 00:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text in the "Legacy" section, and some uncited text in other parts of the article. The "Gameplay" section has subjective statements that are quoted to the game itself, such as "The Adventure of Link has a more complex combat system than its predecessor" and "This mode has most of the action and danger." Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Per nominator. Also, most GA articles nowadays cite third-party sources in the Gameplay section. There are also some questionable sources used in the article (Tumblr, Video Games Blogger, Spong). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 3 September 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.

Kimberley Joseph

[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. Hog Farm Talk 00:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be outdated from when it achieved good article status in 2009. Contains a number of uncited statements plus as a good article biography would need an image of the subject. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 30 August 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.

Beetlejuice

[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. Hog Farm Talk 01:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2008 GA no longer up to standard. Lots of unsourced content (almost entire writing section) and the article also seems incomplete (i.e. a complete lack of the film's influence and legacy) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:03, 2 September 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.

Batik

[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) 11:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs, and "citation needed" tags from Jan. 2024. There's also "better source needed" tags from 2021 that need to be resolved in order to maintain its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the uncited, citation needed, and better source needed issues. I've copy-edited the text to fix repetition, vague claims, and anything that sounded promotional. I've merged some near-duplicate sections and removed a lot of gratuitous images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very odd that the version that was promoted in 2014 was about the technique used in a number of countries, whereas the version now is about "an Indonesian technique". I'm not convinced that change is in the direction of neutrality, especially as the technique is much older than Indonesia. CMD (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[a later reply to Chipmunkdavis] I agree that the page focus is unclear, but the term's use is also mixed. The english word batik are mostly used to refer Indonesian batik, but it is also used to refer generic resist-dye methods that are technically similar but culturally unrelated crafts like Chinese batik. Perhaps it is best to clarify at the top that the article is mostly used to discuss Indonesian batik? Alteaven (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Batik in general, not only Indonesian, and that is how it went through GA back in 2014. Since then much Indonesian material has been added, risking unbalance as well as loss of focus. We would be quite justified in splitting out much of the Indonesian material to Batik in Indonesia, leaving this article to cover all countries relatively evenly, with Indonesia's chapter having a "main" link at the top and a paragraph in "summary style" giving a brief resumé of the linked article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that Indonesian batik patterns has already been split out; that would be one component of Batik in Indonesia. Obviously it goes a part of the way towards what I was suggesting, but numerous aspects of Indonesian batik culture remain as unbalanced elements in the article, and I feel more sure than before that splitting is now necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: Yes, I think that that section is the most prone to contain lengthy digression and unsubstantiated claims. I agree that a separate Indonesian batik page is perhaps warranted. Though I am unsure how to rebalance the current batik article since most scholarly article are indeed about Indonesian batik. Any suggestion? Alteaven (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should be careful to focus on batik-the-wax-resist-dyeing-process, which is after all what the term means, and move aspects of Indonesian culture such as its use for ceremonies out to other article(s). If we have a Batik in Indonesia article then we can put all the Indonesian culture, ceremonies, and museums there, which would go a long way to making this article more balanced. Oh, and we can move out the two Indonesian infoboxes which are seriously distorting the article, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've boldly gone... Alteaven, would you like to say a little more about non-Javanese batik in the 'Indonesia' section? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: I think its fine like that. The only section left to edit is technique, or is the current state okay? Alteaven (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the techniques section is just right. There's an uncited statement in 'Indonesia' which needs a bit of expansion really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to add something in few days to come, but I think the current overall version is much less cluttered Alteaven (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a huge improvement. I see you've removed the uncited statement, so we're all done here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, wonderful. Thank you Alteaven (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[an earlier reply to Chipmunkdavis] Both then (the text I brought to GA) and now, the article covered batik from Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, China, and Africa, and the old lead said so. To restore that position, I've tweaked the current lead to reflect that more clearly, moved some doubtfully-neutral Indonesian claims out of the lead, and trimmed the Indonesian material in the lead for due weight. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article did cover it, but the focus had shifted. Thanks for the quick work. Some heavy copyediting is still needed, I don't fully understand the first sentence of the History section, and the entire Culture section needs a rewrite. There may be a need for some source checks as well. Moving a bit beyond GA issues, having 3 infoboxes seems a bit much, especially on mobile, but thankfully they're each not too long. There are a lot of subsections, but they seem justified by the diverse subject matter. CMD (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to copyedit a bit, but you are indeed going beyond the GA criteria now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The copyediting is not beyond the GACR, it is very firmly in GACR1. CMD (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those were just examples. Some of the batik "is close to magical elements from the kingdoms in Central Java and Yogyakarta", others are "identical and representative of Sundanese culture in general", other odd bits are here and there. CMD (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, ok, will fix those, but it's no good just waving at the whole article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found all these things on a very quick read, plus other errors I fixed or tagged. I strongly suspect a more detailed look will turn up even more. The process doesn't require doing a line by line breakdown here though given the state the prose was in. CMD (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through most of the Indonesianised text, will check the rest. My point was that for a fair process, comments need to be itemised to things that can be specifically actioned, not lumped, so there's a way to respond to each item decently. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this article is ready for reassessment. May I be allowed time to contribute to the article further? Alteaven (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Oh my, the history section is also a mess. It is full of unsubstantiated claims. Alteaven (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alteaven: If editors are actively working on an article, I am happy to have a GAR remain open. Z1720 (talk) 05:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alteaven and I seem to be happy with the now-reshaped article. We have split out Batik in Indonesia and Indonesian batik patterns. The article is now balanced and globalised, effectively an updated version of the 2014 GA text and of not much greater length than that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alteaven and Chiswick Chap: Some things I noticed when reviewing the latest version of the article:

  • I added a cn tag for the "Written batik" section. The first paragraph of "Malaysia" also needs a citation, and there is a hidden note for a citation for National Geographic. Is this the citation for this paragraph?
    • Written batik: Restored the refs.
    • Malaysia para 1: Restored the hidden ref.
  • I think the amount of images needs to be reduced, as Wikipedia is not a gallery. Lots of images make the page hard to load for some editors, and, as someone who is unfamiliar with the topic, I am not sure what I am supposed to notice in each of the images. The images at the beginning of the "Cultures" section might be better served if they were beside the culture they were to represent.
Respectfully, I do not agree. The images are in an appropriate amount for topic of visual arts, and they can be related to the text. History section show samples which are mentioned in text. In keeping with the globalized theme, varied examples needed to be shown. In the technique, the images show close up of relevant implement and how it is applied. Placement for images in the culture section however can be changed as suggested. Alteaven (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The article contains no gratuitous images or galleries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Missing aspects include the history of the artwork and European interest in the 19th century, techniques, description of patterns and motifs, and differences in the tradition in major cultures highlighted. References in the lead should probably be moved to the article body, per MOS:LEADCITE
  • The article needs a copyedit. I have done some of it myself, but it would be useful if a subject-matter expert did this to avoid changing the meaning of sentences.

Those are my comments so far. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 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.

Cubs Win Flag

[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) 11:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion contains significant amounts of unsourced content. It is also largely sourced to various sales sites, which has led to a lot of undue detail about individual products. Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It strikes me that the article has gotten rather bloated. As a long-time Cubs fan, I would say most of it is accurate, but it seems like way too much info for a general encyclopedia. Looking back at the very first version of the article, that pretty well covered it, although some subsequent info about the history of it also seems appropriate. Once 2016 rolled around, there was probably a lot of additional hype which resulted in the bloating. Spam on where to get this paraphenalia, aside from maybe the Cubs official site, seems unnecessary. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 31 August 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.

2009 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships

[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) 11:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains uncited statements throughout the article, including the entire "Aftermath" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 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.

Dinner by Heston Blumenthal

[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) 11:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is missing post-2014 information. The article also has some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 2 September 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.

Airbus A320 family

[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) 11:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The "Maintenance" section is quite short and could be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the editor who did the initial GA Review back in 2017. I am swamped with real life at the moment and simply cannot work on any issues of this truly massive article but have a few thoughts on this GAR:
  • I skimmed the article and counted 3 paragraphs that contained no citations, so there is some uncited content.
  • And yes the Maintenance section is quite short and is also unreferenced.
  • The main issue I see with this present version is that many instances of referenced content haven't been updated since 2017, so the content is woefully out of date.
Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also uncited statements at the end of paragraphs. I use User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages to show what is uncited in an article. Z1720 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, that's a tool I am not familiar with- thanks. I guess I'm thinking the uncited sentences/paragraphs could possibly just be excised without any major loss to the main content. The fact that so much of the information is frozen in time and is out of date by at least 7 years...*that* to me is a bigger problem. I'm surprised folks from WP:WikiProject Aviation or WP:WikiProject Aircraft haven't weighed-in or volunteered. I mean, really, this article is not in an area of my expertise or interests...I'm just the editor who reviewed it. Maybe things are slow because it's Labor Day weekend in the States? - Shearonink (talk) 17:12, 31 August 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.

1943 Mazatlán hurricane

[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: All my concerns have been acknowledged. Guess I'll keep it... OhHaiMark (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the meteorological history is too short, meaning that it fails criteria 2 of the good article criteria. OhHaiMark (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the date, 1943, I honestly think there isn't that much information for the Meteorological history. And by the way, did you mean criteria 3? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. OhHaiMark (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OhHaiMark (talk · contribs) - I rewrote the article, using newer sources, and expanded where I can. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OhHaiMark (talk · contribs) - thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 14 September 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.

Afrobeats

[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) 19:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a handful of unsourced statements and an unadressed maintenance template. lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide examples of the unsourced statements please? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mid-2010s section, last sentence of first paragraph
  • Beginnings section, first paragraph
  • Final sentence in Name section.
— lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
I've added a source for the mid-2010s section.
The Name section had a source already prior to the quote, I've moved the source down so it's clearer.
The mid 2010s section I think was moved around a few times, the sources were there but further down than they should have been. The only sentence fully lacking a source was "By the late 2000s artists within the burgeoning scene were beginning to become stars across the continent", I've added one to accommodate this. I removed "The style of music had a variety of names which made it difficult to market outside of Africa." as I could not find the source for this edit.
Would this resolve that particular point? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing those issues Harry. However, the article has gone through major edits since it was listed as GA, it has been through some traumatizing edit wars which led to ANI. Therefore, I do believe a careful and thorough reassessment is required before the article can be listed again. Prose, spot checks, references, plagiarism and so on must be reexamined Thank you again, and you too for spotting this. dxneo (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I agree with that (most of the article hasn't been changed all that much since then), but I am obviously bias so I guess I'll leave it up to consensus. But from my recollection, the edit conflicts where about whether "afro-fusion" could be listed as an alias, and the details of the https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Afrobeats#Nigerian_afro_house section, both of which are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. There was a side debate about whether it could be said "afro-rave" was created by Rema, but I believe that was settled. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's entirely true. See this revision, this, this and this just to mention a few, where the latter revision states that the information was incorrect and irrelevant. It was not only on one sub-section but throughout the entire article. I also noticed that the article is REFBOMBED which is not a good thing. I myself have previously removed wrong information cited to reliable sources here, they just write wrong some stuff that does not cross match with the sources and I truly believe that it has happened more than once. Another thing, some sub-genres are "user coined", to clarify, they just mix two genres and list them as sub-genres of Afrobeats, and if I'm not mistaken, even amapiano and Afropop were listed as such. The background of Afrobeats does not check out. Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where? And why is it referred to as the umbrella term? Last time I checked, there were no sources to support that statement. The lede/opening statement of this article needs to be rewritten to highlight important keys only (and maybe move all the cited parts of the lede to its background section and relevant sections so that it can comply with WP:CITELEAD). dxneo (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I am now looking into this, this is not just a matter of reassessment anymore but if whether the article pass the GA criteria/requirements at all. Here is the version of the article that passed GAC. However, its information does not check out. "Afrobeats, also known as Afro-pop, Afro-fusion," cited to this and this, this does not match the content in any of the cited sources and that's just the first line of the then-article, and the prose is also not good.
Question is, how did it pass its first GAN? dxneo (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree there's more citations than there perhaps needs to be, in some sections. This is the biggest issue with the article, if you were to ask me. I also agree that the Lede could perhaps be improved, it's maybe a little awkward after the first paragraph (the last paragraph is well suited there too, though, I think).
The sources supporting "afro-pop" / "afro-fusion" being listed as /aliases/ were discussed previously here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Afrobeats/Archive_1#Afropop_/_Afrofusion but I've accepted it's best to move on from trying to re-add that information. But, for the record, it was definitely supported by a number of sources.
"Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where?"
Why not all of the above? Abrantee (from the UK) coined the term and the UK played an important role with its popularisation outside of Africa, but it was an amalgamation of sounds flowing out of both Nigeria and Ghana that formed what we know of as Afrobeats. This is, in my opinion, covered thoroughly in the History section https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Afrobeats#History (with regards to how all three countries played important roles in the development of Afrobeats). Afrobeats as a term was basically marketing (from the UK) to group all this stuff together (which included sounds/genres from both Ghana and Nigeria), hence the multi-national origin. Would you not agree that this is supported within the #Name and #History sections and if not, how could this be expanded on in your view?
"why is it referred to as the umbrella term?"
It originated as an umbrella for a fusion of sounds, see Abrantee's quote for example,
" For years we've had amazing hiplife, highlife, Nigerbeats, juju music, and I thought: you know what, let's put it all back together as one thing again, and call it Afrobeats, as an umbrella term." https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jan/19/the-rise-of-afrobeats
This is straight from the guy who named the sound.HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a discussion but your POV, no one responded to that and beside, there was no consensus reached and again why were those sources not cited there? The intel still not check out even now because no sources support that claim in the article. I got multiple DYKs, GACs, and GAs I have to review, so I am lacking time to personally re-review this but I'll try. One thing we can all agree on is that a whole lot of cited information from the article was removed because it did not check out with the references, and what does that tell us? Sure we/you may try to rewrite the lede and cite a few source but this is a very big article, it needs a lot of time to be rewritten and for it's content to be cross matched with the sources. I'm sorry, but I do think delisting is the way to go here. I'll definitely help rebuild the article. dxneo (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This archive is full discussions on blunders and inaccuracies. A lot has to be addressed here. Few days wouldn't be enough to solve all of this. dxneo (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is implied unless otherwise debated WP:EDITCON. That was the original state of the article so it did not need an explicit consensus until that point. It's not my fault nobody responded to me when I provided more sources.
Anyway we're side-tracking a bit but I do want to address this point. If we look at the last revision where this content was intact https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Afrobeats&diff=prev&oldid=1187682282 - those two specific pieces are supported by sources at the end of the paragraph. For example,
https://www.villagevoice.com/sound-culture-fests-afro-caribbean-rhythm-mission-this-goes-deep-into-roots/ "new Afropop is part of a family of club-friendly mainstream African music often packaged for export as Afrobeats."
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/the-evolution-of-afropop "But if Afrobeats as a term doesn't serve the style, what can we call it? With its constant genre-blending and reinvention, the most accurate term to describe the wave of music flowing out of Nigeria and Ghana is Afropop" and "While specific artists have chosen their own titles – Wizkid, Davido and Burna Boy have referred to their sound as Afrofusion"
If you checked the version that passed GA, these sources are also there at the end of the paragraph. Hence, this information /was/ sourced, albeit the sources were perhaps placed later than they should have been (but, at the time, I felt like placing them at the end of the paragraph was apt as they covered the entire paragraph. If this was less than helpful, then I apologise, but I am just addressing the suggestion that this content was unsourced).
In my opinion, this content should never have been removed from the article to begin with. It was (and is, if you google for more) always supported by sources (both originally and later on, via the talk page) and consensus should be built about why those sources were inadequate, if they are at all and if the content could be better sourced elsewhere, but ultimately I had to give way to revision or end up fighting an edit war over two words.
Say what you want about later additions that you have removed, but when I wrote this article I meticulously made sure every single piece of it was sourced. I know, for certain, that the bulk of this article is well supported (and the stuff that has been added since then has been vetted by me, you, and other editors to ensure it is since then). I, and I do say this respectfully, do not agree with the characterisation that the article is in a poor state outside of (perhaps) an excessive use of sources in some areas. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, another inaccuracy. Redbull was suggesting, that's not a fact. Not sure about Davido and Wizkid but Burna Boy never referred to Afrobeats as Afro-fusion, this is what he said in an interview with Billboard. Burna Boy is actually implying that he created the genre, not the other way around. By the way, every statement must be adequately sourced, if I don't find a reference after the punctuation then I'm safe assume that it is definitely original search. Meaning the article was actually never in "Good Article" state. In between the time of it's GA promotion and now, it has gone through major changes. Again, what worries me the most is the above-mentioned archive and the fact that cited content was removed because it was believed to be wrong. dxneo (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, goes without saying that we disagree on that - I think those sources are adequate (and it was not OR as the sources were there) , but regardless, I provided others on the talk page (linked above) which supported this. Burna Boy rejecting the afrobeats moniker mostly ties in with what's already discussed in the #Name section (it being a relatively common thing).
Anyway moving on, which specific parts of the article do you feel like there's a concern (lede aside)? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I have DYKs, PRs, GAs, GACs and article splits to work on now. Therefore, I'll leave the reviewal process to someone else but I'll keep one eye open at all times. I'll be around to help where I can. dxneo (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one seems to be interested in reviewing this. I'll try to make time for it later this month. I'll start compiling the inaccuracies and blunders in my notepad so that I can deliver in bulk. Although I really hope someone comes thru. HarrySONofBARRY, I think you can start working on the lead to comply with WP:CITELEAD. I see there's a documentary titled Afrobeats The Backstory, maybe it can clarify the origin of this genre because there's no way a genre can originate from multiple countries. dxneo (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not sure what else to say on that which doesn't already address your concern with it. Afrobeats, by definition, was coined in the UK to describe a variety of (somewhat related) sounds spewing out of both Ghana and Nigeria (this is already supported by sources) . It is, and always has been, a multi-national genre. The story of Afrobeats begins and rests upon the collective grouping of stuff like modern highlife and modern naijapop (among others) , it's the nature of being an umbrella genre. Besides, there are other genres with multi-national origins such as Desert Blues https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Desert_blues
In either case I can look into conforming with WP:CITELEAD HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 02:32, 5 September 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.

My Opposition

[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) 20:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not contain critical commentary on this literature, of which possible sources were provided on the article talk page. There is also uncited text and an overreliance of block quotes. Z1720 (talk) 20:42, 5 September 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.

Enda Muldoon

[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) 20:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very little post-2008 information, even though the player retired in 2017. Some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the 2008 GA review, a number of unattributed opinions have been added/expanded. (While some were already there, some were added/extended after the GA.) For example, in what is effectively the first sentence of the body, we say that the subject was 'Described as "one of the most talented footballers of his generation"' - Without saying who is doing the describing. This is an example (a near perfect one) of the issues covered in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and MOS:AWW. At the very least (as seen elsewhere in that section) the opinions expressed in the opening two sentences of the body should be attributed to someone. These issues, potentially even "alone", would standard against a (renewed) GA assessment. The bio/content "gap" (between 2008 and 2012) is also hard to overlook. As noted. Guliolopez (talk) 20:38, 5 September 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.

Bayt Jibrin

[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) 20:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has several citation needed tags dating back to October 2015 and March 2016, and September 2019. A section that is totally unsourced. Clarification tag dating back to September 2019 and August 2024. Broken reference name issue. Needs someone familiar with the subject and sources to address these issues for a continued GA status. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:34, 4 September 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.

1899 Sewanee Tigers football team

[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) 20:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements throughout the article, and a large block quote in "Auburn: The only points scored" that I think should be reduced. Z1720 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 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.

Socialist Party USA

[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) 20:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article, in its current state, does not meet the GA criteria for several reasons: 1) it contains several cleanup tags (Third-party inline and citation needed), 2) it does not comply with MOS:LEDE (it does not summarize the article, it's too long, and is mostly filled with recent events) 3) it contains unreliable and many primary sources (the party itself, Twitter, etc.) 4) possible copyvio per Earwig, mostly due to primary sources 5) contains unsourced statements (whether in the infobox, the State and local parties section, or single sentences) 6) contains unnecessary images in the Presidential tickets section (per MOS:SECTIONLOC) Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 2 September 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.

Mickie James

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 GA has 8 Citation needed tags and 9 Unreliable source tags. Some sources are also questionable/require original research, like the numerous YouTube sources. Spinixster (trout me!) 03:03, 6 September 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.

Mannargudi

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 GA with multiple instances of uncited text and numerous issues with prose Kimikel (talk) 01:19, 6 September 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.

John R. Brinkley

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listed GA in 2010, now full of WP:COLLOQUIAL and uncited text. Kimikel (talk) 00:30, 6 September 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.

St Kilda Football Club

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements throughout the article, particularly in the "Reserves team" and "Uniforms" sections. There are also lots of short, one-or-two paragraphs that should be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 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.

Giselle

[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) 23:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains uncited statements throughout the article. Also, the "Early productions" section needs to be better organised, with more recent examples being included in this section. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting tidbit for onlookers: this article was chiefly authored by one of Wikipedia's worst and most prolific LTAs. As for uncited statements, I'm seeing the "Early productions" section; the "Sets and costumes" (1st para); "Additions to the score" (1st para & para before this section). I don't think the Synopsis needs citations. Aza24 (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did this ever go through the CCI? If not, this should be presumptively delisted? This LTA has had serious copyright violation issues. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm not as far as I know. I do recall that the LTA claimed ballet knowledge as one of their many personas, so it's not impossible that they did know about the subject. Does CCI typically require proven examples of copyright before initiation? Or is a certain pattern of editing enough? Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Wizardman is more familiar with the ItsLassieTime situation. Hog Farm Talk 01:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, it looks like the primary editor was User:SeeSpot Run, who was indeed a sock of ILT. Unfortunately that was a later sockpuppet (the CCI was basically on all the 2010 and earlier socks) so I don't think those edits were ever closely looked at. Honestly I'd delist it for that reason alone, with the issues above being of course their own problem as well. Wizardman 01:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delist given the inherent concerns with the ILT authorship, in the manner of WP:DCGAR. Hog Farm Talk 19:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'd say Speedy delist as well then. Best to play it safe here, and it would take a tremendous amount of editor time to review the article line by line. Aza24 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 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.

Newcastle United F.C.

[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) 15:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2011 promotion (which hasn't been reviewed since) has several problems. Several citation needed tags, a section (Social responsibility) that has an advertisement tag, the History section is skewed towards events that occurred after the formation of the Premier League, several paragraphs throughout the whole article that have citations could possibly need more, possible unreliable sources (ex. Super Mac and Terrace Chants), etc. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 02:28, 9 September 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.

Liviu Librescu

[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) 15:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has an orange "single source" banner since 2018 that needs to be resolved. There is also uncited text throughout the article, and the lead needs to include more information about his research and academic work. Z1720 (talk) 07:11, 9 September 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.

Design management

[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) 15:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains numerous uncited statements, there are sources listed in "Further reading" which should be used as inline citations or removed, and there are external links in the article prose. Z1720 (talk) 07:20, 9 September 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.

Kingdom of Sicily

[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) 15:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 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.

City of London School

[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) 15:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article. I do not think the "Headmasters" section is necessary as most people listed are not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. The "History" section stops at 1986, and there are many short, one-sentence paragraphs that should be merged or reformatted. Z1720 (talk) 07:29, 9 September 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.

Jermain Taylor

[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) 15:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Super Six tournament and first retirement" and "Middleweight comeback" sections need more inline citations. Also, there is little information about Taylor post-2016: While his retirement and legal troubles might make this difficult, there should be some information about him during this time published in reputable sources. Z1720 (talk) 07:33, 9 September 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.

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

[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) 15:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "neutrality disputed" orange banner since 2019 that needs to be resolved. The article also has lots of uncited text and quoted text. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 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.

Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson

[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) 15:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sending this article to GAR as part of the new GA Sweeps project as there is significant uncited text. I'm also not convinced that all of the MMA fan sites cited are reliable, such as Bloody Elbow. I raised concerns on the article talk page a week ago, but improvements have not been made. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ticelon who has done some work on this. For Ticelon's benefit - I have tagged some areas with CN tags that need sourced yet, and the lead needs updated with some of the more recent information. There's also a need for someone to assess if all of the sources are reliable enough or not (Bloody Elbow shows up as unreliable on the source quality highlighting tool, but I'm not certain what discussion that is pulling from). Hog Farm Talk 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is down to one CN tag. The sources should be reviewed for reliability, but I just don't know enough about this subject matter to be able to make that determination myself. Hog Farm Talk 00:49, 2 September 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.

Nouakchott

[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) 15:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many sections are quite short for a city article, such as "Sport" and "Economy", and there are uncited statements in the article, including the entire "Sport" section. The "History" section stops at 2013, and most of the recent information in "History" is population figures, which is already described in the "Demographics" section. There is a large "Further reading" section, and more sources at Timeline of Nouakchott, which further support my belief that this article does not cover all major aspects. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 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.

Architecture of Denmark

[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) 18:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains multiple unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs. It also does not contain much information from 2012-present. Z1720 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I accept these shortcomings but find that overall the article still presents an informative, well-illustrated overview of the history of Danish architecture, Further to the discussions on my talk page, in collaboration with Ramblersen2 I will try to add missing in-line references and update the section on "Contemporary period".--Ipigott (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720: I think we have completed work on updating this article and adding in-line references throughout. I am not too sure of the reassessment process but if you are happy with the present quality of the article, perhaps you can withdraw your request. Otherwise we'll just have to wait for wider approval.--Ipigott (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ipigott: This article needs a copyedit. Upon a quick skim, I found numerous grammatical mistakes, particularly with full stops used in the middle of lists instead of commas. Can someone do a complete copyedit of the article to fix these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also numerous sources listed in "Further reading": can these be used as inline citations, or should they be removed? Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Z1720, for expressing further concerns. I'm afraid I could not find numerous grammatical errors in the body of the text but in accordance with your suggestion, I have "conducted a complete copy edit" which has resulted in one or two minor changes. As for "Further reading", I agree some of the items needed to be deleted. It would, however, not be easy to include those remaining as inline references without acquiring the works and identifying relevant page numbers. Those which have been maintained identify professionally prepared works in line with Wikipedia:Further reading. I have added ISBN references to the others to facilitate identification. I have also deleted one of the items in "External links" as it was no longer accessible. In my opinion, the other two should be maintained. If you can identify any other shortcomings, please let me know. Thanks to your interest, substantial improvements have now been made to the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were many comments that I felt were outside of NPOV. I have posted most of them below:
  • "The houses are deemed to be among the most sophisticated dwellings of their time." Can being sophisticated be measured? If not, who has deemed this architecture significant?
  • "Among the finest examples of brick Romanesque buildings" How can something be the finest example? What makes something "fine"? Is there a better, more objective adjective that can be used?
  • "In Copenhagen, Rosenborg Castle (1606–24) and Børsen or the former stock exchange (1640) are perhaps the city's most remarkable Renaissance buildings." What makes a building remarkable? How is this measured, or if it is an opinionated statement, who is stating this?
  • "It is widely recognized as one of Europe's most outstanding Renaissance castles" Who has recognised it in this way?
  • "Particularly impressive is the Church of the Trinity (1618–28) designed by Flemish-Danish architect Lorenz van Steenwinckel. It is said to be Scandinavia's finest example of a Renaissance church." Why is it impressive? Who said it is Scandinavia's finest example of a Renaissance church?

I stopped at the middle of Renaissance, but based on what I read I think there are a lot of opinionated statements written in Wikivoice that need to be better defined or attributed in the text to experts. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720: I must say I am becoming increasingly confused about the reassessment process. I fail to see why we should undertake a complete reassessment of the article, including passages which were considered acceptable in the original GA assessment. Apart from your own views, did anyone else support reassessment of the article? And how can the current status of the article be supported?--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ipigott: One editor is allowed to initiate the reassessment process, and any editor may post their thoughts about the article during the reassessment. Editors can also disagree with the original assessment, as I have apparently done here; initiating a reassessment is one way to have those concerns addressed. The good article criteria and various Wikipedia policies/guidelines have changed and been better defined since this article passed its GAN (as an example, a couple weeks ago WP:LEAD changed their requirements away from having leads be a maximum of 4 paragraphs, and now allow more leeway.) I look at an article's adherence to the GA criteria as written in 2024 and post comments when I notice them, which is not always on the first readthrough. If editors disagree with my comments, I am happy to discuss. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Z1720, for explaining your understanding of the process. As you can see, I've been trying to help things along but am still rather confused. If you believe the article should be officially reassessed, should it not first lose its GA status? It could then be renominated for a new GA review and an independent reviewer could then go through the normal assessment requirements. Some of your recent comments in regard to NPOV are certainly worth attention and I have attempted to tone down some of the assertions. Nevertheless, much of the emphasis is in fact supported by reliable independent sources (including Unesco), not to mention those behind the corresponding linked articles. In your call for the opinions of "experts", as far as I can see, all we can do is to base the presentation on reliable independent sources. As you say, your list of new problems runs only to the middle of Renaissance. If you are acting as the new reviewer, I suppose you will now be able to continue with comments on the remainder of the article. As far as I can see, this could continue for some time without any progress on "result pending". If others could be involved in the re-assessment or in further improving the article the process could no doubt be completed a reasonable time. Any suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, AirshipJungleman29 for stepping in. In relation to this reassessment, I began by looking at the GAR page you mention and spent considerable time and effort on dealing with the issues originally raised. I believe it would then have been in order to close the discussion but we now have two instances where additional problems have been raised. As I have sought to work cooperatively on the points raised and have tried to deal with them within the article, I'm not sure whether it is now up to me to close the discussion. I'll hang around for another week or so but would be glad to see these matters resolved so that I can spend more time on other priorities.--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ipigott: I never feel comfortable closing GARs I opened because I consider myself involved. I also don't feel a GAR should be closed when only the original concerns were addressed. Instead, I think a GAR should be closed if the person closing the GAR thinks that it meets the GA criteria. I also do not do a deep dive into the GA in an initial review: most GARs get no additional comments and never read by other editors, so doing this would be an immense undertaking that could be spent reviewing or improving other articles. When someone steps forward to improve the article, I give additional comments, like I have done here. I have given reasons for why I think this article might not meet the criteria, and I will leave it to others to decide whether the concerns are valid, and this should stay open for improvements, or if the article meets the criteria and this GAR can be closed. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading between the lines, Z1720, it looks as if you do not believe the improvements made to the article meet the concerns you expressed. It therefore looks to me as if the slot could remain open interminably. Unless further recommendations for improvement are expressed, I do not intend to carry our further work on the article although I will look at the talk page from time to time to see if there have been any additions. I know only too well that comparisons with similar articles are frowned upon but I thought I would nevertheless point out that I have looked carefully through the other articles addressed in the "Architecture of Europe" template at the foot of the article. Apart from Architecture of Finland (basically a one-man job), they all seem to be of a much lower standard. The GA status of Architecture of Denmark therefore still appears to me to be well deserved, especially as the article has now been extensively updated. I think Ramblersen2 may also be interested in monitoring progress as he has not only helped out here but as Ramblersen was a major contributor to the 2009 GA review.--Ipigott (talk) 08:18, 19 September 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.

River Don Navigation

[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) 18:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains uncited statements, including entire sections. The article also has MOS:OVERSECTION and some of these short, one-paragraph sections could be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on reducing the number of sections, covering the Tinsley area and the Rotherham area. I'll do some more later today, and then look at the referencing. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The work to reduce the number of sections is now completed. I have added a few more refs, but will see what else I can find. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a number of refs to cover the bits that did not have refs previously. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 are you satisfied with the work done on the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob1960evens and AirshipJungleman29: I still think the "Structures" section suffers from oversection, making it look more like a list. I think this section should be spun out or the non-notable structures removed from this section. The "Points of interest" is also not NPOV and is a little too promotional for my liking: Wikipedia should not be stating what is a "point of interest". Z1720 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the previous statement shows any understanding of what a points of interest table is. For a long structure (in this case 28 miles long), the coordinate feature does not help to give the reader any understanding of where this sits in the landscape. A points of interest table enables readers to see where significant features of that long structure are located. It is called Points of Interest because it uses the POI template to make that happen. Searching through all of the GA articles on UK canals and navigable rivers, and one FA, they all have a Points of Interest table, and nobody has previously interpreted them as promotional. In a small minority of cases, the section is labelled Route rather than Points of interest, and in the case of the FA (River Parrett), it is labelled Route and points of interest. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob1960evens: Who or what has determined these listed features as a "Point of interest"? Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with all the other GA and FA articles, most UK canal articles and many UK river articles, they are significant geographical features or structures along the length of the navigation, which allow the "Map all coordinates with Open Street Map" feature to show where the watercourse sits in the landscape. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:17, 15 September 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.

History of Poland during the Piast dynasty

[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: There seems to be a consensus that this article needs work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has degraded since its original review in 2010. Concerns about unsourced content have been expressed on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the un-sourced stuff, but I will read the whole article in a moment and maybe I will find more errors such as lack of sourcing or poor encyclopaedic content because yesterday I joined wikipedia and read the rules and instructions all the. Koncerz777 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few not to tighten up already with the beginning missing a better sentence completion or missing something:
The tribe of the Polans (Polanie, lit. "people of the fields") in what is now Greater Poland gave rise to a tribal predecessor of the Polish state in the early part of the 10th century, with the Polans settling in the flatlands around the emerging strongholds of Giecz, Poznań, Gniezno and Ostrów Lednicki. Accelerated rebuilding of old tribal fortified settlements, construction of massive new ones and territorial expansion took place during the period c. 920–950. The Polish state developed from these tribal roots in the second half of the centuryhere. Here there is a need to clarify for what reason it ceased to be a tribal state, because it is true that in the middle of this century it ceased to be but it had many factors that would be worth taking into account. According to the 12th-century chronicler Gallus Anonymus, the Polans were ruled at this time by the Piast dynasty. In existing sources from the 10th century, Piast ruler Mieszko I was first mentioned by Widukind of Corvey in his Res gestae saxonicae, a chronicle of events in Germany. Widukind reported that Mieszko's forces were twice defeated in 963 by the Veleti tribes acting in cooperation with the Saxon exile Wichmann the Younger. Under Mieszko's rule (c. 960 to 992), his tribal state accepted Christianity and became the Polish state. When? Koncerz777 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also compare with the last reviewed version linked at the top. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koncerz777 and Viriditas: where does this GAR stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version I passed in 2010, and this is the current version. The lead is different, as someone added sources to it for some strange reason. There's also been significant changes. I can't vouch for the current version. However, Koncerz777 does seem to have made some improvements by removing unsourced info that was added since 2010.[1] So perhaps this current version should be passed given those changes. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that the article could benefit from more eyes before keeping or delisting. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit tricky to get a detailed handle on as all the sources are offline and the main editor does not really seem to be active anymore. There might be an MOS:OVERSECTION issue, but that was there in the original version too. From a general historical note on broadness, this is mostly a political history without much on other aspects, but it does at times devote isolated subsections to other history, even if does not weave it into the narrative. CMD (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not think that this article deserves it yet, due to some parts just seeming way too small, especially the "Feudal fragmentation of Poland" part.
Apart from that though, I think this article could become GA-class. I just think the Feudal fragmentation of Poland part needs expansion as a lot happened in that time and whatever is in this article barely covers it. It's especially an issue because this is the main article that covers the topic. Setergh (talk) 19:25, 13 September 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.

Swedish heraldry

[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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 07:17, 9 September 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.

Natural dye

[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) 21:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited passages throughout the article, and concerns expressed on the talk page that the article does not cover all aspects of the topic. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 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.

England

[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) 21:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work could also be done on GACR3b, as the article has gained almost 3,000 words over time since its promotion. CMD (talk) 02:05, 10 September 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.

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two orange banners in the article: an "update needed" banner from 2022, and a "NPOV" banner for the "Image" section from 2021. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 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.

Institutions of the European Union

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content is formatted as a list: this article might be better served as a list article. There is also an orange banner for original research from 2024 in the "Comparisons" section and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 13 September 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.

Artaxerxes III

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has fewer sources, and does not have any post-2012 sources, so it might not be comprehensive. The lead does not mention information about his legacy, there are uncited statements in the article (including entire paragraphs), and some of the sources listed in the "Bibliography" are not used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 13 September 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.

Michael Savage

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an orange "Criticism NPOV" banner at the top of the article. There is also uncited text, and very long sections that should be broken up with level 3 headings or reformatted. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 14 September 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 Museum of Curiosity

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has uncited text, including large sections of the "Production" section. There is also large quotes in the "Reception" section, which should be summarised and reduced per copyright concerns, and the "Reception" section does not have post-2016 commentary, even though the show is still producing episodes. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 14 September 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.

Bristol Old Vic

[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: I've nuked the unsourced section, but not enough to save this article, unfortunately. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous uncited statements, and an orange "does not cite sources" banner at the top of the "Engagement and Young Company" section, placed in 2019. The lead also does not contain any post-2012 information. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 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.

Hezbollah

[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: Delisting because consensus has been reached to delist, and discussion has subsided. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several citation needed type tags, violating WP:V. It last went through GAR in 2008, thus making it very likely it is unduly weighted toward that time period. Also were the standards for GA in 2008 lower?

This article is obviously very important right now, so an unwarranted GA status is very bad for the reliability of Wikipedia. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article relies too much on newspaper reports and speculation by biased parties, it should be scrapped and rewritten. The lead has it that Hezbollah failed to disarm after the 2006 withdrawal from Lebanon but the Shabaa Farms are still occupied. Keith-264 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's probably not my place but small examples like the article is still quoting polled support numbers published in 2006 by The Christian Science Monitor. It listed 80% support for Druze, assuming they weren't polling children, nearly half the current population was not in that 2 decade old poll. Does having sources that may reached some level of obsolescence at least when talking in present terms mean something against verifiability? Regardless article's subject is such a complex entity because of its paramilitary/political party hybridizing, that's the argument that has been made in the UN which keeps it off the consolidated terror groups and individuals list. I can't think of any other examples of non state actor groups that are in the same position. Not withstanding all that, just in the past week, so much has happened that may fundamentally change their structure that a whole new section would need to be added to attempt to give context to an unprimed reader. Even before last week I'm not certain if meets broad coverage with news coverage pushing the bulk of its sources and now just this last week such drastic numbers that can only be estimated at this point, the article might as well have a time date describing the group before that date while refraining from describing them after last week. RCSCott91 (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the entire article, but just from reading the lede, it seems to have had a major expansion in recent years, which has turned it into a rather incoherent and bloated summary. Given the intensity of the past 16 years with regards to Hezbollah, I suspect if there was no organized and centralized effort to keep the content top notch in that period, most expansions were likely made randomly. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a GA article imo. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Word count according to prosesize (web tool version) is now: 11,513. That puts it at the probably should be split size; still a little short of the definitely split size on word count according to the article size guideline. BUT the prosesize word count does not include tables and lists, which this article has, and may not include long quotations since these are not highlighted as part of the "prosesize" count and the article has several long block quotes. The random increases in the size of the article and its overall size alone would seem to be enough to change the assessment to B class from GA. Donner60 (talk) 07:50, 23 September 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.

Mary McLeod Bethune

[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) 10:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a 5-paragraph bloated lede, numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, and short, one sentence paragraphs in a very long "Legacy and honours" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article has lots of deficiencies. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has seen a flurry of activity since this GAR was opened. Could you provide additional feedback following recent edits? ZsinjTalk 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to keep working on this article to address the issues raised. Other editors are active and making improvements. I welcome further feedback, review, or support at the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zsinj and Firefangledfeathers: Since reviewer time is limited, please post below when the article fulfils the GA criteria and someone will conduct a more in-depth review. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firefangledfeathers, we are around three weeks away from this GAR being three months old, which is normally when we start looking towards a close (we try not to let them go on indefinitely). There still seems to be extensive issues with the article. Do you believe that it is salvageable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will update soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 and Z1720. I don't have it in me to continue, and I don't think anyone else is taking this on. This is ready for closure. In addition to the issues Z1720 mentions above, there are many poor sources of the "over-simplified picture book for children" variety, despite the availability of many great books and journal articles. There's a gap in her biography of her work with women's clubs, with a commented out section ready to go if someone can improve the sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I appreciate and thank you for your efforts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 27 September 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.

Battle of the Yarmuk

[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: Consensus to delist Real4jyy (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Some of the notes have "verification needed" tags from 2011. Many sources listed in the bibliography are not used as intext citations. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Repeated use of primary source Al-Waqidi as well. Ifly6 (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a delist -- no longer meets GA sourcing standards. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I can work on this and get the article back to GA level in ~20 days. Is that timeline ok for everyone? Matarisvan (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Z1720, @Ifly6 and @UndercoverClassicist: Can Akram 1970, 2004 and 2009 be considered reliable sources? I personally do not think they are, if there is consensus then I can remove and replace these. Matarisvan (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Akram was a recognised military historian in addition to being a senior military officer; they may not be the best sources, but the bar for GA is low (not unreliable), and I'd suggest that the article has bigger sourcing problems at the moment. However, replacing them with works with greater scholarly impact would be a net positive. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The same as other people's opinion Polski Piast from Poland § (talk) 10:03, 28 September 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.

Bidni

[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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references are mangled with multiple errors, missing authors and publication dates, and self-published sources. Multiple uncited claims. The prose itself is somewhat flawed. Kimikel (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the uncited claims? Also seeing maybe 2 self-published sources. The reference errors are mainly easily fixable template mistakes Aza24 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and as having an "Antiquarian Importance",[7] a status which is enjoyed by only a handful of other species. > no citation
  • Other Bidni olive trees in the vicinity can be found in the private grounds of Qannotta Castle in Wardija.
  • Nowadays, the use of oil in Maltese cuisine is still predominant. The popular Maltese snack "ħobż biż-żejt", which literally translates to "bread with oil", is testimony to this.
Looking back, the lead section additionally doesn't summarize the body at all, and instead introduces information not mentioned anywhere else. It would need to be rewritten, with that information being moved to the body. Kimikel (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you couldn't manage yourself, surely, Kimikel? That's the sensible way forward, I think. Tim riley talk 15:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: It is not a reviewer's responsibility or requirement to make edits to an article. Instead, those who want the article to retain its GA status should be the ones to make the necessary improvements. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if you can't be bothered. No obligation, but it might have been a kindness. Tim riley talk 20:30, 14 September 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.

Fire (Kittie album)

[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 indication that GA status is not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR Me and the GA reviewer fell out and although some substantial changes to the article were made during the review, I do not consider it properly finished. I recently asked the reviewer to fail the review so it could be reviewed by someone else, whilst referring them to that review (I was fine with waiting), but they have decided to list it instead.

I feel bad about this because to me, the review makes it appear like I wore down the reviewer just so they would list it when the main issue we conflicted over was formatting issues that I felt were detrimental to the article's quality, and a lack of comment on the article's content. (we had clashed over similar issues before.)

So in listing this article for Good Article Reassessment, I'm looking to finish the job/review on a better note/in better faith. Per the previous reviewer, issues that were not addressed before its listing include:

  • Copyright vio
  • Original search
  • Sources,
    • Check the reliability of unlinked sources
    • Check if the Cite highlighter script recognize them
    • If the script doesn't, check if they were cited, mentioned or referenced by any reliable media publication
    • Social media is not a source unless stated otherwise

You can (and should) also refer back to the original review: PLEASE comment if you agree on comments brought up by the previous reviewer that should be implemented, because I don't know if I was wrong in rejecting his suggestions in the way that I did.

Thank you. Chchcheckit (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: ping. Chchcheckit (talk) 12:49, 22 September 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.

Union Bank of Switzerland

[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. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 GA has many parts lacking citations, which I've tagged. Additionally, some book sources are lacking page numbers to verify the information, there are some sources of questionable reliability, and the citation style does not seem to be very consistent. Spinixster (trout me!) 06:13, 21 September 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.

Robert C. Michelson

[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) 12:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GA nominator had a conflict of interest with the article, which I do not think was disclosed at the time. This resulted in an orange banner with COI concerns. There is also an orange banner with a resume concern. I also do not think the article has been updated with more recent information for his bio. Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 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.

Crab dip

[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 with suggestions for further improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is missing several sections, including its history, the cuisine it is used in, and its uses outside of the United States. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - it was easier for geneticists to trace human existence back to its Mitochondrial mother than what it would be to trace the history of the exact (or evolving) ingredients for crab dip. I am not aware of any patents on crap dip. Without the latter or other form of verifiable proof, the sections claimed to be missing are, quite frankly, quite a [stretch]. Having said that, I commend Z1720 for exercising due diligence in wanting our GAs to be really, really good articles. Atsme 💬 📧 18:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Atsme, I would think there is probably something that could be, um, cooked up, about how it came to be associated with Maryland, and about whether it is used outside of the US. In other words, I'm wondering whether you could meet the criticisms part way? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reviewed the article, and it meets the requirements for GA. Can it be expanded? Perhaps, but that is not a reason to file a GAR. There is no documented history about this particular recipe that I can find, though there is a National Crab Meat Day that doesn't specifically mention crab dip, and there is also documented history about crabbing in Maryland which lists ways to prepare crab meat; crap dip is on the list, but just passing mention. The lead of the crab dip article states that it is sometimes referred to as Maryland crab dip. If someone wants to expand the article as a potential FA candidate, they can certainly give it a shot, but finding the documented history that states the where/when/how, it's just another mom & pop homestyle recipe that is typically passed along by word of mouth, online, or in multiple recipe books with some variation. It is also possible that there is a long established, upscale Maryland seafood restaurant that makes claim to their own crab dip recipe, and has it documented but again, that's just a variation of the ubiquitous basic ingredients for crab dip. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 12:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Real life has caused me to get too busy to properly look for additional sources. When I did a quick search a couple weeks ago, I found some sources that might be included, but the information was not as substantial as I would like. I think before this is declared "keep" I would hope that an editor can do a thorough search for sources on WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, and other databases to ensure that the missing sections do not have reliable sources that could be used to instead. Z1720 (talk) 21:29, 29 September 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.

Manley Power

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very old promotion which is in poor condition. The article is at most a summary of (some) of Power's career, and misses out a lot of detail. It also fails on such basic details as his birth. Over time I have added to the infobox of this article, not truly looking at the state of the main text. The contrast is clear.

The sources used are poor, ignoring almost all modern scholarship. I am not one to deride older sources if they are useful, but many of the sources here are nineteenth century, and not even his Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry is used, never mind any other literature. I also take into account the reliance on original research and primary sources in requesting this reassessment; the most-referenced source in the article is an archive of papers.

I will look to re-write this article, as it deserves, but do not have the time to do so in one sitting. It should in the meantime not keep its Good Article status. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:37, 24 September 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.

George W. Bush

[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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At over 14,000 words, this article is WP:TOOBIG and information should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. There is also an extensive further reading section that should be evaluated for its inclusion as inline citations or removed. There are also some uncited statements and other tags that should be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 25 September 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.

History of poison

[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: Seems to be a clear view towards delisting: in addition to concerns raised here, does not meet criterion 2b, and satisfies criterion 3 (and arguably criterion 1) for a quickfail. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an old GA that hasn't stood the test of time, unfortunately. Lead is covered in {{cn}} tags, eleven citations to a somewhat academic-looking early 2000s webpage, another three to a blatantly non-MEDRS source. I want to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, so i'll say upfront that I think this would be a quickfail at GAN and as such should be speedily delisted and brought back to GAN when it's undergone the necessary work. I'd be happy to assist in that however possible, but I don't think GAR's the right venue. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Ancient poisons", where most of the article historic información is sourced from, has an extensive bibliography that could be of use. The tags in the lead could certainly be addressed with some of those sources; if I weren't going on break I would step up to take a stab at it but the proposed route is probably better given the age of the nomination. Reconrabbit 16:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with delisting, the prose also needs significant improvement. It is a wonderful world (talk) 05:20, 5 October 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.

Ottawa Senators (original)

[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) 14:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There are also sources listed in the "Bibliography" that are not used as inline citations: these should be used as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am willing to work on the article. It's a good 20 years old so a review is fine. I've put the unused sources into the 'Further reading' section. If you have particular cite concerns, please mark them with the 'citation needed' template. That would be helpful. Alaney2k (talk) 01:35, 3 September 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.

Cosimo III de' Medici

[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) 14:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has lots of uncited text, including entire paragraphs, and relies upon one source (Acton) for most of the information. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 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.

Malice at the Palace

[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) 14:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several completely uncited sentences and paragraphs, YouTube is used twice as a source. SirMemeGod  12:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are there citations in the lead to begin with? mftp dan oops 23:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a misconception that citations are banned from lead sections entirely, but frankly this article has much bigger problems than that. If the issues are not addressed in the near future I'd support a delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware. There are exceptions. But I fail to see anything particularly exceptional which must be noted with a citation inside the lead, and that it is usually preferred without. I would think that an article like this should be easy to fix if it's just a few citations missing, yes? mftp dan oops 22:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The official guidance is Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. In this article, the alternate name "Pacers–Pistons brawl" is only mentioned in the lead, and is therefore cited there. Assuming editorial judgement is that the alternate name doesn't need to be repeated in the body, then those citations would need to remain in place. I do agree most of the others appear redundant to the body and could be removed. Personally, I wouldn't fail someone's GAN over citations in the lead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:21, 2 October 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_79&oldid=1250109172"