Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 81

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 80)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 82) →

15.ai

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: Original review null and void due to sockpuppetry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Detailed concerns about large-scale COI editing and neutrality issues in this article can be found at Talk:15.ai#Concerns about this article. GA criterion 4 is thus under serious question. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of the current iteration of the article was as it was when the article was first accepted as a good article years ago. Much of the COI edits have been from vandals, and it's evident that the article has a major vandalism problem, the subject being a rather popular topic of discussion. I disagree with removing the GA label due to the edits of some bad-faith actors. HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

While is this a good point, I would also like to express the concern over the fact that many of the citations make heavy references to one Kotaku article. Although I am repeating an concern already expressed in the above talk topic, I feel that it should be mentioned in this talk topic as well. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I will note, as I did on the talk-page discussion linked, that the GA approval very probably should have never happened. The original COI discussion topic was never rectified and was randomly expunged from the talkpage before the article was assessed.[1] The individual who assessed the article as good only assessed one other article as good, and that article was deleted for large amounts of copyvio. It was an assessment provided by a new reviewer, after an IP editor randomly elevated the article to B Status[2] and expunged an entire talkpage discussion about COI editing. The one who reviewed the article has done little else Special:Contributions/SirGallantThe4th after the review, departed, and returned only to defend 15.ai from deletion[3] and then promptly returned to the ether. Again, there was considerable activity by individuals involved in the "Pony Preservation Project" to edit this article [4] including bragging about having their artwork featured on a wikipedia article [5] the same artwork that is presumably the logo that was copyvio'd off the wikimedia commons and which was improperly re-added to the article. There are blatant references on the PPP thread on the archive _which was included as a source_ on the article that show users suggesting fabricating sources and showing a coordinated effort to drive the direction of the article. Given the involvement of the PPP with 15.ai and the extensive editing done by members of the PPP, it is clear WP:COI. Given the circular nature of the sources (which were deemed reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources, which is dubiously applicable to this article, as the article is tangentially related to video games) and the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources says that editors should be cautious about blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance which the 15.ai article clearly is. If the Kotaku isn't reliable as "blog/geeky posts", that means every source that references the Kotaku article is likewise unreliable. Given that, the WP:NOTABILITY of the article itself is dubious. There are sources from Jan 2021 and then it only resurfaces in media covering a controversy of Voicesense, not articles about 15.ai itself. The problem with this article goes much deeper than some bad-faith actors who made random edits to the article over the years. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.

The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."

Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage. The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.

Removing talk page content followed WP:TPO guidelines for outdated discussions. If specific violations exist, they should be raised at WP:AN/I rather than used to challenge GA status.

Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability. Per WP:NTEMP, the relevant quote is "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.

It is entirely relevant when the editor in question had little activity on Wikipedia, reviewed two articles and two articles alone, and flagged them both as good when both articles had issues that should have failed them. Very specifically, this article failed GA Criteria for reliable sourcing when it was reviewed because it used WeGotThisCovered as a source [6] which has been an unreliable source on Wikipedia since 2020 WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED as well as using The Batch, which during the draft process was said to be an unreliable source.

The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."

The COI claims that were first brought against yourself, PortalFan22, and GregariousMadness Talk:15.ai#COI were never adequately addressed and were perfectly relevant. Moreover, the discussion was wrongfully expunged by IP Editor vandalismSpecial:Diff/1090463388. When the project you are writing about contains the notation Special shoutouts go to 4chan's /mlp/ and its anons who have spent hundreds of hours collecting, cleaning, and organizing clips of dialogue taken from the show My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Their collective efforts as well as their constructive criticism via thorough tests of experimental model versions have proven to be extremely helpful and ultimately indispensable to the development of my work and when the PPP cites 15.ai's code of conduct as their own code of conduct, yes, participating in off-wiki discussions about editing an article about something they are heavily involved in the development of constitutes a WP:COI. When material goods, such as artwork and logos, are being provided to 15.ai by PPP, that is a clear relationship. When PPP is directing individuals to edit the article to include information about PPP that is a clear and blatant conflict of interest.

Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage.

Per WP:VG/RS, News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance. The Kotaku Article is filed under Odds and Ends [7], not News. The article is not tagged as News. It is not a news post.

The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.

Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability.

Notability isn't established. The coverage is trivial, and the previous AfD on this article was interfered with by blatant WP:SPA accounts that accounted for 4 Keep votes[8][9][10][11], and the AfD was specifically closed with the message Although not unanimous. The article plainly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSUSTAINED which says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The Eurogamer coverage isn't about 15.ai, the 2022 converage is solely about the Voiceverse controversy and stolen content from 15.ai, it is not sufficient to establish notability for 15.ai.

I find it odd that you consider an IP Editor who did nothing but vandalize Wikipedia pages aside from increasing this article to B Status and expunging a thread about WP:COI editing to have followed WP:TPO guidelines. In fact, WP:TPO explicitly states: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. The only exception given for deleting talk page content is Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article).

Nothing in WP:TPO allows for the wholesale deletion of a valid concern of WP:COI just because 3 months had transpired since the issue was brought up. Archival exists for a reason. Closing discussions exists for a reason. It is wholly inappropriate to delete and expunge the COI topic. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, the suggestion that 15.ai does not meet notability is dumbfounding. It pioneered accessible neural voice synthesis, was widely covered in tech media, and influenced numerous subsequent AI voice projects. I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021. Whether or not you agree with how the GA review was conducted, the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable. The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.

~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual.

I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021 the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable

These are not only wholly uncited and unsubstantiated claims, but claims which would indicate you have some sort of interest in this project and, again, should have never been involved in assessing the article in the first place. I am not going to repeat my points about why much of the sourcing is unreliable. If there is such wide, well-documented, and indisputable source coverage, where is it? Why is none of it represented in the article? Why is it that the only sources used were WP:SPS and unreliable sources?

The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.

It's not "cherry-picking" to state the plain fact that the sources used are not reliable for the purposes they are being used for. Kotaku's Odds and Ends culture section is not News. Kotaku is deemed reliable for News Posts during this time period. Articles which circularly refer to Kotaku's Odds and Ends piece within the same week as the Kotaku article does not represent WP:SIGCOV. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What a concerning post. It’s extremely strange that my editing patterns are being used to cast suspicion on the subject’s notability and its GA status. As someone who works in AI, I naturally took interest in reviewing the 15.ai article given its significance in voice synthesis - in its heyday, it was literally the biggest thing in the voice AI space. The implication that my “return” to defend it from deletion was suspicious ignores the simple fact that many editors follow topics they find an interest in, and the fact that one can stay logged into my account without wanting to contribute to Wikipedia.

I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are. You’ve crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns. Not every editor needs to be constantly active to make valid contributions, and returning to defend an article I reviewed from deletion is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor applies here, and I hope anyone else who reads this can see it for themselves as well.

~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be coordinated disruptive editing going on. While the 15.ai article has experienced vandalism before, the current situation is unprecedented. The above editor's removal of well-sourced content followed by claims of insufficient citations is particularly concerning. That a non-neutral paragraph that blatantly violated WP:YESPOV (which I reverted recently) was "approved at DRN" is also strongly questionable, especially given the unusual spike in DRN activity as well.

I plan to restore the article next week in accordance with WP:BRD, and I hope other long-term editors familiar with the article's development can assist (including yourself). Per WP:ATD, I don't believe GA status should be removed until we've made a good-faith effort to address any legitimate concerns through collaborative editing. The current issues, while worth discussing, can be resolved through normal Wikipedia processes rather than immediately reverting to non-GA status. HackerKnownAs (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are.

There is broad evidence of off-Wiki coordination to edit the article, coupled with the emergence of clear WP:SPA activity and manipulation in both the AfD and the editing of the article. It is not, frankly, presumptuous or absurd to suspect something is suspicious about an editor who erroneously assesses 2 articles as good, one of which is full of copyvio, and then disappears for an extended amount of time and returns only to defend this article. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You’ve said multiple times that you have evidence of off-wiki coordination to edit the article, and yet you haven’t posted solid evidence at all. I wasn’t aware of any forum before I came across this article while surfing through random AI related articles two years ago, so how does that make my involvement with the article a coordinated affair? The burden of proof lies with the editor making serious accusations, and forum discussions and editing patterns alone don’t constitute evidence whatsoever. If you have actual evidence of coordination, please post them instead of throwing unfounded accusations at editors who just want to help.

~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be bludgeoning and belaboring the point to reiterate, again, the issues I already pointed to in the talk-page discussion and above, if you are not inclined to read what is already provided, I cannot help you. Whether you yourself were involved in the coordination is immaterial, my point is that because there was demonstrable coordination it is not unreasonable to view your assesment, disappearance, and return solely to defend the article, subsequent re-disappearance, and subsequent re-return to defend the article, with suspicion given the fact that the AfD was manipulated. I have levied no specific accusation against you beyond the fact that your assesment was improper, that your only other assesment was deleted for copyvio, that you were an inexperienced editor, and that you did little else after the review was done. All of these statements are easily verifiable. After your approval of 15.ai you made 9 Talk Page Edits, 7 Edits flagged as minor, and 8 Mainspace edits and then you disappeared. If you feel particularly aggreived at my characterization of your activity as "little" prior to reviewing the articles, I quite specifically mean that within your first 25 edits on Wikipedia you assessed an article now deleted for copyvio as good and then assessed an article that utilized a source deemed unreliable since 2020 and sources deemed unreliable when the article was a draft as good. That isn't a whole lot of activity and represents a lack of experience. Your improper assesment of the article as Good was also used at the AfD with the discussion being relisted by an admin who commented I'm very reluctant to delete an article that is a current GA. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that I haven’t done “little else” on Wikipedia, I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article, which has since been heavily cited numerous times in Chess.com articles, Youtube videos, and other places on the Internet. It’s not fair to pass judgment for not being active on Wikipedia when I prefer to edit articles where I’m familiar with the subject rather than editing as many articles as possible to pump my contributions number up.

If you want more volunteers to help improve Wikipedia, I suggest not scrutinizing casual editors. I’m honestly a bit offended that I somehow have less credibility just because I don’t edit articles frequently.

~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article

Which you did before the assesment. My statement, which you are apparently misunderstanding, was The one who reviewed the article has done little else...after the review. Which is to say, you made few edits after you assesed the article and then you left for 6 months and returned only for the AfD and then departed again. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware editors were required to edit Wikipedia 24/7 to have their past contributions count. It doesn’t look like it from reading WP:VOLUNTEER. Apologies for having a life outside Wikipedia. I’ll try to do better.

~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the maelstrom above, much of which seems to have little to do with the GA criteria (notability concerns should be taken to WP:AFD, conduct concerns to WP:ANI, COI concerns to WP:COIN), the point of relevant contention seems to be whether the article is overdependent on a Kotaku source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The main point of contention for the Good Article Criteria is reliability of sources and breadth of coverage. The Kotaku used isn't from the part of Kotaku that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources clarifies is generally reliable. The Kotaku used comes from Kotaku's "Odds and Ends" section, with VGRSN noting that caution should be applied to Kotaku's geeky/blog content, and all of the coverage of 15.ai comes either the same way of the Kotaku article, almost always referncing the Kotaku Article, or comes a year later with trivial mentions of 15.ai while covering the Voiceuniverse plagarism controversy. Prior to my excising them, the article relied heavily on WP:SPS and stuff posted on Gwern and other personal blogs. Gwern, notably, describes itself as The goal of these pages is not to be a model of concision, maximizing entertainment value per word, or to preach to a choir by elegantly repeating a conclusion. Rather, I am attempting to explain things to my future self, who is intelligent and interested, but has forgotten as well as fansites such as "Equestria Daily", which have been previously noted at WP:RSN to generally be reliable when dealing with interviews of the cast/crew of My Little Pony or official coverage from Hasbro only Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_100#Two_My_Little_Pony:_Frienship_is_Magic_sources.

In terms of "Broad Coverage", it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, the article does not seem to stay focused on 15.ai and a number of the sources used and a great deal of the content is simply about the underlying technology and a scandal.

The neutrality of the article is also up for debate as the "Reception" section includes only positive mentions and sources misrepresented to praise 15.ai specifically. For instance, Rock, Paper, Shotgun that is cited says Machine learning is absolutely fascinating and yet I mostly just enjoy when people use impressive tech to create weird skits and memes, the article currently represents this statement in the reception section as Lauren Morton of Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Natalie Clayton of PCGamer called it "fascinating,". Similarly, the PCGamer piece actually reads Spotted by Kotaku over the weekend, 15.ai is a deep-learning text-to-speech tool trained on a library of audio clips for dozens of characters. It's all very fascinating to read about These quotes have been misconstrued into being glowing reviews of 15.ai itself when the articles are simply saying that the underlying technology is fascinating or fascinating to read about. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you able to fix these issues BrocadeRiverPoems? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my attempts, yes, I have removed the manipulation of news articles. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

this entire discussion sounds more like one person with a personnal vendetta against it

my opinion is there are alot of articles that have way worse sources that people should focus on deleting, not this one 108.191.41.11 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of this article is not being proposed here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Delist. Fails criteria 2, several uncited claims in the article. Fails 4, the article is written to promote and celebrate 15.ai, its creations, and whatever the "Pony Preservation Project" is. It’s also written by people who have a habit of defending the article whenever it is called into question and then running away. Probably fails 5 as well, with the large-scale edits being made. 210.10.4.224 (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Collapsing personal attack. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I have found this: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=361116#p361116 It appears that this user in question (User:BrocadeRiverPoems) has a history of sockpuppeting/alting and virulently defending ideologically driven edits, particularly those related to Yasuke, while engaging in hostile and aggressive behavior towards other users who disagree with their position. I would very much like an admin to look into the disruptive editing patterns and possible sockpuppeting activities of this user, particularly in relation to the ongoing edit wars and harassment on the article. This blatant dogpiling should not be tolerated on Wikipedia HackerKnownAs (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note that the initial GA reviewer and nominator (SirGallantThe4th and HackerKnownAs) have now been blocked for sockpuppetry. As the reviewer was a sock of the nominator, this has never had a legitimate GA review and should probably be procedurally delisted on that basis. (cf. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sanctioning HackerKnownAs) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree and will close as such, if the current unblock requests are found to be insufficient. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

    I still propose it should be procedurally delisted regardless. Even if the unblock requests are found to be sufficient, both unblock requests disclose an existing relationship between the two users, as they discuss participating in a Discord together, which makes any assumption that this review was conducted neutrally improbable. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    • I admittedly don't know much about GA reviewing but after reading over Talk:15.ai/GA1, knowing that these two accounts were socking, makes it seem obvious that this article should be re-reviewed by an experienced reviewer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delist - this is a quickfail #4 and fails general criterion #5 (stable) both owing to the constant edit warring that's been going on nearly three months, which has not been limited to the blocked editors. There are also significant concerns about the neutrality of the original review, and many cleanup tags on the article. It is very clearly not a good article as it currently stands. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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 Bill

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) 14:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There is uncited information throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as GA thanks to the efforts of JuneGloom07 in removing unsourced info and adding more sources, there are now no unsourced sections, and there is nothing to me that strikes me out as not meeting the GA requirements. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • DaniloDaysOfOurLives, there remains extensive unverified information in the following sections: "Themes and title sequences", "Episodes", and "Cast". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've done next to nothing. I only noticed the GAR by chance and thought I'd help out a little, but some of those sections need rewriting, like the cast info. - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    • I've actually sourced the Episodes and Cast sections now. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
    • I've also taken care of the Themes and title sequences section. - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as GA due to the amount of work by June. 5 albert square (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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 Cat in the Hat

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) 14:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The "Adaptions" section contains many unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs, and uses unreliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced Russian claim, cited the video game. The rest of the material seems to be reliably sourced: none of the sources are redlisted. I've reorganised the material slightly and removed the most trivial stuff. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Ref 71 (to cracked.com) should probably be replaced, and other mediums expanded if able, but unsourced statements are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

LGBT themes in comics

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) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a bunch of {{citation needed}} tags where there are unsourced statements, so now there's 22; some of those can be resolved by cutting material, but at least one cn tag has been there since 2010. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Aneurin Bevan

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: Issues seem resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead is quite long, especially for an article of this length. This should be trimmed. The article overrelies upon quotes and block quotes. This creates copyright concerns and also might not be the most effective way to give information to the reader. There are some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: strictly on the blockquotes, I'm not sure I see a huge problem -- the man was a politician and an orator, so there are a number of good reasons to give readers his own words rather than someone else's summary of them. There's no copyright concern regarding the secondary sources, since only the original publisher of a work can claim (or pass on through inheritance) copyright over it, and giving a speech in public qualifies as publication: even though we quote Bevan from Campbell 1987, that wouldn't give Campbell any claim over the copyright unless he had co-written the speech in question. Even then, quoting a person's words in an article about them, especially one which discusses those words, is textbook fair use. I can see an argument for cutting the Trafalgar quotation purely to make the point clearer, but wouldn't worry under WP:NFCC, WP:COPYVIO or any similar PAG. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead is now 4 paras, & seems fine. I agree with UC on the quotes. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Fight Like Apes

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) 14:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The 2016 breakup is not adequately covered. Instead of prose, the article uses a long blockquote one of the artists posted on Facebook. This needs coverage from independent, secondary sources and information presented in prose. There is lots of uncited text and one-sentence paragraphs that should be considered for expansion or merged together. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

American robin

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

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

At first glance, the article seems to be outdated. The conservation status, especially the culture section, must also be expanded and the refbomb should be removed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The 'In culture' section seems quite detailed enough for a species article, with a good diversity of coverage. If there is more it should go in a subsidiary article with a 'main' link here, but that is not a matter for GA or GAR.

Reduced refbombing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Conservation status: .........

Took a look through, and saw a few issues:

• The map is poor resolution, and inaccurate particularly in respect of the southern edge of the breeding range; it needs re-doing (I might be able to do so later).
  • Done; I uploaded it on top of the old map so no editing needed, just refresh the page to see it - MPF (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• The vernacular names given for the subspecies ("eastern robin", "Newfoundland robin", etc.) are unverified; they are not used in the reference cited for the subspecies (Clement & Hathway, Thrushes), and should probably be deleted, unless other references can be found (which I doubt; weakly defined subspecies like these rarely get vernacular names).
  • Removed as suggested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• There is far too much repetition of the page name, and even worse, in the possessive case "The American robin's xxxx", which looks awful. All of the latter, and most of the former, should go.
  • Edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• I've updated the tally of UK records to the latest available; I think this paragraph could be trimmed though, individual vagrants and their outcomes are too trivial to include here (and I say this even though I saw one of them myself!).
  • Trimmed as suggested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• The 'Disease and vaccination' header would be better titled just 'Diseases'.
  • Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• The 'Threats' section includes some very poor sentence structure and weird colloquial (unencyclopedic) phraseology - this has already been mentioned on the talk page 2 years ago, but not acted on.
  • Edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

MPF (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap - thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow this is a blast from the past. I'll take a look and see what I can do as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• The San Lucas robin subspecies is mentioned in the lede as particularly distinctive, but this isn't expanded upon in the body.

  removed (the mention used English subspecies names, criticized already above here).

• Could a cladogram be added to the Taxonomy section?

  it possibly could, but a phylogeny is certainly not a GAN requirement for an individual species, far less a GAR requirement.

• There's a single-sentence paragraph in the Culture section.

  fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually impressed by Chiswick's work here in WP (I hope someone tackles Komodo Dragon). I still don't like the structure of the lead a little bit, but regardless of that; the article is looking good. Keep. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Mzoli's

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: Keep Sahaib (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The article was assessed 17 years ago, the article has changed substantially because of dead links and updates (such as the restaurant closing). I myself have edited this article in the recent past to address this but it still remains unclear whether or not the article meets the good article criteria. The article doesn't mention the fact that Jimmy Wales created the page despite it being mentioned in several sources (see talk page banner). Sahaib (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The article should confine itself to its subject matter (criterion 3b), not digress into discussing its own authorship. It could go on the article's talk page though. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

General consensus over the years seems to have been to exclude its Wikipedia connection, which fulfills criterion 3b. Jimmy Wales creating the article is vaguely implied in the talk page with the Connected contributor template, however. 🍊 citrifuge (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The wikipedia connection is not an issue as highlighted by the replies above me, that leaves the problem of the age of the GA review compared to how much the subject has changed. I agree that it needs a new review, so I'll go ahead and do it. I will start the review below, it should be finished within the next few days. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a general comment on two things. First, I don't any any opinion to express on the general question of whether the article is good now or not. Dead links sounds bad, but I've not looked into it very much. Second, me creating an article in Wikipedia and the subsequent nomination for deletion which ended in keeping the article is nothing about the restaurant and frankly not even that interesting about Wikipedia - except insofar as it does show that I'm not the god-king of everything haha. Basically, it's just evidence that even as late as 2009-2011 the press was still pretty confused about everything to do with Wikipedia, and this incident is probably only of very slight interest even in the history of Wikipedia!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Prose Y

After me and Sahaib (talk · contribs) have rewritten much of the prose, I think it now meets quality requirements. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Source health/formatting Y

There were some issues but all have been fixed, all URLs have an archive link. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Source reliability clock

Some unreliable sources were removed and replaced with reliable ones. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I need a second opinion on the youth radio source. It is used to support a few sentences in the article. They say they are an organization that "equips emerging content creators between the ages of 14-24". It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Source-text integrity check

I checked all sources and fixed any source-text integrity problems. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Scope Y

I removed Some local residents near a long-planned shopping mall that was being built by a business partly owned by Mzoli's owner criticized his plans in 2008. Some businesses were evicted or threatened with eviction from older buildings owned by Mzoli, which were then knocked down to make room for the new property development. as it was off-topic. It be relevant in a separate article for Gugulethu Square. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Copyvio

Earwig finds no copyvio, I fixed all instances of too close paraphrasing during the source-text integrity check. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Stable Y

Article has only received 2 edits in the past year, despite previous controversy. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Media Y

No issues after removing Jamie Oliver. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Captions Y

First image is captioned well, see concerns about second image above. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Tags Y

Tagged appropriately It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Post improvements review

Hi Northernhenge (talk · contribs) and Citrifuge (talk · contribs), Sahaib (talk · contribs) and I have significantly improved the article. The major changes are listed above. If you could spare a moment to read the article and verify that it meets the GA criteria, that would be much appreciated. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. There are a couple of CS1 tasks in source 6 (CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)). I think that the youth radio source is fine in context. The article doesn't rely on it and it gives a different seemingly authentic view of the venue. --Northernhenge (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I can't comment on the Youth Radio source as I don't usually do citing, though the readability and overall writing is fine. 🍊 citrifuge (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Citrifuge @Northernhenge Thank you very much. @Sahaib I'll leave it to you to close or highlight any further concerns. It is a wonderful world (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Mephedrone

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) 13:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The "Pharmacology" section has had an "update needed" banner since 2015 which does not seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the pharmacology section using more recent sources. Still could use more review articles though. Boghog (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia could I ask for your opinion of the sourcing in this article, if you have the time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

FreeSpace 2

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

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There is uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The plot section, at over 1,100 words, is more than recommended at MOS:PLOT. While PLOT only mentions films, I think this is too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This seems within the bounds of being able to fix the issue. GAR is intended as a "last resort" emergency when fixing the article fails. Based on the article history, you have done nothing to edit the page besides a driveby nomination, so this does not seem like a last resort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Zxcvbnm: No article has to have good article status and I cannot find where it says that a reviewer has to edit the article before posting it to GAR. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors can choose where to spend time editing articles. If other interested, topic-expert editors wish to bring this article back to GA status, they are welcome to do so and I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's right in WP:GAR in bolded text. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. That means if you have not at least tried to bring the article up to standard first, you are doing something wrong. It should be obvious that it cannot be fixed by anything less than massive effort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: When I post an article on GAR, it is because I believe there needs to be a significant amount of work to bring an article up to the criteria. I am fine if others disagree. For me, to update this article would take hours, if not days. If others can and want to fix the article more quickly, I encourage them to do so and I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, in any event, oppose delisting. If the offending parts can simply be deleted, it doesn't fail GA standards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm just to confirm, you would support a simple removal of all uncited material from the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If it can't be cited, sure. Uncited, non-plot content is not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:OR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delist Uncited material and MOS:PLOT concerns remain, and no progress so far in addressing the concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. charlotte ^👸♥ 14:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I believe I addressed the issues sufficiently by deleting the offending content; I still feel like this is a problem that could have been fixed without a GAR by simple editing of the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Queen of Hearts and Z1720: do you believe the issues are fixed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Hopefully the removed material is not causing the article to be incomplete. I trust subject-matter experts will be able to make this determination. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

High-pressure area

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) 17:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There are several uncited paragraphs, particularily in the "Wind circulation in the northern and southern hemispheres" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 I've tidied this up, added refs as needed, and sorted out duplication. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep article seems to be fine. I'm concerned about the completeness, but I am not a subject-matter expert and would prefer someone who would be able to evaluate that. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

East Carolina University

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) 17:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There are several uncited passages throughout the article. The "History" section is too short and needs to be split into multiple paragraphs. "Notable alumni" needs to be split into paragraphs for readability. "Rankings" is outdated and does not include information in the 2020s. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I took a spin through the article and fixed several obvious errors. The glaring nature of the deficiencies likely indicates that saving this would be far more work than I have the capacity to take on currently. Sdkb ^talk 05:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Live action role-playing game

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) 17:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There are uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all the major points in the article. There are some sections and paragraphs that are quite long; these should be split up or reduced. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep WP:SOFIXIT applies here, I was able to delete the offending sections in a few minutes, raising serious concerns about why this WP:GAR was necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Zxcvbnm: There's also a "needs update" tag in the "Fest" section. Was any of the information taken out important to fulfiling the completeness (3a) requirement of WP:WIAGA? Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly, I have no idea why that tag is there, I have removed it as it appears unnecessary and pointless.

  None of the information removed seems critical. I looked for sources to replace the removed info, and came up with nothing, so it seems to have been original research. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

1980 National League West tie-breaker game

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: Should be an easy fix if anyone knows where to find citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This article has a lot of uncited text in the "Game summary" and the "Aftermath" sections. Z1720 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the "Game summary" is cited almost entirely by the "General" citation to the play-by-play, which describes the result of every at bat. The Aftermath seems reasonable well cited, though could probably use a couple additions. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Staxringold, if you can find a couple of citations for the Aftermath section, this article can be kept as a GA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Concorde

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) 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out (or removed because they have already been spun out) or reduced as too much detail. There are some sections that are too long: when trimming text, I recommend that each section have a maximum of four paragraphs. There are also some uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Can you point out the uncited sections, or entire paragraphs? I looked through the article and could not find what you were referring to. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• @RecycledPixels:} I have added cn tags to the article to indicate uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Larger aircraft (prose) articles often have their operational history section split off in to another article. The 'Aircraft on display' section is another section that is often split off, it could be added to Concorde aircraft histories with that article being moved to Concorde histories and aircraft on display (or similar title). I can do both if there are no objections. Some of the engine section may be replicating Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 and could be trimmed, as the 593 was the only engine type used by Concorde its article could contain airframe details (I think it already does). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nimbus227: I support your proposal for these spin outs. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, we'll leave it a day or two for objections. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nimbus227: I also think these are good ideas. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it's been a couple of days. I looked at the engine content and the 593 article, the text is different (not repetition), it focuses mostly on the airframe aspects and I think this section should be untouched. Will have a look at creating/splitting/merging, making sure to adhere to the attribution technicalities. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Have added the formal splitting notice on the talk page. There is quite a lot of 'aircraft on display' text in the operational history section which could probably be trimmed after it's moved. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The splitting notice should have been added to the article, not the talk page, have just done that. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has now been split, the current size is 93kb (from 230 kb) and 9,000 words (from 12,300). One section of five paragraphs was deleted bar one line as it duplicated information in the aircraft on display section and the BAC Concorde G-BBDG article.

Two tables now exist in Concorde histories and aircraft on display, one with images and one without, they could possibly be combined. During the split of 'Operational history' an automated warning appeared stating that seven sources were self-published and/or vanity press and to confirm their use. I would imagine that a few remain as the cite errors (sources not moved) didn't appear in the list IIRC. I hope that I got all the technicalities with attributions correct, I have raised a query at the help desk ref an old article ID not displaying as it should. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 and Nimbus: Uncited statements remain. Z1720 (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to get involved in the review beyond the split but while I'm here...!! I removed the unsourced text marked with CN tags, one line was tangled up with a sourced but off topic line so both were removed. Had a quick look through and it looks well cited now apart from the footnotes, of the six only one is cited, will see what can be done there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Have removed the five unsourced footnotes, they very much read like editor opinion/original research. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Neal Boortz

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) 17:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There are numerous citation needed tags in the article, with one dated from Oct 2019. There are some unreliable sources used in the article, like "nndb.com", "Antiwar.com" and "About.com" Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing on this article is diabolical, it's hard to find a single reliable one. This is especially bad for a biography of a living politically notable person. The sourcing issues are fundamental to the article, so fixing them would require a rewrite which is obviously a lot of work. I think this article should be delisted within the next week unless someone volunteers to undergo the effort. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

2011 IZOD IndyCar World Championship

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) 17:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This article has several uncited paragraphs, including almost the entire "Background" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Pinging @MasterAlSpain: as it looks like much of the unsourced text (in "Background" especially) was added through their three edits here, which added nearly 14,000 bytes to the article. It appears some references were added during these edits, but unless other sources can be found for the paragraphs missing citations, much of that material is liable to be removed if it remains unreferenced. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging and pointing out the missing references on the added information. I've now solved this issue, so all relevant paragraphs are properly referenced. Further references may be added in the next few days if necessary. MasterAlSpain (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@MasterAlSpain: Thank you for your swift response and for taking care of these! @Z1720: If you have further concerns about the article in its current state, please don't hesitate to raise them here. It's been almost a decade since I put this through GAN, so I certainly understand if it could use some cleanup. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: There is still lots of uncited information. WP:GA? states that there should be a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum. I also think the lead needs to be expanded so that all major aspects of the article (typically everything with a level 2 heading) are mentioned. Z1720 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Currently working on adding references to every paragraph while extending the lead. There's also room for improving and optimizing the text without losing any relevant information. MasterAlSpain (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delist work seems to have stalled and there are still numerous uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Northern green anaconda

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: Procedural delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Procedural; merge discussion closed as merge. charlotte ^👸♥ 20:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say, this was pretty much expected. In the future, I'll try not to nominate species for GA just a few months after their discovery. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Not your fault these things happen. On wikispecies we often holdoff even creating pages for new species for up to 3 months to give time for the dust to settle, see if its going to survive the peer acceptance process. Give new species time to see if they will be accepted. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Technique (newspaper)

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: No edits to the article or this page to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Additionally, it lacks prose quality on a quick first glance:

• Lack of neutrality: The first issue also featured an article by legendary football coach John Heisman
• Weasel wording: Several sources claim that the Technique is among a number of student organizations to be founded by the ANAK Society
• Lack of conciseness: The Technique has been published weekly ever since, except for a brief period that the paper was published twice weekly. This period ran from January 14, 1948, to September 6, 1956.

Since solving all the issues (esp. sourcing and weighting concerns) would require a substantial rewrite, I think this should be delisted in the near future if no one volunteers. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Vyacheslav Molotov

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: Closing as keep: initial objections to GA status have now been addressed and retracted. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  • Keep. As UndercoverClassicist says, very little wrong here, I think. I've paraphrased some (more) blockquotes, cleared the cn items, and added a ref or two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Uncited statements have been resolved. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Beholder (horse)

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 05:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Looks like scads of cruft has been added since the GAN.[12] Will do a simple revert for now. Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Follow up did some extensive cleanup to remove the fancruft. Look better now? Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC).

@Montanabw: It looks much better. Was any of the removed information important information to keep for completeness? Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, is there any post-2016 information to add to the article? Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I took all the breeding history stuff and consolidated what was actually notable — with sources — into the section I renamed “honors and legacy”. I also added the 2022 Hall of Fame indiction there, in the lede and in the infobox.Let me know if that works. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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 Contest

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 ^👸♥ 05:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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.

Inanna

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 ^👸♥ 05:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Delist. However, not exactly for the suggested reasons - a bigger issue is that much of the article predominantly depends on low quality sources and doesn't accurately reflect academic consensus. World History Encyclopedia is a mess predominantly written by non-specialists; publications from the 1960s and even earlier are considerably outdated; some self-published essay entitled "The History and Arts of the Dominatrix" has no place in an assyriological article; and so on.

This is a problem with a number of major deity articles - the other major offenders are Enki (even worse than Inanna), Adad (irresponsibly merged with Hadad into a wastebasket article), Nabu, Enlil and Ninurta.

Obsessive references to "fertility" are an issue, too. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussions of World History Encyclopedia:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 390#Encyclopedia of World History,
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 441#The World History Encyclopedia.

Consensus seems to be that it's not reliable. Apocheir (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delist. Link to the first time it went to GAR. I don't think that closure as keep was appropriate: instead of resolving the questions, the discussion became muddled and everyone gave up on it (including me, to be fair). The article still has pervasive neutrality and reliable sources problems, and possible original research problems. More issues have been raised on the talk page since the first GAR. I have little confidence that much will be resolved this time either, so I'm putting in a preliminary vote for delisting. If the article improves enough, I'll strike it. Apocheir (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Link to Talk:Inanna/GA1 and Talk:Inanna/GA2 for good measure. It might be worth mentioning that the user who did the original GA reviews has been blocked since late 2018. Apocheir (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would argue not all of the talk page concerns seem equally sensible (ex. complaints about Gary Beckman, a reliable, well established author in a relevant field) - some of the complaints boil down to people being upset that academic sources do not support their ideas. The most recent ones are definitely valid, though, like the discussion of dubious flood myth coverage and the highly questionable interpretation of the "Queen of the Night" relief. This definitely lends further validity to the need for reassessment. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delist. I gave it a lookover. I will leave aside the fact that I have always thought Ištar should have her own article because every town X I look at seems to own a Ištar of X. :-) Anyway, the article reads like something that was originaly cribbed from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica back in the day and then reffed to a fair thee well. The Date section is puzzling, beginning in the Ubaid and ending at the end of Ur III. And, frankly, and yes I know it is an important topic, the article is much too long. Lastly, I agree fully that some of the refs, like the world history thing, are soft.Ploversegg (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact the article doesn't really dedicate much space to the matter of names and the splitting off of local forms is a problem in itself - it seems like this is one of the more significant topics in recent (1990s-now) scholarship (ex. Beckman's Ishtar of Nineveh Reconsidered; Nevling Poster's Ishtar of Nineveh and Her Collaborator, Ishtar of Arbela, in the Reign of Assurbanipal; Allen's The Splintered Divine; and so on), and there are multiple other articles which go into the details.

I wouldn't call it too long, but the priorities are definitely off; too many myth summaries which feel like a book report for school, too little actual data. Too long barely relevant sections about "later relevance" which are barely about the subject of the article, etc.

I think a problem is that due to the sheer scope of the article one person will have trouble with fixing it; same issue I ran into with Adad last year. I think we'd basically have to come together on the ANE project talk page to really plan how to remedy the situation. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Iskandar of Johor

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 ^👸♥ 05:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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.

Sibu

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 ^👸♥ 05:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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 Glenn Columbus International Airport

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, although note Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. charlotte ^👸♥ 05:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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.

Joseph McCarthy

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 ^👸♥ 05:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

• Delist There has been some work on the article since the GAR has been opened, but uncited statements remain. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

New York Jets

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 ^👸♥ 05:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

• Delist there have been minor edits to the article since this GAR has been opened, but unsourced statements remain. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Kingston upon Hull

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) 11:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

I have made a start on this, you can strike about eight of the CN tags off the list of those needing attention. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@The joy of all things and Keith D: do you two intend to keep working on this article? Thanks (please  mention me on reply) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts: Hopefully will be continuing with this, but time is a bit limited at the moment and will be without internet connection for 12 days at end of month. Keith D (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Queen of Hearts: Aye, 'appen tha knows! (translation: "Yes I do intend to carry on".) Sorry, will get round to it soon. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Keith D and The joy of all things: ?? 750h+ 06:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

750h+ ?? I have done as much as I can, Keith D is away. The joy of all things (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: what are your thoughts? 750h+ 13:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Also there are still 3 cn tags. 750h+ 13:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

looks like a number of the sources added were to tourism sites? either that or they were in there already. hrm. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have commented out a couple of bits I cannot find references for, also dead links and added a few to cover other parts requiring references. I think that covers all of the tags. The part about the Energy Plant needs an operational date and ref, I put in some update to say it would be operational by end 2019. Keith D (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts theleekycauldron? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

iii don't wanna get caught in the FIXLOOP, so I'm gonna back out here. There's still some sources that I'd say are questionable, but it's not egregious enough that it's worth continuing a GAR for. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the work done; the article is in a good state now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Anggun

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) 11:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Chiswick Chap's edits have resolved the size concerns: thanks for your work. The "Accolades" is almost entirely uncited, and also uses IMDB references which should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep Most of the accolades were removed, but if there's no source for it, they shouldn't be there. Z1720 (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Beer

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

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Keep, now with Chiswick's improvements. 750h+ 13:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
• I added some cn tags, and removed an Amazon reference that was not needed. Should be very close to a keep now. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ah yes, fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Hoodoo Gurus

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) 11:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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.

Mehmed II's Albanian campaign

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) 13:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

After seeing this page, I can personally say:

This article is at most C-class. Setergh (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Setergh's assessment of C class due to referencing and citation problems. I also find the content suspicious. Other articles not by the same user do not mention campaigns involving the Albanians and Ottomans at the same time. Mehmed was concertrating on taking Constantinople during the same time period as the events in the article. The reviewers who looked at this could not find information in the article in some of the cited sources. Further research might show this is a hoax. A successful hoax along these lines would include real historical persons doing things they might have done along the lines of actual verified actions at other times in other contexts. I am not quite prepared to say this is a hoax article but it is certainly questionable. It should be downgraded for a start. Donner60 (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I was invited to have a look at the MILHIST talk page. Right off the bat, I am surprised that the go-to resource on Mehmed's reign, Franz Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, or Setton's monumental and indispensable The Papacy and the Levant, were not used. Mehmed's preoccupation in the spring and summer 1452 is known to have been the construction of Rumeli Hisar in preparation for the siege of Constantinople, and the article itself makes clear that he did not lead the campaign; so the title of the article at least incorrect. Schmaus' contribution is, I assume this dedicated volume, so it is slightly mis-cited. I can also detect at least one error of fact: Skanderbeg's primary reason for allying with Alfonso was his fear of 21-year-old Mehmed II is untrue, since Mehmed was considered widely a non-entity at the time, a youth stepping into shoes too big for him to fill; Skanderbeg was motivated by the Ottoman threat, but also by internal rivalries. I had a look at the EI2 article, where the events of 1452 are not mentioned, and the İslâm Ansiklopedisi article on Skanderbeg, where it at least confirms that "The young sultan contented himself with sending forces against Skanderbeg in the first years of his reign and tried to keep him under pressure. It is known that during the siege of Istanbul, a unit under the command of Ibrahim Bey moved against the Albanian-Neapolitan forces, but was unsuccessful." However this only explicitly confirms Battle of Polog. In short, I would like more easily accessible (and of higher scholarly caliber) sources for verifiability, but fundamentally, assuming good faith, and given that the events in Albania prior to Mehmed's active involvement there are not well covered by Western historians (cf. Babinger or Setton), I would assume that the events recounted are factual. As such I don't think this is a hoax, but it does warrant improvements in sourcing, especially as Skanderbeg's life is heavily mythologized. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review. Good information and sound conclusion. Donner60 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I may be able to get my hands on a copy of Schmaus within the next couple of weeks from the university library, will then definitely revisit the article then. Constantine ✍ 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cplakidas, are you still available to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 unfortunately not, I cannot say when I will be able to go to the university library as my schedule is packed. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, I'm willing to work on this rewrite. Will 1 month for it to be completed be too long? Matarisvan (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Should be fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan can we get an update on progress? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, should be done in about 20 days since I'm working on another GA rewrite alongside this one. Matarisvan (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, I will not be able to work on this rewrite since Plataea is taking up too much of my time. Please delist this one and I will try to put it up for GA soon, hopefully within 1 month since I already have all the sources required. Matarisvan (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Hans-Ulrich Rudel

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 is consensus below that while the article may be incomplete, it touches on all the major areas of expected content. What constitutes broadness is subjective, but it does not mean the article must include all important facts (differing from FACR 1b). This close does not mean the article is considered complete; on the contrary, Good Articles can often be improved. However, such discussion is better suited for the article talk page than the GA process. CMD (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

MisterBee1966, what do you think is not covered by the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 have a look at the article in the state it passed GA and compare it too its current version. His entire military career was reduced to a few paragraphs MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

But if the sources supporting those removed paragraphs were deemed unreliable, their content doesn't need to be in the article MisterBee1966 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The deletion, justified or not, still makes the article incomplete, subsequently failing "Broad in its coverage". Consequently, the article should be demoted. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966 and AirshipJungleman29: it might be worth it for the both of you to take a look at this. Best, 750h+ 10:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to avoid a discussion about sourcing and the deletion here. Although the historian Sönke Neitzel used the same sources when he created the Rudel entry in the Deutsche Biographie (see Deutsche Biographie: Rudel, Hans-Ulrich and Publications at the University of Potsdam), the same sources which the original Wikipedia article also used, the deletions on Wikipedia were enforced. In my opinion, the current state of the article fails the GA criteria. I think the article should be demoted and rebuilt, potentially using other sources. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

(here from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Old GARs needing participation). Reading through the article before I looked at this discussion, I would not have said that there was an issue with broadness of coverage. Even having read it, I cannot see what the issue is. What, specifically, do you think should be addressed in the article which currently isn't? Remember that (as WP:GANOT puts it) criterion 3 does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Rudel was the most highly decorated German soldier of WW2, maybe comparable to the Audie Murphy. In comparison, the Rudel article does not tell us where and how Rudel was trained, when he was promoted, in what engagements he fought, his impact on the German propaganda. I find that a shortcoming. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed an uncited statement. @MisterBee1966: I think the article does cover where Rudel was trained and various engagements. Are there any sources that you can be provided that might help us fill in the missing information? While this article cannot cover every engagement, are there significant ones that are missing from this article that you think should be included, and if so which ones? Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I have, I will not. I remain convinced that the article insufficiently covers his war service for a military history GA article. Obviously, if the community thinks it does meet the criteria, I will rest my case. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The Rudel article does actually discuss all four of the things you mention as missing. Perhaps it could include more detail of Rudel's training, but we do get the specific dates he was promoted to Gruppenkommandeur, Oberstleutnant, and Oberst; information about several battles he was involved in, including a fairly detailed description of one specific action (the sinking of the Marat); and a mention of the use of footage from his plane in German propaganda newsreels. And again, the GA criteria do not require comprehensive coverage like the FA criteria do. I don't believe that this article is insufficiently broad in coverage to meet the GA criteria. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This debate seems to be around coverage. The requirement is that it addresses the main aspects of the topic. It seems to do that. The criteria don't specify to what level of detail. What we have is considerably more than a token effort, so to me 1a is met. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Joel Hayward quotes twice from Stuka Pilot in Stopped at Stalingrad (1998), a RS. I would normally consider that to mean that we can use those quotes, with in line attribution. Before I put something together, are there opinions on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The Swedish author sv:Christer Bergström, particularly his book "Kursk—The Final Air Battle: July 1943", covers his actions as an anti-tank pilot. A source I would consider checking into. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators: please can you check if there is consensus to close one way or the other. Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I support the demotion, cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have expanded the World War II section a little. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Salt

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) 12:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of dubious and/or unsourced claims. In religion section needs to be overhauled, expanded and more. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: can you take this one? 750h+ 06:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Well I certainly don't want to be the only person responding to these things. However, there's very little wrong with this article; the religion section's main problem was the absurd over-sectioning into one-line items (something that happened long after the GAN), which I've fixed. I've lightly copy-edited it, removed a very small amount of uncited material, and added some needed sources. I think it's now perfectly serviceable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, with thanks to CChap. charlotte ^👸♥ 06:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Bulk carrier

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 ^👸♥ 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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.

Wild Arms (video game)

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) 15:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

• Comment Yet another driveby nomination with absolutely no attempt to fix the situation yourself, which would be easily doable since most of the article is still sourced. Seriously, stop with the frivolous delisting as it's tatamount to disruptive. Focus on fixing it first, and attempt to delist if the article is unfixable without a major rewrite of all content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  He posted about it a month ago—Talk:Wild Arms (video game)#GA concerns—and apparently no one is maintaining the article. Degradation in the article's quality isn't the nominator's burden to correct. This is easily a multi-hour project to bring the article back up to quality. czar 13:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• This looks very easily fixable. The plot summary is a little long by 2024 standards, but the uncited paragraphs are few and mostly stuff like "unneed details about Alter Code F that can easily be cut". Please don't close this without pinging me, I'll take a look. SnowFire (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Status update: Okay, Czar was right, I was wrong, this was not "easily fixable" and did indeed require multiple hours. I had assumed the article was in better shape and the only complaint was that there were some unreferenced paragraphs about Alter Code F which were unnecessary because there already was a separate ACF article. Turns out that there wasn't a separate ACF article (well, there was in the past, but it was merged back) and some of the writing was... not real great. I've expanded and referenced a full section on Alter Code: F (plenty of reviews for it, it easily merits that). I couldn't find very much on Development at all (1996 was before everything was thrown on the Internet, and whatever Wild Arms fansites of the old times existed seems to have gone down or been lost by Google), but I found one interview with Kaneko which is something. (I also asked in the Armed Fantasia Discord channel... crickets so far, but we'll see. If they don't know of anything, I don't think it's anything easy to find.) I've added in some later, PSN downloadable on PS4/PS5 era reviews.
• Areas that remain for improvement: I chopped down the plot length, although it's still over the current recommended max (but I also think that going a little over it is fine as said max is on the too-low side). Since it was largely dead-tree guidebooks in 1996 that don't appear to be on the net (seriously, this alleged BradyGames guide barely appears to exist, one seller wanted 200 bucks for it), I'm not spending money on these old guides. I'll AGF that they largely back up game details that they were used for before, somewhere, as well as some of my minor alterations. But ideally someone would check the Brady / Prima / etc. guides and maybe add page numbers. I did not go over the old PSX Reception section super closely, but did check some of the reviews and formatted the cites better, but it does have a somewhat "hypey" tone in parts that I'm not 100% certain is merited. Also, Japanese reception is nearly entirely missing, with both the WA1 & WAACF sections largely talking about the English localizations. But digging up JP reviews would be a lot of work.
• The article is not at a level where I, personally, would nominate it as a GA fresh to my own personal standards. But I also think that the actual Wikipedia GA standard as written is pretty attainable and not as strict as what most people nominate new stuff for, and think that the article may be back up to that fairly achievable level. @Z1720, Zxcvbnm, and Czar: What do you think? Are we good to keep it, or think it still needs more work? SnowFire (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  When I said it was fast to fix, I didn't necessarily mean adding a full section worth of content about Alter Code F. Alter Code F definitely needed work, but that could have technically been done in a separate draft at some other time as it merits its own article if sufficiently expanded. What it seems like to me is that it was merged for being unfinished rather than non-notable. Given that you have improved it so much, it should probably be split and turned into an article again.

  Right now I think the article not just meets GA criteria but surpasses them handily, it's probably A class right now. Its main weakness is, as you said, the lack of development info but that will be tough to find given how old and obscure-ish the game is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep My concerns have resolved, and I have no further concerns. If no further information about development can be found, then it cannot be added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Consciousness

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) 15:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

@Phlsph7: you're our foremost expert(/masochist) at crafting articles on these large, philosophical concepts. No pressure to participate in this process, but just flagging it in case it piqued your interest. Ajpolino (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with the points raised by Z1720. The lead covers only the problem of definition and there are several unreferenced passages and unnecessary quotes that should be replaced by regular prose. These points could be addressed in the scope of the GAR, but given the length of the article, this is not a quick fix. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the length, although I would not flunk it on just this basis if the reference issues were resolved.

Also, whatever the outcome of the rating reassessment, rewriting the lead would be a major improvement to the article. I'm not volunteering, but I think it would be possible to do a pretty good job in less than an hour.

If no one takes this on during the GAR, maybe consider sharing on the talk page? It's not often you encounter an active solicitation to rewrite the lead of such a general article. Someone will step up. Patrick (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh: GARs are transcluded onto article talk pages, so this information will be there. You could also start a new section for the lead on the talk page, as it might lead to collaboration. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Actinide

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) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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.

Denise Phua

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) 15:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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.

Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth

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) 23:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This article has lots of uncited sections, especially in the "Collected editions" section. There is also an overreliance on block quotes that I think would work better as prose, especially because of the copyright concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

2010 Baseball Hall of Fame balloting

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) 23:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The lead is formatted weirdly, with three shorter paragraphs and one longer paragraph: this will need to be reformatted. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Michigan Wolverines men's basketball

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) 23:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

There is uncited prose, including most of the "Beilein era (2007–19)" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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 Britain (1985 video game)

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: Issues seem resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(quick skimmed through it) It might need more details overall, especially about its development and modern-day reception; as for the dispute (and as someone that is unfamiliar with these C64 strategy games), the Gameplay section appears to be written as well as it could be, describing key aspects of the game's modes and presentation. Are you sure it could note more clearly that it's based on the actual battle? Overall, the article does appear to address the main aspects of the topic; perhaps a little trimming at Gameplay will suffice. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 23:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The talk page has a comment from the editor who added the disputed banner: Talk:Battle of Britain (1985 video game)#Disputed. I addressed the release date when I edited the article last year but I didn't touch the gameplay section. --Mika1h (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delist This one seems to have been a faulty initial review, as many of the claims in gameplay, even in the original approved version, are outright made up and not mentioned in the cited source. Without a complete once-over it should not be a GA by any stretch of the imagination. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I did the GA Assessment for this article over nine years ago under my old username, and as my assessment states I was concerned about the lack of production information at the time. As I also noted at the time, I eventually chose not to penalise the GA nomination on the grounds there were no available sources. While I did question the relevance of the generic background section, the nominator rebutted my concerns, and I decided not to challenge it further as they had considerably more experience editing video game articles than I did, but I do indeed agree with the bold edit made last year removing this section. You'd have to check in with WikiProject Video games about whether a lack of available information on production automatically renders the article ineligible for GA status. I honestly don't know, I'm not overly active with any Wiki projects these days, though I note standards have risen considerably in Project Video games in the last decade since I did this review. If the fact a production section simply cannot be created due to a lack of available sources makes this article ineligible for GA, by all means, delist it.

As my review notes, I went through the reception references in detail to verify things, but I did indeed assume good faith of the nominators descriptions of gameplay as they were an established editor in the relevant project. I probably presumed they obtained the uncited information from playing the game, had no reason at the time to think that such an established editor would have "outright made up" gameplay, and also thought non-controversial descriptions could be sourced to the game itself as per WP:PRIMARY, in the same way that plots are. I try not to assume bad faith.

Bultro made a dispute in 2017, though nobody acknowledged the dispute until last year. Not surprisingly, the article doesn't get many viewers or edits; I didn't add it to my watch-list after doing the GA review, so I never saw the tag or comments until today. If the gameplay is inaccurate, I would absolutely encourage Bultro to fix it. If they aren't able to do that for any reason, is there a way to play this game today, such as with emulation? If so, I'd encourage you to find someone who has the time to play it, weigh in on the accuracy allegations, and make any required changes. Unless the lack of production coverage makes this ineligible for GA, I'm not seeing why simply addressing the dispute one person has made wouldn't save this from being de-listed. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delist as perfectly said by Zxcvbnm.
  Sorry about not warning you in 2017 or not fixing (sort of rewriting) the article myself, I'm just not a regular contributor of en.wiki. If you want a correct description of the gameplay you can see the article I wrote on it.wiki, based on both written sources (manual and magazine reviews) and checking the real game in action. I don't know if fixing the errors would be enough to save from delisting, but certainly there are tons of better pages around to enlist. Bultro (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You definitely don't owe me an apology for not telling me about the dispute, or for not fixing it yourself. You don't have to fix anything you don't want to. But no one, including the original nominator, has raised a specific issue other than the alleged inaccuracy. In other words, no one has provided any specific reasoning for why fixing this lone issue wouldn't save it from delisting. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, the "lone" issue is an entire section (half the page) with many errors, which doesn't make me trust very much in the other section too. And there was another issue, the "development" section which was actually chatter, now fixed by full deletion, so there's not much left--Bultro (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This article was nominated on the grounds it has a "factual accuracy is disputed" tag on it. No person voting in favour of delisting has raised another specific issue. A version without the alleged factual inaccuracy exists on the Italian Wikipedia at it:Battle of Britain (videogioco 1985). All the information we need to fix the disputed tag is easily available. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Damien Linnane: Would you be willing to fix up the article to address the concerns? Editors have brought up concerns about how the text of this article does not match the sources: this needs to be resolved before I can endorse a "keep", and the availability of a good version in another language is not enough for me to endorse a keep on English Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh my point being is that it's just a shame to delist when all the information needed to fix the issue is right there. My vote was originally neutral as I was aware of the effort playing the game in order to write an accurate section would take, but now that it's been pointed out to me that an accurate version has already been written, I've changed my vote to a keep. I'll try and see if I can find the time to give it a go in the coming days. I am time poor myself though so I absolutely will not judge anyone else for not wanting to do it. That being said, I do not speak any Italian so I will be reliant on online translation. So if Bultro doesn't have time to fix this issue themselves (which is fine), it would be appreciated if they could look over any changes I have the time to make, just to make sure something hasn't been lost in translation. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that ended up being a lot easier than I anticipated. Turns out, of the seven things that were disputed on the talk page, only two hadn't already been fixed. From there, I went through all the sources in the gameplay section manually. I found three statements that weren't backed up by the sources (or other sources I read either), so I removed those, and then I added coverage on the fact the dogfights were optional, since the article confusingly didn't mention that. If there's any remaining issues, you'll have to explicitly point them out. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720, Zxcvbnm, and Bultro: does the above address your concerns? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Z1720. Unfortunately, after looking at the issues here I think someone needs to go through the other articles that were nominated for GA by this same user around the same time period as this one (some of which I also assessed), so you've done the right thing by nominating this for reassessment/discussion. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: I do not know if I have the time or patience to do that. I am happy to help anyone who wants to do this. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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 Nightmare

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

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Hi Z1720, I'll be looking after this; plan is to resolve the immediate issues that have crept in since the original GA nom (which I followed at the time), bring the referencing format current to 2024 fashions ;) — and will ping you for a further look once those relatively easy parts are done. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, do you intend to work on this article further? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi AirshipJungleman29, yes...but is overall in pretty good condition. Will ping when finished. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems restored to GA to me now. Pinging Z1720, AirshipJungleman29. Ceoil (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 and Ceoil: The "Exhibition" section has some blockquote coding that needs to be fixed, and I think the poem quoted should be removed as the prose can summarise the poem instead. I added a cn tag about the Detroit Institute of Arts. The lead should have information about the artwork's influence, including info about the literature and visual arts it inspired. Overall, this is very close to a keep. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 agree, the lead could be expanded via info from the body. Will ping when done. Have trimmed the poem, and your cn tag has been addressed by another editor. Thanks both. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Z1720, can I get another two weeks on this....have other commitments here, but is a painting and article am very fond of. Ceoil (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ceoil: No concerns, I'm not in a rush. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: There seemed to be nothing left to do here after the work mentioned above but to write a few lines in the lead, so I've done that. The article is good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• My only remaining concern is that Note A needs a citation, and the source used should also verify the information in the text of the article that Note A is citing. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  I've cited the text that the note follows. I can't see any source for the note itself, so I've hidden it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Concerns are resolved, no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Dont think the additions to the lead very very good, but whatever. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Others have criticised me for being too strict in my reviews: I am happy to defer to subject-matter experts if they feel there are problems with any parts of the article, and happy to take a closer look if requested. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I don't at all think you are too strict and you might have noticed I muchly welcome your reviews, but perhalps you open too many reviews, but at the same time am very happy FAR is still going. Anyways, no harm here I hope, am catching up with a better lead. Another hour and will be sorted. Ceoil (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Z1720, have rewritten the lead. The original nominator was a good friend back in the day but the article had degraded; hope the new version stands up. Open to feedback. Ceoil (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Dick Cheney

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) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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.

Ben Nevis

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

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Re the climate data: there was a weather station on the summit until 1904 and "The twenty years worth of readings still provide the most comprehensive set of data on mountain weather in Great Britain", to quote from the article. It would be more than could be expected to have comparable modern data. PamD 18:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I have sourced the content about Oor Wullie, and expanded and sourced information about the Peace Cairn. PamD 19:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Could you perhaps sprinkle {{cn}} where the issues are? That would help us fix them. — hike395 (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Hike395: I have added cn tags. Some of the uncited information can probably be removed or the citation moved to the end of the sentence. Other information will need research to resolve. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will look at it! — hike395 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hike395 do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I made a bunch of improvements on 5 November, fixing all of the {{cn}} tags, and PamD did further work on 5 November and 12 November. I believe the article now fulfills the good article criteria. — hike395 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@PamD and AirshipJungleman29: The "History" section does not have any information between 1911 and 2018. Is there any information to add there, perhaps about the growth of tourism to the site or other major events? A smaller quibble is that the lead is missing some information Z1720 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 This may mean that the history section may need to be updated to reflect more accurate and up-to-date information, and the missing information may need to be added. KOLANO12 3 17:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the lede with a few sentences, to match the article material. I moved the paragraph about finding the piano (in 2006) to the history section. After a fair amount of investigation, I cannot find any notable/encyclopedic historical information about Ben Nevis between 1911 and 2006. The Ben Nevis Race started in 1937, but that is already (properly, IMO) in the "Outdoor recreation" section. Given that there isn't much historical material available post-1911, I still believe that this article fulfills the good article criteria. — hike395 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Kolano123: thoughts? Personally, I think there is enough detail on post-1911 events in the "Outdoor recreation" section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep I'd like the lead to be expanded to include more of the "Outdoor recreation" information and "In popular culture" but I think this article is in good enough shape. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Kuala Terengganu

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) 23:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There are uncited statements in the article, including a lot of the "Governance", "Newspapers" and "Languages" sections. The "History" section focuses on pre-WWII events, and does not have much information about more recent events. Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Valentin Pavlov

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) 23:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of uncited prose, particularily in the "1991 monetary reform" section. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Martha Hughes Cannon

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) 23:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

I saw the note at WT:MED. I have to confess that this doesn't strike me as a list of very significant problems.

The lead is a single paragraph of 220 words, which is a not-unreasonable size for a paragraph (in academic writing; bloggers are doubtless encouraged to have shorter paragraphs). The first paragraph of ==Plural marriage and exile==, at ~440 words, did strike me as long, but that was easily fixed by pressing the Return button once. If you feel that the lead paragraph should also be split, then I encourage you to go find some plausible spot in that paragraph and press the Return button yourself.

==Legacy and honors== sections are frequently presented as lists. I searched for "Legacy and honors", checked the first five articles in the results, and found that three were bulleted lists and two were prose. The tendency towards being disjointed is probably due to the facts, as there's no obvious way to unify so many disparate things (e.g., there's a statue...they lobbied for a stamp...someone else used her as a character in a play...).

I grant that using - formatting instead of * is not how we do things on wiki, but having an IP editor not know how to wikify a list is not really grounds for de-listing. I've fixed it. It took me about 30 seconds.

As for the uncited statements, every paragraph (but not the first bullet point in the ==Legacy and honors== section, which was added just a couple of months ago) contains at least one inline citation, and I suspect that those (especially the books) cover more than just the single sentence the citation is attached to. Perhaps, if you are interested, you would check those sources and duplicate the citations. Unfortunately, earlier this year, we ran off the editor most likely to volunteer to do this for you, so if you want it done, you're probably going to have to do it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Z, I appreciate the work that you've done with taking deficient older GAs to GAR, but I don't think this one needed it. Paragraph length is easily fixable and doesn't warrant delisting. Likewise, the legacy and honors listing formatting issues were easily fixable and not worth delisting over. The uncited text is not particularly significant in quantity or claims here. I'm at a keep with this one. It's not perfect, but not so deficient that I think it ought to be delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Hog Farm and WhatamIdoing: While some editors have wanted me to WP:BEBOLD, there have been times in the past when I follow that advice I am critised for making changes without being a subject-matter expert. This is why I am more willing to bring an article to GAR instead. Another reason to bring this article to GAR is to find someone who will adopt the article and ensure that it is maintained after the GAR is complete: an editor who makes the fixes now is more likely to check in on the article after changes are made to ensure that it maintains its quality. This article might have been smaller fixes than other articles, but if nominated now at GAN I am not sure that it would pass with the problems it possesses. I'm happy that this article has some easy fixes and hope this can continue. I added cn tags to the places where they might be needed. Z1720 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've dealt with three of the four CN tags. The other one is not very significant and the information can be removed if nobody can find a good source. I did have to resort to LDS Living for one of the citations, though. BetterDays2020 should probably be replaced as a source - it's currently a double citation for a statement, although I have no idea if the other citation covers all of the information. utahbecky.com is the website of Becky Edwards (politician) so I think that one is fine for what is being sourced to it (information about a political caucus). Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I know there are editors who are critical about everything – even for following policies and processes correctly (but not according to that editor's mistaken ideas of what's right) – but I doubt that anyone would criticize you for fixing list formatting.

Since the kerfuffle earlier this year about LDS editors, I doubt that anyone will be willing to adopt this article, or any other article about LDS subjects. I do appreciate you adding fact tags to show the specific concerns; that really can be a helpful contribution (especially when it's just four, and not, say, 40). I found sources about the health building, though neither of them specify the date of the dedication ceremony itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that the issues are quite minor. Keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Kamloops Airport

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) 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The "419 (City of Kamloops) Squadron" section is almost entirely unsourced and was not present in the article in the 2013 GAN. Is this section necessary for this article? If it is, it should have inline citations. The "History" section is quite long and should be broken up with level 3 headings. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Contra There are too many linguistical inaccuracies for a "good" article. Also, there is a mention of one accident, but further detail is lacking. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've removed the 419 (City of Kamloops) Squadron section. I planned to summarize the section into a brief mention of how the airport was named for the squadron, but already found that summary in the history section. I don't know what "too many linguistical inaccuracies for a good article" means. The brief mention of the accident is cited to a source, but is not a notable incident so I would oppose delisting based upon the lack of comprehensiveness of that one event. The request to break up the History section with level 3 headings seems like a nitpick to me, whoever does it should respect WP:LAYOUT because one thing that's worse than a long section is a bunch of tiny sections. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• @RecycledPixels: You are correct that MOS:OVERSECTION warns against short sections. In the paragraph above that, it also says "Articles longer than a stub are generally divided into sections, and sections over a certain length are generally divided into paragraphs: these divisions enhance the readability of the article." I believe a 15-paragraph section (the current length of the History section) hinders readability and navigation of the article, especially for mobile users. I recommend that sections be about 3-4 paragraphs long, though shorter or longer sections can also be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• I agree it should be reorganized. Some of those little short paragraphs can possibly be rewritten into more organized paragraphs, but when I looked at it, I encountered sourcing issues which I've highlighted below, which leads me to support delisting unless those are addressed. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'll add that I've found some sourcing issues at the end of the history section. A couple are tagged with "failed verification" tags already. Reference #23 (Newswire 23 July 2007) is used several times, but the archived page is paywalled and some of the facts that it is supporting seem a bit dubious to me, like "about 13 percent of the local residents in 2007 choose the Kelowna International Airport over the Kamloops Airport to fly to regional destinations, specifically due to its significant growth." Maybe it's just worded wrong and should be saying that there are more flight destinations at Kamloop, but I can't imagine traveling to a more distant airport for my trip specifically because there has been recent growth at that airport. There are other uncited statements in that section that need to be either trimmed or attributed, I won't clutter it up with a bunch of citation needed tags because the type of person who will be doing any cleanup of this article for GAR will know an uncited statement when they see one. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Lipid bilayer

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) 00:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This article has many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: A well-written article. I've tidied it up and added sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: My sourcing concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

O'Brien-class destroyer

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) 00:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This article contains many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. While the information might be verified by the subsequent citations, that source will need to be checked to ensure it verifies all the information in the preceeding paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The majority of uncited paragraphs were caused by the breaking up of the existing paragraphs rather than the addition of new information. Going off the revision from the GA promotion I have re-added the citations used for these sections. The other uncited statement, in background, was also uncited at the time of promotion. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have now added the other citation from Friedman (available here). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we still considering navweaps a RS these days? I was thinking that we didn't. There are a few citations to that source. Hog Farm _Talk 23:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed navweaps and the information it cited. It was technical detail on the guns which seemed to be far too much considering we have a separate article for the gun. Agree that the source itself is nowadays subpar. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep; this looks fine now. Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Jet stream

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

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The article contains several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• I have done some work on this, and I believe it is now considerably improved. I'm happy to try to work on further specific points that are raised. (Is the best place for that here or at the article talk page?) Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Feline Hymnic: Here is probably better, as this GAR is transcluded onto the talk page. I have added "citation needed" tags to the article to indicate where citations are needed. The lead would also benefit from being expanded. Feel free to ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Many thanks. Although I've been here since 2007, with 16k edits, this is my first GAR. And I hadn't appreciated that this discussion is transcluded onto the talk page (although now I look, it's obvious!). So your check and hints just now are most helpful. I'll see what I can do in the next couple of days. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I've just been checking the article, and added a couple of sources for a minor (lead-in) paragraph); otherwise, the article is fully-cited, and Feline Hymnic has improved the lead. I'll see if we need to add anything to the lead now, but really, this article is already an excellent GA, and if I was reviewing it I'd certainly promote it with little fuss. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Request for refs. The article currently has two slightly differing claims about altitude, particularly of polar jets:

• ...polar jet around their respective polar vortex at 9–12 km (5.6–7.5 mi; 30,000–39,000 ft) above sea level, and a higher altitude and somewhat weaker subtropical jet at 10–16 km (6.2–9.9 mi; 33,000–52,000 ft)
• polar jets...seven to twelve kilometres (23,000 to 39,000 ft) above sea level, while the weaker subtropical jet streams are much higher, between 10 and 16 kilometres (33,000 and 52,000 ft).

Neither is cited. (The nearby cite for the former doesn't give such detail.) Are there any meteorologists reading this who can provide resolution to this slight discrepancy with supporting cites?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Resolved. I have found a couple of good references for the approximate height and for the subtropical jet being at a somewhat higher altitude. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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 Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

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) 16:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a fairly old good article and has some issues, namely the following:

• Several sources are applied incompletely. Books/guides/magazines such as Prima's Official Strategy Guide, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past Nintendo Player's Strategy Guide, lack page numbers.
• Some sources seem to be fan-based, such as GlitterBerri's Game Translations, NPhiles/NerdMentality, and McLoz.net
• The second section of the gameplay section has five citations at the end of a long paragraph and should be spread apart to clarify what the citations are trying to clarify.
• Some statements, such as "Like Super Mario World, this game used a simple graphic compression method on the Super NES by limiting the color depth of many tiles to eight colors instead of the Super NES's native 16-color tiles. The tiles were decompressed at runtime by adding a leading bit to each pixel's color index. Storage space was also saved by eliminating duplication: The Light World and the Dark World are almost identical in layout (though using differing texture tiles), and the Dark World exists in the ROM only as an "overlay" of the Light World." don't seem to have a source.
• The reception section does not have much detail on its initial reception, only the Famitsu content I added earlier this year. Most of it is just listing various "Best-of" lists the game was one, with very little critical discussion of what makes the game good or work. This section has been tagged for expansion since January and has had no real work done.

With all the above listed, I believe the article fails WP:GACR6 sections two and three on reliable sources applied appropriately and lacks coverage of the game's initial reception. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Anglesey Central Railway

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) 16:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The article contains uncited statements, including the entire "Route" section. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. The "Reopening" section contains many short, one sentence paragraphs; this section should be formatted more effectively with longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Leaning towards a delist on this one. There's a self-published source tag on one of the references, a dead link tag on another, ref 34 is citing a timetable on display at a museum, rather than simply the timetable itself with its proper information (publisher, page, etc), I have no idea if "International Good Guys" is a reliable source (ref 44), ref 45 is to a self-published personal website and does not meet GA standards, and refs like 64 (and indeed much of what is cited to Rear) appear to tread into original research, and the external links clearly violate WP:ELNO. All of this is on top of the concerns noted in the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Dal Lake

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) 16:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Margaret Chin

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) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Lots of uncited text, including entire sections and paragraphs. There is also a "citation needed" tag in the article since 2022 Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed some quotes that I can't find sources for, and I added some references to the last paragraph of the New York City Council section. That said, the article still needs some work, and the Personal life section is unsourced. ORES (as unscientific as that metric is) thinks this is a C-class article right now, and I'm tempted to agree unless someone else is willing to help out with the sourcing issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Overhill Cherokee

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) 16:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There are many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Toki Pona

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: Ijzeren Jan has presented evidence that the article is not broad in coverage enough for GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Article has 4 citation needed tags, two non-primary source needed tags, and two failed verification tags. I think a cleanup might be needed to maintain its GA status. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Three citation needed tags now. The claim of sitelen suwi being inspired by Woodring and Scharf is verifiable in . Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Comments by User:IJzeren Jan

Let me start with two disclaimers. First of all, I am not too fond of the circus around featured and good articles. And secondly, I know little about Toki Pona, and although I am impressed by its achievements, it's not really my thing. That said, since I was asked for an opinion, I'll be happy to share some thoughts.

Although there's no doubt that this is a really nice, decent article, I can see some space for improvement. To sum it up:

• The article is extremely heavy on references. Not that there's anything wrong with references, au contraire, but there's no reason to provide three or four different sources for just one simple, unquestioned fact. This comes across as an effort to justify the article's existence rather than to prove a fact, by making the references section look more impressive than it actually is. Which is understandable in so far that constructed languages are frequently under attack for being not notable enough, self-promotional etc., but Toki Pona is way beyond that point by now.
• Speaking about sources, it can't go unnoticed that the vast majority of them are primary sources. I would recommend cutting their number somewhat, at least in cases were a reference is not really necessary.
• On the other hand, the sentence "Toki Pona was the subject of some scientific works" is followed by only one footnote, referring to an article of five pages, which has been used for no less than 29 references and whose author is an active member of the Toki Pona community himself. I'm sure there must be some truly independent academic research on Toki Pona by now.
• In the same sentence, it is also written that "it has also been used for artificial intelligence and software tools". However, after briefly skimming through the source I get the impression that it is about potential uses rather than actual usage. The same goes for the third part of the sentence ("as well as a therapeutic method"): the source writes that the professor is "studying the language's usefulness", not that he actually uses it.
• The "purpose" section discusses the design principles of Toki Pona, which is fine. But what I would expect in this section is rather something about its intended goals. Was it a private thing of its creator that unwittingly happened to achieve some popularity, or was it actually intended to be spoken by others? And if so, by whom and why?
• What I would also like to know, and perhaps there are sources indicating it, is this: what exactly explains the popularity of Toki Pona? It's not uncommon for a constructed language to have a few fans, but rarely more than a handful. Why do so many people learn it? Is it because they want to be part of some experiment? Or because of the community? Is Toki Pona to them what Esperanto is to Esperantists, or is it rather what Klingon is to Klingonists?
• The article should at least explain why there are three different writing systems, and also if they are used, and if so, by whom and for what?
• Apparently, Toki Pona has no less than two different signed versions, and the phrase "more widely used in the Toki Pona community" seems to suggest that both are actually in use, which is surprising for such a small language. If that is true, I really would like to know more about that.
• Toki Pona uses capitals only for proper names. Why?
• And speaking about names, it seems like members of the community use a Toki Pona pen name, consisting of "jan" and a bastardised form of their first names, right? Which I guess would make me "jan Jan". :) This would be worth mentioning in the article, too. And what happens if two people have the same name?
• Nevertheless, I would suggest using real names instead of "in-universe" names. Same goes, BTW, for phrases like "Toki Pona: The Language of Good (known as pu)". Things like that make the article look like a from-fans-for-fans kind of thing.
• In-person meetups: it would be interesting to mention the number of attendees. And if it's just two or three people, better leave it out.
• Not that I am such a fan of "criticism" sections, but given the extremely low number of words, the article should present viewpoints on questions like: in how far can Toki Pona be considered a language at all? How do non-users see it? Etc. Several of such questions can be found on Meta.
• Including this one: how does Toki Pona handle complex (f.ex. technical) texts, especially since circumlocutions are subjective? Even if it is possible to translate complicated texts to Toki Pona, can the result be translated back in a reasonably reliable way?
• And at last, lipu tenpo looks great, but adding every individual issue to the list of publications seems a bit of an exaggeration. Instead, I would suggest adding https://liputenpo.org/ to the external links section.

Hope this helps! —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Magic: The Gathering

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) 11:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There is uncited text throughout the article, including entire sections and paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, this article is considered WP:TOOBIG and is probably too detailed in some areas. Some sections are quite large, affecting readability especially for mobile users. If there is still a lot of text in some of these sections after the prose is reduced, I recommend that it be broken up with headings. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Tafl games

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) 11:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A large amount of uncited text in the articlek including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Live Show

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) 11:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Greyhound Lines

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) 11:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of one- or two-sentence paragraphs throughout the article. This indicates information that has been added to the article since its GAN and negatively affects readability. This information should be checked to ensure that it is notable for this article and the prose reformatted into longer paragraphs. The orange "In popular culture" banner needs to be resolved. The lead does not cover all major aspects of the article. There is uncited prose throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• The "in popular culture" section alone makes me cringe. I'd be inclined to delete it entirely. The sheer quantity of WP:PROSELINE (which extends beyond the sections on more recent years) is quite damning. This needs to be rewritten or delisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Cluj-Napoca

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) 15:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There are uncited passages in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is also a "citation needed" tag from 2016. The "History" section does not give much information post-1989, while the 20th century gets several paragraphs. I think the history section needs to be trimmed and some recent events included. The article, at over 11,000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG and should probably be trimmed or information spun out. I think lots of information, including some prose in "Sports" and "Culture and media", can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Indian Institute of Management Rohtak

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) 15:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of uncited passages in the article, including several paragraphs. The "The 7th PAN-IIM World Management Conference" reads as promotional to me and can probably be removed. The gallery at the end of the article should probably be removed per WP:NOTGALLERY and the images redistributed throughout the article or removed. Z1720 (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Several passages in this article strike me as promotional. There is also a basic challenge with this topic, that the institute is only 14 years old, and consequently there hasn't been much time for material besides anything based on press releases to accumulate. I would love to be proved wrong about this, but I suspect it is a difficult topic to bring to the GA standard simply because of what the source material is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is far from GA. It is also a hard topic to research if you are not Indian. I don't see anyone with the required skills going for this anytime soon. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The lede contains bad grammar and way too much detail. The whole thing is really promotional. I suspect that the nomination for good article status is promotional in nature, as well. The photographs placed in the article look like they are AI-generated. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Walt Disney Animation Studios

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: Issues concerning broadness have not been addressed, and no work in fixing them seems to have arisen nor has there been any commitment to do so. As such, delist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

I've begun to prune and source. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick update, here are the changes so far.

The article was 11705 words as of October 5, the last edit before I became involved, and now is 11470 words. I'll see what else I can weed, but this is a studio where even the unproductive eras are the sole focus of multiplebooks. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Zanimum: This article might be a good candidate to WP:SPINOUT sections of its history. This has already started with Disney Renaissance. After spinning out these sections, this article can give an overview of that time period (I recommend 4 paragraphs max per spun-out article) to reduce the word count. If readers are interested in finding out more information, they can go to the relevant article. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Zanimum, do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Uncited statements have been resolved, but I'm still concerned about the length Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • It's on the long side, but not so long that I think WP:TOOBIG is in play, considering the significance of the topic. I'm in favour of keeping, Z1720. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: Some of the history sections have several paragraphs, which I think can be trimmed. My opinion is that each section should have four paragraphs, maximum, before the next heading breaks up the text. This article has several opportunities to WP:SPINOUT the text, letting this article be an overview of the most important information. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • A four paragraph maximum in sections would see many FAs delisted Z1720; more importantly, it's not supported by any part of the MOS. Which text do you feel should be spun out, and to where? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: I do not have four paragraphs as a hard and fast rule, but I use that as a rule of thumb as MOS:LEAD used to have that as the target number for the lead. Articles need to be readable: I do not believe sections with 10 paragraphs enhance readability. MOS:BODY talks about how headings enhance readability, and adding these headings to the table of contents help readers find information. WP:CANYOUREADTHIS talks about how "Readers of the mobile version of Wikipedia can be helped by ensuring that sections are not so long or so numerous as to impede navigation."

In answer to the question about spun out information: "1989–94: Beginning of the Disney Renaissance, successful releases, and impact on the animation industry", which already has a spunout article at Disney Renaissance, "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", "1999–2005: Slump, downsizing, and conversion to computer animation; corporate issues", and "2019–present: Continued success, COVID-19 pandemic, expansion to television and financial struggles". If some of the information was cut instead of spun out, I would be OK with that too as the article has over 11,000 words. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

For me, these are not GACR-relevant issues which should not hold up the closing of the GAR, but as I'm involved now I won't do that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators: no further input appears forthcoming, could you please either venture an opinion or close? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Z1720 that the History could be on a subpage. However, I would say the focus just on that size is isolation hides other issues. The History section is not only large, it's so large it's almost the entire article. Of the 11501 words (not including the bulleted lists), 10119 are history. There's almost nothing else, with almost half that remainder being the lead. There's really nothing to say about the leadership, past and present? The feature filmography of the Walt Disney Animation Studios is covered in 3 sentences? This seems far too thin to meet broadness. Further, the current studio, as well as the tables and timelines at the end, do not appear sourced. CMD (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis about the broadness; I think this is a remaining concern, however, it was not much discussed (except potentially spinning off some of the history), so I'm planning to leave this open (although other coords may close it, of course) for another week or so to see if anyone commits to resolving these issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Iazyges. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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 in film

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: Appears to have been effort or commitment to rework within a week, delist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Some of those statements are plot summaries covered by MOS:PLOT but others are statements that need to be cited. There's also some MOS:OVERSECTION concerns that might need to be addressed or those sections expanded upon. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Siege of Gythium

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: Aside from the concerns mentioned, from a procedural standpoint this probably should never have been considered a valid GA. Delist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A 2007 GA whose "promotion" consisted of a now-blocked sock doing a drive-by replacement of the failed GA tag with only one sentence's worth of explanation. The article is almost exclusively sourced to the ancient writer Livy. One of the modern sources cited is actually a travelogue. This isn't up to the modern standards of sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 18:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hard agree. Delist. Ifly6 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Delist: One would hope the past 2,000 years have generated some historical discussion of this event. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Delist. It's just a paraphrase of Livy. T8612 (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

James Cagney

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: Appears to have been effort or commitment to rework within a week, delist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There is uncited prose throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. IMDB is used as a source a couple times, which should be removed. "Honors and legacy" has lots of one- or two-sentence paragraphs, which should be merged together for readability. The article is a little long at 10,000 words, per WP:TOOBIG. Looking through the article, I think this can be solved by removing excess words and summarising some of the prose more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

R v R

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) 23:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Delist: This article relies almost entirely on primary sources, there's tons of OR, and it would need to be completely rewritten and then go through a new GA review to ensure it's up to GA standards. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep I did have my concerns when the content in question was added but sadly I neglected to act on it and it snowballed from there. I have taken the BOLD move to remove all of the Primary and unsourced additions and restored it back to what it was prior to all these being added. So now its much closer to what it was when it was passed for GA status. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts and Z1720: does the above resolve your concerns? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. Refs 1,2,3, and 5 are all primary sources. Refs 4 and 6 are broken links. There's a lack of secondary source discussion, whih means this article does not cover major aspects of the case. Additionally, the History section has only one secondary source citation (ref 4) and the Judgment section is entirely sourced to the judgment itself, which in my view (and other editors at WP:LAW) is OR. I would almost certainly quickfail this article if it were brought to GAN today. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added some more sources and attached archive copies for broken links. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Voorts see above (it would be useful if you two could ping each other). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@The C of E & @AirshipJungleman29: This is unfortunately still not GA quality (and looking at the reviewed version, I don't think it should have been promoted to begin with; at best, this article is C-class).

Refs 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 11 are primary sources. Refs 2 and 6 are from Lawteacher.net, an essay-writing service for students. Ref 2 has the following disclaimer at the top of the article:

Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. View examples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative.

Ref 4 is about Indian law, and doesn't mention R v R. Ref 8 mentions the case in a single sentence on page 49, not page 50, and is largely about another case. Refs 9 and 12 each contain paragraph(s) about the case and are reliable.

This is an important case in British law. I would expect a GA article to have several citations to law review articles and other scholarly works, not references to primary sources, an essay-writing service, an article and a book that are not about the case, and a few paragraphs in two reliable books. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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 Legend of Zelda CD-i games

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: Concerns surrounding merging or deletion are separate from the GAR process, for which there seems to be a consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Mah boi, these GARs are what all true editors strive for.

At the time of promotion to GA, this article was a fairly well written and sourced summary of all three CD-i games. However, in 2013, it was split into one article for The Faces of Evil and The Wand of Gamelon, and a second for Zelda's Adventure. The remaining article is now a much shorter and far less complete overview of all three games. Link: The Faces of Evil and Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon got most of the content that was previously in The Legend of Zelda CD-i games and IMO isn't far off from GA class as it stands.

Honestly, I don't think this article does a good job summarizing the three games and their legacy and reception, nor do I even see how it could function as such when The Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon have the lion's share of notability here. How this split in content has gone 11 years without being noticed by the GAR team is beyond me. I honestly don't think this should even exist as its own article anymore due to substantial content overlap at the Faces/Gamelon article, but one thing at a time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually you can AfD a GA. It's rare, but doable. That said I do agree this should be delisted.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely pretty poor now compared to the two separate articles for the games. If it is kept it might be better to expand it into an article about Nintendo's deal with Phillips in general and the other games and cancelled hardware that came from that (edit: like a main article for Category:Nintendo CD-i games or something), unless there's already a page or section for that somewhere else. If not it should probably just be redirected to the two Animation Magic Zelda games since they're the better known ones; that article should also be reviewed to see what's needed for GA status. Ringtail Raider (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I’m willing to work on this article to see if I can bring it up to good article status. I wouldn’t AFD this just yet. Let me see what I can do. Reader of Information (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, looking at what @Ringtail Raidersaid about the games, I can agree with his statement. However, one thing I do disagree on is where it should be merged. I think that the two animation games should be merged into this article. Not vice versa. This is because we would be leaving the third game out of the loop if we merged this article into the Faces of Evil and Wand of Gamelon article. Reader of Information (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

However, the impracticality of this however would be that it would become too long. Another idea would be to add something to it. I might do something to fix this without having it merge it. Let me see what I can do. Reader of Information (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Why? The way it is now, those two having their own article separate from Zelda's Adventure, seems preferable as they have little in common (I didn't even realise ZA was released so much later). I never suggested merging it though, my other suggestion besides redirecting was about whether it could be made into an overview article about all Nintendo CDi game stuff instead of just the Zelda ones, as that information appears to be awkwardly spread out across all the different game articles right now. Ringtail Raider (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Hurricane Allen

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 issued resolved. —JCMLuis 💬 02:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

JCMLuis please remember to notify WikiProjects and significant contributors to articles when nominating GARs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that a storm from 1988 likely is not going to be as complete as we may like for a modern system of this strength and deadliness. But I'm willing to help keep this at a GA if you could detail some more specific places in the prose where it's lacking. JayTee⛈️ 21:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@JayTee32:

• In the meteorological history section, the third and fourth paragraph is almost entirely supported by one source, being HURDAT, but it failed to verify the text. It could probably be supported by this report or this website.

 Done The entire Met history was a mess of outdated operational data and reports. I consolidated it into five references: two post-storm reports, HURDAT, and two operational discussions for variety. JayTee⛈️ 19:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• The preparations section is missing information about evacuations and measures taken by national governments, and maybe assistance from organizations or other nations before the storm's arrival (if there was any). There is a report on Haiti by USAID that I think contains a lot of useful information.

 Done Added a paragraph with information from the report to preparations, will extend on in aftermath. Lmk if you find more sources for preps. Also worth noting that two giant paragraphs with the exact timing of all the watches and warnings is probably superfluous but I didn't touch it in respect to whoever added it during this article's first GA review. JayTee⛈️ 05:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are two newspapers about people evacuating in Texas and also in Louisiana (in the second newspaper): 1 2 —JCMLuis 💬 15:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Added to preparations. JayTee⛈️ 01:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Some details in the impact section can be extended with the report on the season by Miles B. Lawrence and Joseph M. Pelissier, though I'm not sure which.

 Done Expanded on Caribbean impact section and updated divisions of Impact JayTee⛈️ 03:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• There's likely a lot of newspapers that can bring up information that could be put into the article, such as this newspaper.
• And of course, there is no section for the aftermath, which I think the Haiti report could be useful in.

 Done Both points addressed, see other December 10th comment below. JayTee⛈️ 00:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

—JCMLuis 💬 23:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@JCMLuis Thank you for the checklist, and thank God for Thanksgiving break. I'll get to work on this next week. JayTee⛈️ 00:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@JCMLuis Just wanted to give you an update, I'm still working on adding some more newspapers to the article and expanding the aftermath. Looking to finish up on Monday night. Rest of bullets have been addressed so far. JayTee⛈️ 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@JCMLuis Sorry to ping you for the third time but I've expanded the Impact section quite a bit and the Aftermath section is created. I was struggling to find many sources on the clean-up but managed to flesh out a chunk of text. All of your points have now been addressed. JayTee⛈️ 00:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@JayTee32: I would expand Haiti's aftermath, but everything else looks good. —JCMLuis 💬 00:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you be able to help me find sources on that? I've had trouble finding much information about Haiti after the hurricane and what specific measures were taken for recovery. If you can find the texts I'll incorporate the info into the article and do the rest. JayTee⛈️ 02:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@JayTee32: The USAID report that I had brought up should've been used in the section. —JCMLuis 💬 03:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@JCMLuis Added and expanded. JayTee⛈️ 02:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Edwin of Northumbria

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

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The article has uncited statements, some labelled with "citation needed" since April 2023. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I will try to resolve both issues. --Chronicler Frank (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Z1720, the statements have citations and the lead was expanded. --Chronicler Frank (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Concerns addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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 Plataea

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: Article looks much improved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The scholarly literature on the Greco-Persian wars is vast -- there's no excuse to be using primary sources here, and the sourcing for the article in general is well below what I'd expect of a GA. The modern sources cited are nearly all either non-scholarly, outdated, generally tangential to the field or from people whose scholarly standing is controversial. Fixing this would need a full rewrite, so I would advise a delist if nobody is willing to do that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Delist. Overuse of primary sources; secondary sources used are plainly insufficient. It's been well known that the ancient sources' description of the battle are not consistent and do not lend themselves to recognisable (today) topographic features. This is not a problem anymore, however, because we now have aerial ground penetrating radar. Jones (2020) p 196 The [battle] is particularly difficult to reconstruct using only literature from ancient sources... Modern historians [list of 10 names], many of whom visited the battlefield north of Erythres/Kriekouki, were unable to agree on the events and locations of the Battle of Plataea. There are too many complications due to lost topographical markers and reliance on ancient sources [list of 6] to identify locations from accounts of the battle. See also Konechny (2022) for detailed reconstruction. Ifly6 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I can work on this article and restore it to GA level in ~20 days. I hope that timeline is ok for everyone. Matarisvan (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to take this up. I want to ask, however, whether any rewrite is (for lack of a better term) happening. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on 2 other GA rewrites so the timeline will be delayed quite a bit, but the rewrite is on. I've done the biblio formatting, I expect to complete the rewrite in 30-40 days instead of the 20 estimated above. I hope that is ok, @Ifly6? Matarisvan (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter how quickly it happens to me, just wanted to know that you're in earnest on it. Ifly6 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Matarisvan, just checking in with your rewrite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, will need 10-20 days more because I am finding some newly published sources, like Konecny 2022, hard to access. Matarisvan (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Checking up again Matarisvan? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, should be done in 5 days max. My apologies for asking for a second postponement. Matarisvan (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, I've reduced the number of citations of Herodotus to 18 and of Holland to 15, now a total of 30% of the total citations, earlier these were about 80% of the total citations. However, I've not converted these citations to sfn like the other main citations and will be removing them soon. Would you consider keeping now while I continue removing these citations, or would you have to wait till all of these citations are removed? Matarisvan (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I can see progress here, but I'm not sure we're moving entirely in the right direction. We've replaced an overreliance on Tom Holland with an overreliance on a single article by Roel Konijnendijk -- that's unquestionably an improvement, but still leaves major concerns about WP:DUEWEIGHT. Between him and Konecny, we've got nearly the whole article, and two citations is not great for a GA about a very heavily studied part of history. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist, I am working on adding more from sources like Burn, Connolly, Lazenby, etc. I have around 30 other sources I've bookmarked in the bibliography of Konijnendijk and Konecny, and I'm working on getting access to these, since around half are not on TWL. However, I cannot request for all of them on RX at once; I've purchased some of these but their delivery will take 5-10 days, and then incorporating them will take the same amount of time for each one. I asked the GA be kept because this reassessment has been open for 3 months now; even though I began working 2 months ago, I lost one full month because my laptop was not working.

I don't think a GAR can be open for so long, and I acknowledge it's partly because of a fault of my own, but I think it should be closed within a few days, by which time I would've removed all the citations to Herodotus and Holland, and added more material from sources other than the 2 I've used. Also, I counted the citations to Konijnendijk and Konecny, they're 46 in total, so only 40% of the total refs. By the time I've finished adding all the other sources, I guess this %age would be around 10-20%. Matarisvan (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

My view would be that there is no deadline as long as progress is being made: I don't see a reason to close a GAR that hasn't stalled or reached consensus, but others may disagree. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree, there is no deadline. Progress has been made. If there is a reasonable expectation that it will continue to be made then why would we want to prevent that? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There have in the past been problems with GARs remaining open near-indefinitely while people say that they will work on the article without actually doing so, which is why the normal time limit is set at three months; however, as Matarisvan has a good track record with working on GARs and has made significant efforts on this one I see no reason to place a hard limit here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, @Gog the Mild and @UndercoverClassicist; could we close this reassessment now? I have reduced the percentage of citations to Konecny 2022 and Konijnendijk 2012 to 24% (51 total, 33 + 18) out of all the 211 citations. I will be in the Himalayas from tomorrow onwards for a week, and will be unable to access the Internet for long during that time. Even if that were not the case, I think the article has been improved enough for this reassessment to be closed. Matarisvan (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Ujjal Dosanjh

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) 16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There's uncited information, particularly in the "Vaisakhi Parade controversy" section. The article also does not give any post-2010 information on this BLP. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Ne-Yo

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) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of uncited statements, including short one-sentence paragraphs. There are some unreliable sources used, such as IMDB and PR Newswire, which should be replaced. The 2020-present inforamtion is quite scarce. Is there any information to add here? Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm definitely not planning on fixing up the entire article (as it's very long and far beyond my current skill level as an editor), however I have taken the liberty to swap out the IMDB and PR Newswire citations in lieu of more-reliable sources per this GAR. Leafy46 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Pancake machine

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) 12:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The history section stops at 1956. While other sections of the article mention other events and products, I think the history section should be updated with more information or the prose in the article reformatted. Additional sources could also be looked for. There doesn't seem to be any post-2015 information anywhere in the article. The last paragraph in "History" is uncited, and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there is much to say about the history of the pancake machine. Keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Louvre

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) 19:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This article has some wonderful prose. Unfortunately, it also has some uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Some of the uncited text has been marked with "citation needed" since August 2020 and August 2022. While some citations were added earlier this year, there is still some work to be done. Hopefully, this GAR will bring additional editors who will help fill in the missing references needed. I also think the "21st-century" section needs a review to remove the non-notable information and merge the short paragraphs together: a subject-matter expert would be helpful here to evaluate the information for its notability. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The 21st century section is very well cited, as is the entire page. Not only does this rate its 'good article' status, it should be promoted to a feature. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

there's still uncited text, and this should not be taken to FA status without it being fixed. 750h+ 15:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Angevin kings of England

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) 19:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have only briefly reviewed the article but I found at least two cases of plagiarism, and several cases of unverified claims, so the article does not meet GA2c and GA2d. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism:

• The adjective Angevin is especially used in English history to refer to the kings who were also counts of Anjou...

• "...any of the Plantagenet kings of England, especially those who were also counts of Anjou..." [13] p. 59

• As far as it is known, there was no contemporary name for this assemblage of territories, which were referred to—if at all—by clumsy circumlocutions such as ….

• "...there was, so far as we know, no contemporary name for this assemblage of territories. When anyone wanted to refer to them there were only clumsy circumlocutions available” (Gillingham 2001, p. 2)

Unverified claims

• References 26, 61, 83, and 84 do not verify the relevant texts in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said in the GAN discussion, I do not think a phrase as basic as "were also [job descriptor]" can be considered plagiarism. There's probably one other way to rephrase that at which point it becomes so basic as to not be a copyright issue. Otherwise, I have no comment on the points raised. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no access to the sourcing so I can't fix any ref issues but I attempted to rephrase the second one. Is that satisfactory on that front? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the article needs a comprehensive review taking into account that Norfolkbigfish's relaxed approach towards copyvio is well documented. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to propose we Doug Coldwell him, feel free to take that to ANI, but that's beyond the scope of any one review given he has several. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am close to take them to ANI but instead I give them (again) a last chance. I do not want to get rid of them, but to persuade them to start to improve WP instead of disrupting it with plagiarism, unverified statements and typos. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Treats!

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) 19:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The article does not have any information post-2019, and the "Publication history" section ends in 2015. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Z1720, I just expanded the legal issues section which was incomplete. Aside from the new sources on that, there isn't much sourcing that isn't already in this article, and I can't find any reliable secondary sources past 2016.

I plan to get this article to GA standard by:

• Rewriting the lead
• Incorporating this source
• Round off the "Publication history" section by glossing over 2016-2024 using primary sourcing to the treats website

Let me know if you think that would do the trick! It is a wonderful world (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• @It is a wonderful world: I think that would be a massive improvement to the article, and I'm excited to review it when these are completed. Another idea is that you can look for additional sources in various databases like Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, or your local library system. Someone might have published a source about Treats that focuses on their later years. Feel free to ping me when this is ready for a review. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Z1720, I believe I have carried out the changes. Feel free to review.

  I must say I struggled on this one, I felt the sourcing left little to work with, but I hope I did a good job. I couldn't find any more sourcing in any libraries or scholar. It is a wonderful world (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• @It is a wonderful world: Keep: Sorry for the late response: I have been busy in real life. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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 the New York Giants (1994–present)

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) 19:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This article has several uncited passages, including entire paragraphs, and several "update needed" orange banners throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I will try to work on this if I have time. I am the primary contributor, but am less active now. AaronY (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi AaronY, do you still intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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.