Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 72

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

Result: Significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2016. There are 2 citation needed tags and several paragraphs without citations, which fails criteria 2 of the GAC. There may also be some prose problems like unrelated information. Spinixster (chat!) 12:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Consensus to delist, with additional questions as to whether the article passes GNG at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. The biggest issue with the article is that it uses ONE source from 1960 to cite the entire article, which I don't think follows GA criteria. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I'm tempted to agree, there are only 4 mentions on Google Scholar since 1960. The case seems to have fallen into obscurity. To play devil's advocate which sources would you suggest should be cited Onegreatjoke ? (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Really, any other sources available should be cited since having one source to cite an entire article does not seem like good sourcing. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I'd argue anything with only one source shouldn't be a GA on principle. Such an article by definition can't be a summary of reliable sources (plural) if there's only one source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If we cannot find any other coverage I wonder if this should just be part of the Patrick Hastings article, appropriately slimmed down. But that's more of a notability judgement than a GA criteria one. Regardless, were I reviewing this article for GA I would quickfail due to only one source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to be pedantic Trainsandotherthings, but is there any part of the GA criteria that requires more than one source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While there isn't anything that says it explicitly, things such as "it contains a list of all references (sources of information)" and "all inline citations are from reliable sources" do imply multiple sources. Though, if you're still on the fence we can bring this up to the talk page since this is a genuine concern. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My feelings on the matter are similar to Onegreatjoke's. An article with only one source arguably isn't showing a GNG pass, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a law expert, but it seems like there are more (albeit not too many) sources available on Google Books and Scholar. I haven't done a thorough examination and only have snippets, but unless they are completely trivial mentions that contain basically no additional information (if so the article might fail GNG anyway, though this seems unlikely) I personally don't see how just one source can meet criteria 3a (yes GAs don't have to be comprehensive, but I'm subjectively unconvinced when that one source can be suitably broad). Though I agree this isn't explicitly stated in the GA criteria, and will defer to more knowledgable editors with regards to this topic. VickKiang (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per citation issues, and possible copyright issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2012. Has been tagged for needing more citations. Also, I'm quite surprised to see barely anything about his govenorship of Maryland. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A drive-by comment: despite the big banner, I only see two CN tags, one of which is for his date of death, which I imagine is pretty easy to track down. At a very casual glance, I'd suggest the banner might have been put there a little over-eagerly. On the second note, the GA criteria don't require comprehensiveness (though the FA ones do), only that the major aspects of the topic are covered - he was only governor for about eight months, so it might be that there simply isn't much in the sources. My impression is that this one's pretty easy to straighten out, and I could probably take a more proper look at it at some point: is that the extent of your concerns, or were there other issues? In particular, if you think there's more statements needing a citation (because they're likely to be challenged or attributed to specific individuals), it would help if you could stick the inline tag on them.

EDIT: There's a couple more inline CNs than I thought, though I think the general point stands. "Palfrey" (partially cited passim) is almost certainly Palfrey's 1858 History of New England; I can check those sources and add it to the biblio at some point.

UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could fix the tags and the sourcing, UndercoverClassicist? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd be happy to: this next week is pretty busy; I'll do my best to take a look at the 'easy' stuff first, but it might take me a week or so to get into anything that proves more tricky. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some progress here. The "Governor of Virginia" section is basically written from Lustig: if someone can get hold of the full text of that, I suspect the entire section could be cited quite easily. I do have some concerns about this method of writing, where the original editor appears to have largely worked from a single source at a time: a CLOP check might be a good idea. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the new changes to the GA sourcing requirements, I suspect this one is now going to fall short. As detailed above, I'm not happy that the writing methods would meet current GA expectations: at the moment I'd support a delist. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting. Lack of improvements. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a lot of issues. It has zero development/concept and design section, a lot of the claims were unsourced at the appearances section, the portrayal is a bit flimsy and probably could be merged at development section and the major issues are at the reception section where it might probably take time to rewrite and then implement all the sources from its talk page. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2014. There's quite a lot of uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - A lot of stubby, unreferenced paragraphs too. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 10:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - with the caveat that the GA criteria (and the MOS) need far fewer citations than most people thing (essentially limited to quotation/paraphrase and matter that has been or is likely to be challenged), I can't see that this one would pass a GA nomination today without serious work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were about fourteen hours too late to be right, UndercoverClassicist. The criteria have changed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't see that! Only makes things more clear-cut, then. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Uncited tables fails GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2015. Has the same issues as the 2000 CECAFA Cup and the 2013 CECAFA Cup which were delisted. That being unsourced statements and the article not being broad enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Significant issues with GA criteria 2 and 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Has been tagged for excessive primary source use and with some sources not having page numbers. Also, some things are uncited and this article looks like it could use a major cleanup. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Per consensus, substantial issues with GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Would like to have some people take a look at the article as the article has numerous citation needed tags and may contain original research because "The paragraphs about the Khalistan movement and Sikh identity make a lot of unsourced and unverified claims, many of which may be incorrect." Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke

I agree that Sikh diaspora should not be featured as a Good article. Upon having a look, it contains content with no verifiable sources provided - an immediate disqualification.

Overall, I believe this article should be rated as a C class - for its lack of verifiable information. Chilicave (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the concerns listed by Epicgenius at Talk:2003 Chicago balcony collapse#Good article reassessment, as well as my own concerns (such as the prose being inelegant and details related to each other, especially in the aftermath section, not being presented together). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've measured it against the GA criteria below. Will delist in just under a week if no significant improvement by then. Godtres (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead reads to me like journalism. Other problems have been identified on the talk page.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   One citation needed tag remains. A spot check on source 1 suggests OR with the identification of the school that the children knew each other from. I presume the sources with the same text as the Wikipedia article copied it from here, not vice versa.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Lacks some context/explanation as identified on the talk page. Could be expanded.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral coverage.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Relevant picture, and no particular need for another one.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Needs work on style; perhaps some expansion with further referencing.

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

Result: Article cleaned up by XOR and CC. Many thanks to them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2013. Article looks to have a lot of uncited material such as

• "In the SI, the standard metre is defined as exactly 1⁄299792458 of the distance that light travels in a second. The realisation of the metre depends in turn on precise realisation of the second. There are both astronomical observation methods and laboratory measurement methods that are used to realise units of the standard metre. Because the speed of light is now exactly defined in terms of the metre, more precise measurement of the speed of light does not result in a more accurate figure for its velocity in standard units, but rather a more accurate definition of the metre. The accuracy of the measured speed of light is considered to be within 1 m/s, and the realisation of the metre is within about 3 parts in 1000000000, or a relative accuracy of 3×10−9. The kilogram was originally defined as the mass of one cubic decimetre of water at 4 °C, standardized as the mass of a man-made artefact of platinum–iridium held in a laboratory in France, which was used until a new definition was introduced in May 2019. Replicas made in 1879 at the time of the artefact's fabrication and distributed to signatories of the Metre Convention serve as de facto standards of mass in those countries. Additional replicas have been fabricated since as additional countries have joined the convention. The replicas were subject to periodic validation by comparison to the original, called the IPK. It became apparent that either the IPK or the replicas or both were deteriorating, and are no longer comparable: they had diverged by 50 μg since fabrication, so figuratively, the accuracy of the kilogram was no better than 5 parts in a hundred million or a relative accuracy of 5×10−8. The accepted redefinition of SI base units replaced the IPK with an exact definition of the Planck constant as expressed in SI units, which defines the kilogram in terms of fundamental constants.

among other uncited sections and statements. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a first (quick) read, everything that is not explicitly cited can probably be footnoted by copying over the appropriate references from the articles on individual units, speed of light, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've started doing this. I've yet to find anything in the article which is not what I'd call "standard lore", i.e., the sort of stuff that is covered one way or another in many books and that scientists pick up by osmosis. It might take me a while to find the time to go through the whole page (thanks to a big cleanup job), so if anyone would like to swoop in and finish the task first, that'd be fine with me. XOR'easter (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks as if there are about a dozen chunks of text that need citing, and sources should not be far to seek given the various main articles on the subject. The article is tidily written and it just needs citing up so it should be a no-brainer save really. It's not my cup of tea but if this doesn't get done in reasonable time (I'd say there was no hurry) then ping me and I'll look at it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OpenStax college textbooks seem generally pretty good for the basics, like the subject of this article. I just added College Physics to fill in one of the {{cn}} tags; it could probably be reused elsewhere in the article, too. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going @XOR'easter and Chiswick Chap:? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are half a dozen {{cn}} tags yet to fill in. I've been taking them in small steps as I find the time. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled in half a dozen tags, so with luck we're about there now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues with GA criterion 3. Needs cleanup and updating, as significantly out of date, especially when considering it only began operating in 1994. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for GAR as I believe it fails the "factually accurate and verfiable", "broad in coverage" and "focused" parts of the GA criteria.

This article passed GA about 14 years ago. Since then, Eurostar's history has changed significantly because of the merger with Thalys and the financial difficulties faced because of COVID-19 and Brexit. There are several maintenance tags on the article, and quite a few other unreferenced bits, and while I've addressed one of the tags by finding a reference, there's a lot more work required to get it back up to GA standard.

I'm also concerned that a family member works for Eurostar and hence I'm worried people might perceive me editing the article with a pro-Eurostar bias; so it's probably better for other people to work on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information in the lead and the body of the article about the Thalys merger talks about it happening in the future, yet the time that information was added is long past. Perhaps it needs a review and update. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The impact of Brexit on Eurostar is not fully developed in the article. This source (New York Times, so far removed from events) discusses some of the issues in depth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2011. Done as a personal request for User:Filmman3000. He states

• "Hi @Onegreatjoke, I noticed a while back that you delisted David Carradine from the good article list. I totally agree. When I got serious with Wikipedia I looked up to good articles as a model to construct a page, not knowing there was such a thing as "Featured articles".

• Anyways one of these article was Dolph Lundgren. Which was vastly intricate to the point that in his lede it was mentionned that he worked 4 times with a character actor named Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, that one of Quentin Tarantino's early credit was in a project starring Lundgren, and a full on description of the family life of a composer in a film where he co-stars.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dolph_Lundgren&diff=prev&oldid=1035655847

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dolph_Lundgren&diff=prev&oldid=1049597807

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dolph_Lundgren&diff=prev&oldid=975716123

• Lundgren's page seen too intricate, as was a bad model to follow for me. I am wondering if you could evaluate it. Filmman3000 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)"

I'm making this nomination to see if it's actually worth reevaluating. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. I mean also look at year 1995. For the film Johnny Mnemonic "The film was shot on location in Toronto and Montreal in 12 weeks, filling in for the film's Newark, New Jersey and Beijing settings." How does this affect Lundgren in how he chose the role, approached it, its critical reception, or if the locations have any subsequent consequences aside from the film being shot there.

Another example in 1998 and they are endless.

He also featured in the TV pilot Blackjack (directed by John Woo) as a former US Marshal who has a phobia of the color white, who becomes the bodyguard and detective of a young supermodel (Kam Heskin) who is the target of a psychotic assassin (Phillip MacKenzie).

This should be.

He also played the lead in John Woo's TV pilot Blackjack as a former US Marshal who becomes the bodyguard of a supermodel.

I salute the person who did put this page together but a serious trim needs to happen for it to maintain its status. Filmman3000 (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been overedited and degraded. It was a fully sourced good article when I promoted it. Suggest restoring it and just updating with the more recent films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld I will look into it. Filmman3000 (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld, your article was promoted on August 1, 2011. I am adding a link to your last edit that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dolph_Lundgren&diff=prev&oldid=442575580

Again, by scrolling down I found way too bloated.

By scrolling down to 2006, I re-stumbled upon overly intricate stuff. This sentence.

The film, shot on location in Tunisia and Bulgaria, featured a score from Andrea Morricone, the son of the acclaimed film score composer Ennio Morricone.

Why is the composer mentioned there with his family history? Does Lundgren has anything to do with the hiring of this man, guided him in his composing, or composed based on Lundgren's acting?

Furthermore, the source used comes from Lundgren's personal website, while it may have been updated since, it doesn't hold that information anymore. Also using a source from the subject's website is not recommended.

You go way too deep into the plot of the films. One brief sentence is enough. Sorry but it stays a Delist. This article got me in trouble with many other editors by copying its model, because it is listed as a good article. Filmman3000 (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that I have written 200 GAs, nearly 40 FAs, reviewed over 250 Good and Featured articles, founded the Actors and Filmmakers project itself, been here since 2006, you'd think I would know a thing or two by now on what meets GA criteria!... You would probably have the same problem with Rod Steiger, which is a featured article. The reason why it goes into more detail is that there wasn't a lot of production information about Lundgren, it was used to flesh out the article. I don't disagree that it would benefit from a cut and needs to be updated to 2023 standards and finding sources for the sentences tagged, you are right that it currently doesn't meet standards, but you seem dead set on wanting to delist this rather than helping it retain its status which is why I'm relunctant to make the effort to save this. I haven't seen many films of Lundgren's since the early 2010s and haven't visited the article in many years, in fact I only saw he has cancer just now! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A trim of certain details and a few citations needed, there's nothing massively wrong with the sections I wrote. The film coverage since 2010 which I didn't write certainly is way off GA standard. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am not dead set into delisting it, I would have changed my mind if the 2011 version of it would have been up to par, they are just details that baffles me which are not in your Rod Steiger article upon first glance. Also, I have trimmed it substantially since I noticed it's problem. It's not my first time asking feedback about this specific article.

To be honest that article frustrates me a lot because I got into some war edits trying to copy the format. So there's a part of me that worries that someone else will come around see that

My understanding is that if an actor just acts in a film and does nothing regarding the production then nothing regarding the production should be on his page. If he participates to the script writing or anything of the sort then it needs to be mentioned. Otherwise it needs to strictly focus on the type of acting he does or training and diet since he is an athletic action star.

You found a lot of detail regarding the productions of his film and I suggest you use them in the page regarding these projects. Your research is excellent. Your work is good. Sorry if I left you there wrong impression. Let's work to have it maintain its status. Filmman3000 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a trim and chased up some missing sources. I didn't see any section which was particularly bloated, but I think you were right on some of the location filming info. I don't think there's much wrong with it except the 2010s- present section which will need some work. I've placed that section in my sandbox and will work on it gradually this week if you can hold off with the delisting. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld the GAR will be kept open as long as improvements are being made. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld of course I missed this reply I believe I fixed some elements already, see the history of the page. Also the person who promoted it for you should have pointed out these issues.

Aside from Lundgren's weight in 1987 pretty much everything is cited. 1991 is also fine. Rocky 4 is fine.

I have to disagree with you a lot is wrong when covering his early years. Mostly, un-cited stuff and production elements from the film that are not related to him.

I would also suggest to avoid books that are overly analytic of his works, unless no citation prevails.

Do your thing in the sandbox and let's do a follow-up when you are ready. Filmman3000 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is uncited?? Mark what you can see as uncited and I'll look into it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I resolved it those I spotted, see history, but these were the big ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dolph_Lundgren&diff=prev&oldid=1163211185

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dolph_Lundgren&diff=prev&oldid=1163301235

citation 26 is a dead link by the way, hence for year 1987 it is not completely cited. If the links are dead how would you like me to notify you? Filmman3000 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 thank you Filmman3000 (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to spend my summer chasing up all of his films since 2011. He's been in a lot of films. Plus I'm also having work done on my house which is distracting me. I think it's probably best you delist this unless somebody is willing to do the work needed. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of this 2008 listing was tagged by SandyGeorgia as requiring a GAR; I must agree. The article has not been updated to the sufficient standard after 2010; this is especially egregious considering the massive leaps in AI over the last decade.

Thus, I'll tag it as needing an {{update}}, and nominate this for delisting as failing GA criterion 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article needs huge amounts of work and updating to be at standard. Should be delisted unless someone takes that on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agree, should be delisted. Section for 2011 is really outdated and needs a huge amount of work Artem.G (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Needs significant effort. If anyone steps forward to work on this article, please ping me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Citation issues violating GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There are sourcing issues: some sentences are either unsourced or sourced by unreliable sources. I also doubt the character's notability overall, because the reliable sources I found on Google and in the article talks more about the actor than the character herself. Spinixster (chat!) 08:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. As noted by the nominator, there are statements without suitable sources in the article. Some of the text would need a refresh. Relationships section could do with a good trim. Seems unlikely that SaraSidledivix.jpg is CC, as it appears to be a screenshot from a fan site, and three "fair use" images may be pushing it a bit. Please ping me if anyone volunteers to work on the article, as it might be salvageable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Valid cleanup banners remain on the article, meeting quickfail criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last GAR was not opened or closed according to the correct procedure. Meanwhile, there are valid cleanup and update banners on the article, it has ballooned to close to 20,000 words, and the use of primary sources is excessive. This GAR may not be closed until at a minimum the cleanup banners are resolved and removed. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was made a GA in 2012, whilst it would be a GA then, 11 years later it fails criteria 2 as not all information is verifiable and it doesn't reflect anything of her career post 2012. Her "current work" as of 2012 is likely to be out of date. At age 37, she is likely to have retired from elite and club level. For example, she is not listed on the Victoria club 2023 roster: https://vicphoenixwaterpolo.com/victorian-awl-womens-squad/ (note the team she played for Victorian Tigers has since been renamed). LibStar (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any reason why the information is not verifiable; the article is fully referenced.
• The Victorian Tigers left the National Women’s Water Polo League after the 2013 season. There was no Victorian team in the league from 2017 to 2021. The Victorian Phoenix was created in 2022.
• There is no information online about her career after 2013 and she is presumed to have retired. If it is really necessary we can cheat and contact her directly but the information gathered may not be able to be used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So do you believe this is still a GA? LibStar (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no reason why it should not be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted due to citation issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting this for the same reasons i delisted articles like the 2012 CECAFA Cup. That being unsourced statements and lack of broadness. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article right now wasnt fleshed out after the article was moved and renamed. The article right now needs to be updated. Concept and design should be expanded a bit more. Almost the entire Appearances section are unsourced and needs to be updated based on its appearances and lastly the Reception section where it needs to be rewritten a bit, like removing some pointless source and should be expanded since its flimsy. The lawsuit section seems to be fine, but more sources appeared after checking it at google news and should be expanded a bit more. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article was written by the banned user ItsLassieTime and is being sent for purging at Copyright Problems. At the least, the Schultz source has confirmed copyvio, and given the far-reaching problems it's likely that the rest of the article is a copyvio too. Wizardman 23:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per nomination. There is nothing for readers at the article location at the moment. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very substandard BLP. Mostly proseline. About a quarter of the article by weight is an inflated 'controversy' section that I'm of half a mind to take to WP:BLPN, let alone permit the article to be considered a GA. Vaticidalprophet 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second this. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third. Does not hold up as a GA. Not sure what was the standards back then, but it seems that the last GA was briefly evaluated compared to the previous one. – robertsky (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, per @Robertsky and @Dawkin Verbier.

Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 04:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Most of the content was removed mostly by a user, which was all reverted after figuring it out it that all of the content was removed. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be updated. Some statements at Concept and design section were unsourced and should be expanded a bit if found more. The reception section also needs to be expanded from scholarly books/sources and should be cleaned up all the trivial listicles that doesn't have valuable commentary to the character. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't particularly see a problem with the article's content or writing style. I have to ask if the problem is just a few listicles being used, why that isn't just a matter for self-cleanup. WP:DIY applies here. If Elaine isn't notable, that's similarly a matter for a merge discussion, not a GAR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It currently fails "broad on its coverage", which means that some of the content should be incorporated at the articld. There are also some unsourced statements. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I don't see how it is not sufficiently broad. It encompasses all games she appeared in and has development information. GAR is not minor cleanup, it is for fundamental problems with the article that are difficult to fix without a rewrite. (And as far as unsourced statements go, they can just be deleted). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  + It also needs some updates. So just for that, I don't believe the article's issue is still "minor". I think I'm just gonna go ahead and let WP:VG peeps know GAR stuffs. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As a side note, I did notice that literally half the article was removed without reason, making it appear a lot more lacking in content than it would be. I reverted the change, which was given an incorrect justification (not "self-published", but sourced to quotes from the game itself, as shown in References). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh wow, didn't notice that one. Thats a huge difference, just for that I think the article has only minor issue and just for that I am closing this GAR. Thanks for looking at it. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Huge amounts of uncited material fail GA criterion 2b) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. there looks to be significant unsourced material in the article that has to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Nominator's issues have been addressed. 123Writer ^talk 12:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of CN's close to the end of the article, mild copyediting is also required. Doesn't look like there's a lot of citations for the size of the article. Orange tags at 2023 fire and Historical sketches and hotel guests. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 20:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on this ASAP. There has been much editing recently because of the fire; haven't had a chance to work on it yet. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments:

• The "historical sketches and hotel guests" section was not present at the time this article was promoted to GA (actually, it was added here without sources in 2020). The unsourced portions of this section should either be removed or backed up by reliable sources
• The 2023 fire section suffers from recentism; the need for copyediting may be related to the disproportionate length of this section, which seems overly detailed. I'd recommend cutting this to one paragraph, which may also resolve these grammatical issues.
• The "Present day" section may need to be updated to reflect the impact of the 2023 fire.

Otherwise, the article doesn't look that bad. In response to @Jalapeño's GAR statement, the GA criteria do not require a certain amount of citations in proportion to the size of the article; they only require that everything is backed up by a reliable source. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down the 2023 fire section. Citations still needed for that last section. 123Writer ^talk 19:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'll add I don't really think that section is even necessary. It should be cut down to the most notable and relevant verified guests (the "three aristocratic guests" story and the whole Gilbert can-can thing definitely should go), or cut entirely. 123Writer ^talk 19:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything about Sackville staying at the Albion. Only the Metropole also in Brighton (The Bolter, Osbourne 2009). Found sources for everything else though. 123Writer ^talk 11:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jalapeño Have your issues been adequately addressed? 123Writer ^talk 04:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, they have. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2015. There looks to be quite a lot of uncited material in the article which large chunks just with no citations. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - complete lack of adequate sourcing, not comprehensive, mostly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. GA criteria 2abc,3ab,4

• The history section is mostly factually inaccurate, deficient of even the most important names and details, and should be rewritten entirely.
  • The claim the philosophy of science begins with Aristotle is both dubious and only cites... Aristotle himself! There are many historical figures you could consider the first "proto-philosopher-of-science" but the actual formal discipline originates in the 19th century so a lack of secondary citations prior to that is patently unacceptable.
  • The modern section seems to be mostly WP:OR and focuses on otherwise well-known names in philosophy, again with mostly primary sources cited, and it doesn't even mention August Comte, Ernst Mach, Pierre Duhem who are generally the most influential modern originators of Philosophy of science.
  • The logical positivism section mostly focuses on the 1930s and implies that Wittgenstein somehow inspired positivism, despite this being chronologically impossible, as logical positivism originated with Comte. None of the important claims made in that section are cited whatsoever, probably WP:OR.
  • Karl Popper, despite being mentioned elsewhere, is completely absent from the history section despite arguably being the most famous philosopher of science of the entire century.
  • I'm not sure Thomas Kuhn's section makes sense if you don't already know what a paradigm shift is, and there's only a single non-primary citation.
• The "Continental philosophy" section makes a variety of dubious claims about the lack of relevance of philosophy of science within that tradition, despite many continental philosophers of science (even those mentioned in that section!) that are in other parts of the article. Reads like a WP:SOAPBOX written by someone with negative associations with the tradition but little knowledge.
• The section on reductionism doesn't tell you what reductionism in philosophy of science is, or explain the concept of a hierarchy of sciences (biology is just appied chem, etc..) at all, and then apparently talks about a different, mostly unrelated kind of reductionism in philosophy of mind, invoking Dan Dennett.
• The WP:SPINOUTs to particular sciences are weakly cited, which can probably be fortified by citations in those respective articles, but I haven't compared them side-by-side to determine if they agree.
• I mostly only skimmed the other sections, but that's not an endorsement of their content, I just think this is probably enough to work with for now.

This is, admittedly, a very broad topic that's difficult to write a comprehensive article on, but we're not dealing with anything close to that here. At a bare minimum some WP:HQRS that deal with the entire topic of Philosophy of Science as a whole should be consulted, in order to build an outline that can be planned around, the current article is mostly disorganized hunting and pecking for detached quotes from different Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles and a few other sources, with the broader picture forgotten. - car chasm (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - per the analysis by Carchasm. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There are two Needs Update tag in the article and several sentences that lack citations, which fails criteria 2 of the GAC. Spinixster (chat!) 13:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist No improvements, and indeed nary an edit for over a year. This is essentially a time capsule from 2007 and no longer GA-level with no updates about if the films were later broadcast. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I'm not even sure this meets WP:GNG, but current sourcing is awful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a bit update. The issues are also lacking about the character development/concept and design section, the appearances section needs to be rewritten a bit to be in order (there are also unsourced claim) and also some addition/expansion at the reception section. It absolutely needs help, especially when it doesn't have development section for the character. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify the unsourced claims? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rechecked, I guess there were no unsourced statement on appearance section, but still needed to be rewritten a bit to for its appearance to be in order. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The appearances seem like they are already in order of release. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not yet that good but besides that the article still has a lot of issues. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 18:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest the only problem I'm seeing is the reception section is really small and might be worked better. The rewrite tag doesn't fit on there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have character development section thou GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a case where that info just isn't available. A lot of Nintendo characters are in that boat.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was already a keep in March of this year, I'm not sure how circumstances would have changed now? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably because your only concern that time was only about notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor added {{GAR request}} tag on t/p last month. 2006 listing has valid cleanup banners and citation issues. Unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so confused. Why was this listed for review, who performed the review, and who decided "not enough improvement"? What does "not enough improvement" even mean? What did the article need to improve? Which specific sections should we be looking at? I don't even understand the English in this section, what does "unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue" mean? You made zero effort to contact editors, or engage with the large community on this page and related WikiProject. This is terrible! -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 18:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrickneil, this was listed for review because the article "has valid cleanup banners and citation issues". Relevant sentence of the GA criteria: An article can be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if, prior to the review it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid ... All content that could reasonably be challenged ... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph.

I decided "not enough improvement", because the article still has "cleanup banners and citation issues". Relevant sentence of the GAR instructions: After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist.

The sections you should be looking at are the ones with the "cleanup banners and citation issues" i.e. Kosovo intervention, Membership, and Structure. "Unusually, updating doesn't seem to be an issue" means that the article is well-updated, which not an issue but is unusual. Are any other of my English phrases unclear?

"You made zero effort to contact editors, or engage with the large community on this page and related WikProject. This is terrible!" This is a verifiably incorrect claim: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NATO, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 170, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, User talk:Morgoonki, User talk:Fw-us-hou-8.bmc.com, User talk:FutureTrillionaire, and User talk:H1nkles. I would appreciate if you would strike this unjustified accusation, Patrickneil.

You have reverted my closure of this discussion against the GAR instructions: A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect...Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page. Am I to understand that you wish to improve the article back to GAR standard? In the future, please leave a note on the relevant GA reassessment page; that would save us all a lot of bother. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one clean up banner and five Template:Cns, yes, I see that. If that's the issue, then say that. I'll work on finding citations today, or removing the unsourced claims, but "Not enough improvement" is not a GA review.

How on earth did you pick those editors to notify? User:Fw-us-hou-8.bmc.com has 14 edits total, from two days in 2001, none of which have anything to do with this topic. User:H1nkles and User:FutureTrillionaire have both been inactive for around four years, and again, have never edited this article. And User:Morgoonki was only active for a month, just enough to engage in a pro-Vladimir Putin edit war. And when you say "Editor added {{GAR request}} tag" again, I have to question how much you looked into this, because by "editor" you mean User: Real4jyy, an editor whose only Wikipedia activity so far has been to indiscriminately list GAs for review and add talk page headers.

Here is a list of active editors. If you want good faith here, the best I can give you is that, in this specific scenario, you weren't doing some basic due diligence with this GAR and the users involved. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 19:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GAR script automatically notifies all previous GA reviewers (if it can find any), in addition to previous reassessers, Patrickneil. I then notified six WikiProjects, in addition to linking on the the article talk page (and tidying that up, incidentally). I don't particularly know why User:Fw-us-hou-8.bmc.com was notified, however.

"There is one clean up banner and five Template:Cns, yes, I see that. If that's the issue, then say that." I ... did?

"by "editor" you mean User: Real4jyy, an editor whose only Wikipedia activity so far has been to indiscriminately list GAs for review and add talk page headers" I don't see anything in there that requires the word editor to be put in scare quotes? If they want to gnome around, I don't see why they should be denigrated for that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you shouldn't be using a GAR script then. What percent of the article did you read prior to delisting? What percent of the talk page and it's archive? Which of the five Template:Cns did you feel were the issue that put the article over the top? -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 20:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read all of the article personally Patrickneil, hence I could say "no update needed". Same could be said for the talk page (diff of my archiving), even though that is not necessary. If you look at the structure section, you will see the citations needed banner; a large percentage of this section is uncited and grounds for delisting. Is anything else unclear? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is no where near Good article status. Only 5000 words on a topic this important? There is a massive lack of deep coverage. Every source, but one, in the Works cited is cited only a single time. There is a large Further reading which doubtlessly has content that should be in the main article. There are at least 30 sources published by NATO itself instead using any of the works cited or the vast amount of scholarship on this topic no where in the article. The Military operations section is a mess, with rambling paragraphs and no clear division of weight on its respective subsections. I see numerous topics in List of NATO operations not even mentioned.

This article became good status in 2006, when standards for GAs were considerably lower and more lenient. It has since had three article reassessment requests. Any article with that much repeated concern over its quality will need a substantial reconfiguration to remain good status, and not just end up at GAR again next year. An obvious delist Aza24 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's at least something we can work on. I'll say that since 2006, the subarticles History of NATO and Enlargement of NATO have been created out of those sections when they became too sprawling. I might quibble with describing nine items in Further reading as "large", and that, yes, more citations than I would like are sourced to NATO itself. Those do tend to be uncontroversial statements, to source things more routine like "the Chair of the Military Committee is the head of the Military Committee." I'm not sure which operation from List of NATO operations needs to be added, but I'm happy to help if there is something major that's getting left out of the current sections and subsections. -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 21:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Operation Display Deterrence is mentioned and I really think Resolute Support Mission and International Security Assistance Force should be separate. These last two being conflated into one section makes both of their scopes confusing, and disrupts the otherwise chronological layout of the operations.

It is not the exact size of the further reading section itself, or specifically the preponderance of NATO citations which worries me, it is simply the lack of academic scholarship used in general. (As I mentioned) the single citations from the Works cited section are particularly concerning, and representative of this article's biggest fault. The thing with uncontroversial statements is that sure, we could cite them to NATO, but wouldn't it be better to cite them to reliable independent sources? Either way, the Military operations section is really the core of the article, and what needs to be better sourced. The Gulf of Aden anti-piracy section, for instance, is solely cited to NATO, which is certainly inappropriate – Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that. I do though want to keep this is as an overview article. I think that's always been an element here, that the scope can't go into too much detail given the 75 years of institutional history that need to fit in its sections. We do have these two reservoirs of sources, published international policy books and news articles about a NATO-related event that just happened somewhere, the trouble being that neither type of source is actually all that great at being a source for the basic questions readers come here for, like, "what is NATO?" or "why is NATO expanding?", that the article tries to give answers for.

Lastly, if I am a bit defensive, it might be somewhat that there is a literal cyberarmy out to manipulate Wikipedia, and we've been dealing with it for years on this topic. The most recent GAR request, last year, was because a user wanted to include a chunk what I see as pro-Russian propaganda. They were asked politely to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The two previous GARs were 14 years ago, all three have, I would note, resulted in speedily keeping it as a GA. I'm well aware the article needs attention, perhaps WP:PR is more what the article needs or at least a thorough section by section review, because there are large chunks that are at a high quality, but other parts that let it down. It's just difficult to see almost 20 years of maintenance here boiled down to three words, "not enough improvement." -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 01:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your defensiveness is certainly understandable. But I'm fairly certain where Airship is coming from. The GA process & community was only recently reinvigorated and prior to which although the standards had risen, older GAs had not. Thus, there is a lot of cleanup now taking place with older GAs, huge numbers of which are far below standards. See here for instance, where one author of 100+ GAs was discovered to frequently be using copyrighted material. Certainly the NATO article is nothing like the articles delisted by the now-banned user, but its importance as a topic gives it further scrutiny, since its so important to get right! Aza24 (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that all the citation needed instances have been resolved. The article is a bit on the short side, but that's not necessarily a bad thing - there are plenty of links to other articles that cover sections in greater depth, like Structure of NATO and Enlargement of NATO. I could understand the argument that the main article could use a bit more material, but for such a complex topic I think it's better to keep a relatively concise article and allow readers easy access to more in-depth and narrowly focused articles. To pick a topic I'm intimately familiar with, Train was promoted to GA in 2021 and is currently at 4273 words, 27331 characters, and I'd argue it could be expanded but is still comprehensive enough and gives sufficient links to other articles that it meets the criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with this concept of an overview article. It's also better in my view to keep it this way because it's easier to update, change, or remove supporting articles than it is to hack through a massive parent article. So long as the citation issues have been addressed and there's solid overview information, I see no real reason to delist. Intothatdarkness 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain a habit of avoiding closing GARS where I have opined, but I do not see a consensus to delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No improvement; the article clearly does not meet article 2 of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. There's quite a lot of uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Violates GA criteria 2b and 4 - significant information is uncited and the article is overall somewhat promotional in tone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MISSION in lede, short lede that is not a full summary, very long (imo unwarranted) list of publications, staff section based on primary source. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any comments about the other issues, but what is wrong with using a primary source as a reference for staff? Seems like a WP:ABOUTSELF situation to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I would argue that it is WP:UNDUE. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Two weeks have passed; no improvement, and a consensus to delist as failing GA criteria 2 and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There's uncited material in the article that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note especially the presence of quite a few unsourced name listicles, which should be reconsidered even if sourced. CMD (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – Nowhere near GA status. Not even a mention of medieval music (Trencento) and less than 3 or 4 words on Renaissance music. The word Madrigal is not even in the article. Aza24 (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: I have TNTed the inaccuracies section; as this seemed to be the only outstanding complaint after Wugapodes' response, I am closing as keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2015. Uses many unreliable sources and some parts aren’t formatted correctly. There are also citations in the lede that should be moved into the body. Spinixster (chat!) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot comment on the specifics of this article, but I want to note that citations in the lead are explicitly not prohibited by policy, and their use must be determined on a case-by-case basis; in general I would defer to the wishes of the major contributor, other things being equal. Citations in the lead are most certainly not a reason to delist a GA. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde93 Yes, per WP:CITELEAD, redundant citations in the lede can be put in the body instead. Many of the citations are already cited in the body, so there’s no point in citing it in the lede, too. Of course, this does not do anything to the GA, just something I’d like to point out. Spinixster (chat!) 02:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They can be, but aren't required to be; you're expressing personal preference (which you're entitled to) and framing it as policy (which it isn't). CITEKILL can be a problem, but that's not lead-specific. The rest of the citation concern isn't a GAR issue. The other issues you've raised are, so I suggest focusing on those. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde93 As I said, I just pointed it out. I didn't say it was necessarily an issue. Spinixster (chat!) 01:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the person who originally reviewed (and failed) this article in 2015. I don't mean this as a disparaging remark to the primary editor, as it's clear a lot of work has gone into fleshing this out, but I genuinely think it's in worse shape now than it was then. Despite the welcome addition of more sources and information along with a trimmed down plot section, I agree with Spinixster that many of those sources are unreliable. The article also has numerous grammar issues, some questionable structuring decisions, and redundancies (particularly in the "Historical Inaccuracies" section). This would need a significant overhaul to even keep C-class status, so unless someone is willing to do that, I'm very much in agreement that this should have its GA status removed. Sock (tock talk) 04:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The issues being raised so far are incredibly vague and unhelpful. The goal of a reassessment is to improve an article, and it's difficult to do that if problems aren't laid out with specificity and reference to the GA criteria. some parts aren’t formatted correctly Which parts? What GA criteria specifically are at issue? Looking at the article nothing seems broken and it seems to comply with criterion 1b. Uses many unreliable sources Which sources are unreliable? Reliability is related to the claim being supported, so what claims are the sources supporting? Since nothing specific has been pointed out, I took time and went through every citation in the article:
  1. The most used citation is cited to a 50-year-old newspaper of record.
  2. There's a reference to Box Office Mojo which is routinely used by film articles and from a search of RSN doesn't seem to be considered unreliable.
  3. The name of the director is cited to an interview with that director saying that he is the director.
  4. A citation to the book the movie is adapted from
  5. Variety Magazine
  6. The Hollywood Reporter
  7. Unreliable, but it doesn't seem necessary to support the sentence given the other citation for the sentence. It claims to be a government document so the original or more reliable source can likely be found
  8. An archival copy of a newspaper
  9. Unreliable, only used in the lead to support who attended the premiere
  10. Not sure if this is a fan site or the actors official site? I lean towards fan site so probably unreliable. Only used in lead to support who attended the premiere
  11. Seems like a normal media site
  12. Rotten Tomatoes
  13. Seems like a normal media site
  14. AVClub
  15. LA Times
  16. The Numbers
  17. An interview cited to support the interviewee's statements
  18. An interview with the producer, though the claims it supports could be attributed in text to the interviewee to make that clearer
  19. An interview with a cast member, I didn't go through all the citations but seems to mostly be about how the film was made
  20. An interview with a cast member
  21. An industry magazine for screenwriters
  22. The Hollywood Reporter
  23. The Hollywood Reporter
  24. A local newspaper in Michigan talking about how the Michigan government subsidized its production
  25. Metacritic
  26. SF Chronicle
  27. Huffington Post (non-politics)
  28. A blog which seems to be from a non-notable critic. It supports a pull quote that could probably just be removed in favor of the others around it
  29. LA Weekly
  30. Entertainment Weekly
  31. The Plain Dealer, a regional newspaper for Ohio
  32. The Hollywood Reporter
  33. The Numbers
  34. A citation to "tunes.zone" which is dead and from the name alone I'm suspicious of. It is a source for the soundtrack which is also just available in the movie's credits
  35. A blog sourcing a claimed inaccuracy that could probably just be removed or a better source found
  36. A blog, same reasoning as above
  37. The book the film was adapted from
  38. The Plain Dealer
  39. An interview with the director

So of the 39 sources, at most 7 are to plainly unreliable sources (7, 9, 10, 28, 34, 35, 36), and they don't support any particularly important information which can't simply be cut. Having gone through every source and looked at most of the claims they are supporting, I'm not seeing a problem that needs a GAR to resolve. Am I missing something? Just cut those sentences, maybe find a better source and it should comply with 2b after only like a few minutes of work. numerous grammar issues Where? What kind? I just skimmed it and it seemed fine. some questionable structuring decisions What structuring decisions? What makes them questionable? The article seems to comply with criterion 1b's layout requirement, so I need more specificity to understand what makes this a GAR issue. redundancies (particularly in the "Historical Inaccuracies" section) this is specific and actionable. These redundancies would probably be fixed by simply cutting the claims cited to unreliable sources or even just cutting that whole section. — Wug·a·po·des 00:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was wrong, but @Sock Do you have anything to say about this? Spinixster (chat!) 01:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wugapodes' points about the article and criticisms of my response are entirely valid. I was wrong to give my two cents on a GAR without familiarizing myself with the process more thoroughly or providing exclusively actionable feedback, and I sincerely appreciate the callout. I'll be taking a closer look at this article with their points in mind in the next little bit and provide something a bit more productive to the discussion. Sock (tock talk) 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No further concerns raised; closed as keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the lead tag has been there for two years now. may fail criterion 1b. ltbdl (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed tag -- a four-paragraph lead for a 24kb article is within normal variance, even if not what a completely literal reading of the "useful suggestions" (direct quote) on MOS:LEADLENGTH has. I've also trimmed a few overlong sentences and extraneous details from the lead in the process, so it shouldn't be a wall of text now. Are there any other concerns? Vaticidalprophet 09:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated by a "brand new" editor oddly well-versed in Wikipedia editing esoterica. Grorp (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is a clean start account. ltbdl (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GAR isn't that hard to find these days, even outside the clean start context (which is entirely valid), and even a new editor could reasonably look at a long-term-tagged GA and want to ask questions about it. I'm just not sure if there are any further concerns than the marginally relevant tag (I ended up chopping some more out of the lead after the original message). The article is a little quote-heavy, which was common for its author; some of them could be paraphrased, but I don't know if they're at the "absolutely needing it to fit GACR" point rather than the "it would be a good idea" point, so possibly worth a second opinion. Vaticidalprophet 10:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Ughhhh, seems like editors disagreed GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has several issues. Concept and design section seems to be flimsy, especially at the reception section where most of the scholarly books/sources wasnt implemented yet, thus the article isn't "broad on its coverage" yet + some of those trivia sources should be eliminated. There is also an secondary image, maybe remove it to avoid sandwiching the paragraph (Reception sec). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Passerby comment. I can't agree with the second sentence. First off, if there really is image sandwiching in a GA, this is WP:SOFIXIT territory - just move the image or change its left/right orientation, it's not GAR-material. Second off, there isn't sandwiching anyway. MOS:SANDWICH is about when text is channeled into a narrow "column" on smaller windows, e.g. by a left-aligned image near a right-aligned infobox. There is no such sandwiching happening here, it's just a perfectly normal right-aligned image with nothing on the left. (A {{clear}} can be added if what you meant is that the image pokes into the references section on wide resolutions, but this is, again, a one-line fix and not something for GAR. In fact I'll go add that right now.)
• I'll let others look into it more, but from a surface glance, I don't see what's "flimsy" about the concept section. A vague complaint gets an equally vague response - is there something more specific you think is an issue with that section? (I don't have an opinion on the Reception section complaint and haven't looked closely, will let others weigh in on that.) SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If we can't find anything more for the Concept and design section, then the reception section is the only problem when most of the content were not implemented. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What content was not implemented, Greenish Pickle!? You refer to scholarly books/sources—which do you mean? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there are a lot of scholarly and web.archive.org sources wasn't implement yet for the article to be "broad on its coverage". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This has nothing to do with the good article criteria, unless you can describe what is important about this content. "Broad in its coverage" is not about requiring comprehensive inclusion of every source in the universe for the sake of it (WP:GACN). In fact, unnecessary detail is explicitly discouraged in lieu of summary. LoK Wiki (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Greenish Pickle!, please provide the sources along with reasons justifying why they should be included. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted (not kept, sorry). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of missing citations, poor layout, giant tables in the body, wicked excessive images, a far too detailed accidents section that fails to use any discretion... this is not a GA in its present state and is actually painful to try and read with all the clutter. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell was questioning the GA status of this article in 2012! Delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even make it to the talk page before deciding this was a clear GAR candidate, that just makes it even worse! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Unsourced paragraphs and lists are a real problem. Also has a few maintenance tags that are several years old. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted on consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was last reassessed in 2009. Quite a lot of research into this subject with regard to climate change has happened since and I don't think this article has completely kept up with it. There is also a [vague] template which needs to be addressed. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist (but ping me if anyone is willing to work on the article). There are quite a few reverted comments in the article history, which suggests edit-warring has been happening. Article seems likely to be outdated despite sources being added since the review, and there are some uncited statements. I can't tell whether the article needs quick fixes or more of an overhaul, so am leaning towards the latter. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept, with thanks, once again, to XOR'easter. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Quite a lot of uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs work. I completely disagree with the definition, which is only for moving objects. I can think of many examples where this is not a useful definition.
I would use the standard definition of force as the change in energy with position, since energy is fundamental. The derivative part should be added after the lead as KISS. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that defining force in terms of an even less familiar concept, energy, is the right way to begin an article of this sort. XOR'easter (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Force is a derivative term, it is not fundamental. Some examples are static friction, rolling friction, Hellman-Feynman, the derivatives of a Landau expansion of electromechanical terms, capillary. All of these are derivatives, most have nothing to do with motion in the way described by this article.

As one common example of a mistake, dynamic friction is the derivative with respect to motion of dissipative energies such as phonon/electron/plastic/elastic. Static friction is a derivative with respect to movement of the integrated. elastic strain energy.

Just my opinion that force needs rigor in definition. Not everyone may agree. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to squeeze every concept of "force" up to and including those derived from quantum field theory into the first two sentences of a Wikipedia article that will be read by high-school students is an exercise in futility. We could try to cover Hellman–Feynman, gauge bosons, and the Einstein field equations, but we'd just be talking to ourselves. XOR'easter (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm reading your reply as to my comment).

Sorry my list wasn't clear: the items were no for the lead but the article. The lead needs small work. But the overall concept of "force" has history that illuminates its curious role in physics, eg action at a distance / general relativity. So just some missing content that makes Force less "good". Johnjbarton (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reply wasn't to your comment, but to the comment just above it. My own feeling is that getting the lead exactly right should be the last part of the revision; it's hard to write a good summary without having the material that needs summarizing already in hand. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of good material here.

Lead definition is wrong, as shown in the section "Third law" in this very article.

No mention of action-at-distance issues, one of the core aspects of "force" as a concept.

No mention of general relativity converting Newtonian gravitational "force" into geometry.

Section "Descriptions > Quantum mechanics" is unreferenced and a muddle. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There actually was a little bit about general relativity in the "Gravitational" subsection. Rather than repeating that, I added a pointer to it from the end of the special relativity part. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some words about "action at a distance" to the segue from Newtonian to Einsteinian gravity.

What we probably ought to do now is run a fine-toothed comb through the text and scrape out weird niche stuff (like one person's pet peeve with how everyone else in physics talks about force, which they wrote into the Wikipedia article in 2004, where it has sat ever since — that kind of thing). Some of the references may be substandard. There's no real reason to cite, e.g., press releases for a topic like this one. XOR'easter (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GA criteria now explicitly call for at least one citation per paragraph. (I think this is carrying a reasonable rule-of-thumb too far, for the sake of having a box to check off, but them's the breaks.) This probably isn't too hard to meet in this case, since we can raid the shelf of introductory physics textbooks [1][2]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm happier with this article now than I was when we started, so that's something. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OED provides the etymology and historical quotations for strong force and related terms as meaning 7.g of "strong". Unfortunately, our {{cite OED}} template doesn't seem to provide a ready way to cite individual senses of a word. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but I wonder if the physics sources used by OED would be more useful. (The ref as it reads in the article sounds like "here dummy this is the definition of "strong"; we can't tell that it says anything about "force"). Johnjbarton (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They pick primary sources that illustrate the sense in which a term is being used, as is their typical M.O. Skipping past the secondary/tertiary source to cite primary sources directly goes against our typical way of doing things. I tweaked that reference (in what might be an off-label use of the citation template, but whatever) to indicate that we're citing it for the specialized physics meaning. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven citations to University Physics, Sears, Young & Zemansky, pp. 18–38. Given the profusion of textbook editions, that's not really specific enough to be verifiable. The editions with only those three authors all seem fairly old, too; for example, the 12th edition (2008) also includes Freedman and Ford. (And the page range 18–38 is definitely not correct for that edition.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page range matches a chapter which introduces forces in the 6th edition (1982). Here's a link to archive.org: [3] Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was thinking that we'd have to go back to the '80s to find an edition that matched. If everything attributed to that book is in that stretch of the 6th edition (I can't check at the moment), then we can go ahead and fill in the metadata appropriately, and the article will be in decent shape overall. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata now filled in. XOR'easter (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Looks unlikely that Axem Titanium will find that spare afternoon, but in any case, there is no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article overrelies mostly on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for. It is not broad on its coverage, and some of the claim were unsourced (mainly from appearances section). Only the GameSpy source were useful that was cited at the article [4], but thats it. It needs a heavy clean up to fulfill GA criteria. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Article need some significant work, and it is a bit confusing to have both an analysis section with heavy quoting and a reception section. The way the references are set up for the article too make it really difficult to fix, not gonna lie.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Needs a rewrite in places, such as the reception. Unusual separate "analysis" section can be merged with reception as it is essentially an aspect of the character's reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Which sources "do not entirely say what they are cited for"? This is a serious allegation so I would hope you would tag the ones that you think fail verification. I'm also not sure what you mean specifically when you say that the article is not broad in its coverage. What, in your mind, is missing? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess theres bit problem with my rationale, but above editors already agreed that the article that also was promoted decade has a lot of issues. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 14:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok so what are your actual issues with the article? The point of GAR is to improve the article, not delist it. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delisting without improvements. I... know that your goal is turning FF into GT. But, just looking at the article issues, it contaibs mostly passing mentions from the game reviews and a lot of listicles. I'm not sure why would you still call these a "good article". GlatorNator (ᴛ) 14:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Jumping in here, but a lot of those sources are still from when I revived that article from a redirect over ten years ago, back when we were grabbing everything saying *something* to try and make an article work. And even now I wouldn't have cited a lot of that. It never really got cleaned up like others did, while standards improved.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Who's saying we should keep it without improvements? I'm trying to understand your problems with the article so it can be improved. Which sources are being misrepresented? What about the article is "not broad in its coverage"? Passing mentions in game reviews and listicles are a notability/RS problem, not a GA criterion. Listicles are allowed as long as the source is reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then the article fails about being "broad on its coverage", since a lot of the content were just trivial. But, the article could be potebtially saved after implementing all the sources that Cukie placed and maybe cutting down some irrelevant listicles. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 20:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What parts, specifically, of the content are trivial to you? Since you've chosen not to answer the question three times, I assume that there are no misrepresented sources that you could find? If so, would you please strikethrough that criticism in your nomination? I'm getting frustrated that you're just vaguely gesturing at the article and saying 'look at all the problems' without actually identifying them. This isn't the first time you've done this. I understand that you're very enthusiastic about article improvement but you're also still very new here and this shotgun approach to article reassessment is just making a lot of work on a deadline for others. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess most of the irrelevant stuff were cleabed up, thanks to Cukie. These content could be reworded "IGN ranked him sixth on their list of the "Top 25" Final Fantasy characters of all time, noting that several factors, such as his dialogue and appearance, contributed to his memorability as a character; in a "Reader's Choice" edition of the article he placed eighth, with similar comments. He was also ranked 18th in IGN's "Top 100 Videogame Villains" list. GamePro ranked him 33rd on the top 47 most diabolical video game villains of all time, citing both his "genocide" and his enslavement of Terra. GamesRadar ranked him the most "outrageous camp bad guys", stating that when compared to Kefka, Final Fantasy VII antagonist Sephiroth seems as interesting as a dead accountant painted brown." When most of the sources says the same thing. Reworded it for example like Kekfa has been described as the best FF character[1][2] and one of the best video game villain[1][2][3]. Also, the insivible sources should be implemended. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Personally I don't think there's an issue with broadness in the article - the main problem is failing the "well-written" criteria. The reception is a lot of scattershot quotes and numbers on "best of" lists that is mostly incomprehensible for the lay reader. One of the paragraphs is just repeating "he is the best villain" over and over from different sources. Less is more in this case - a few good reception sources stating why he is important would be better than dozens of tiny mentions in reviews and lists that don't explain much of why he got there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would probably classify myself as a near-lay reader Zxcvbnm, and I don't think there's anything I would say is "incomprehensible". The changes you suggest would certainly improve the article, but they are not necessarily needed for GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Still working on integrating sources for this. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment interested editor above probably abandoned the article. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not abandoned. Busy. People have lives outside Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Axem Titanium needs the time, they will be given up to three months, Greenish Pickle!. Please feel free to help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. GAR has no deadline anyway. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Axem Titanium do you plan to continue your work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've been moving apartments this past week and have had very little time for editing. I plan to get back to this soon. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Axem Titanium gentle reminder. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I struck my Delist, as I feel the article is in a lot better shape now. While there is a lot more reception that can be added, it's better than it was. One section that does need some light work is the Dissidia commentary, as it's a bit confusing there. Additionally some commentary about his two designs could also be added to the dev section to flesh that out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This popular topic needs some hands. It currently has tons of issues like most of the referencing were poorly cite, unsourced statements, outdated and the addition of trivia sources/articles at reception section where some should be removed and replaced a better sources that has valuable commentary about Charizard, but it seems to be listicles and such without schoalrly sources. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every page needs scholarly sources. Also, I have not been able to find any unsourced statements. I do not understand this GAR. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I have not been able to find any unsourced statements" that words amounts WP:ILIKEIT. Look at the appearances section (there are some unsourced statements). I didn't say scholarly sources are requirements of every GA article, but it should replaced all the trivia sources/listicles that have been used instead. If the appearances section have been all cited, the article still needs help especially at reception section, thus Kung Fu Man tagged the article for additional sources since most of it are trivia. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see the issues in Appearances now. Trivia sources in Reception are not a GAR thing though, as GAR does not cover notability. That said, Delist unless someone fixes the problems with unsourced statements. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia should be def remove, that's your only opinion. And btw, we're not even questioning Charizard's notability. He is obviously notable lol GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Like I said, delist unless someone fixes these issues. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I've been concerned about the state of this article for a while now, and while it's definitely a notable topic we aren't removing anytime soon, it needs a lot of improvement to stay at GA class. I support delisting until the article's problems have been addressed. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator continues to be confused about the purpose of a GAR. Delisting good articles is done when it is determined that the original review was incorrect or no longer applies. That doesn't seem to be the case here, as it remains adequately written, and this is solely a notability issue. It also seems like Greenish Pickle didn't touch the article to try to improve it, which is another no-no prior to performing a GAR. Infact the issue doesn't even seem to have been raised on the talk page at all. I suggest the nom stop with the GARs for a good long while as it's essentially adding a future burden on editors to reassess all these articles when they actually get fixed (presumably by someone else). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Greenish Pickle!, Zxcvbnm, Pokelego999, and QuicoleJR: I have removed the unsourced statements per WP:BURDEN. I don't see any violations of MOS:TRIVIA (in any case not a part of the GA criteria)—could someone please point me to what I am missing? Also, which scholarly sources should be added to the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep since the issues seem to have been addressed. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Its not yet addressed, but oh well. I guess I still have problem about opening this GAR, and of course this will be the last GAR for now. Going to withdraw now, but the GAR could be reopened by someone soon if the article wasn't fixed yet. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2012. Mainly doing this to get other people's opinions on this but I have two concerns. 1, this article almost entirely relies on one source for the entirety of the article. 2, The article doesn't feel too broad. There's no background section, just a prelude, and the section on the siege is incredibly small. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A large chunk of the book Napoleon in Italy: The Sieges of Mantua, 1796–1799 by Phillip R. Cuccia (published in 2014, 2 years after this GA review) seems to be entirely about this siege. The limited GBooks preview sadly does not include any pages from this portion. Curbon7 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this could be expanded. But I think that despite a decade passing, it is well structured and referenced. FYI, The source I used was a popular history-level article, written by a historian (pl:Andrzej Nieuważny) for a historical addition to a reliable newspaper. I cannot find that exact article online anymore, but I found [5] and [6] (from the same newspaper, but paywalled - similar date and name, possibly the name and date was changed from print to online archivE?). I am not able to access the original print article if I still have it in my archive (different continent...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overreliance on one source has also caused broadness issues: several Google scholar results mention songs referencing the siege, which are not mentioned in the article. It is also very short and looks like it may not meet broadness about the siege itself without consulting more in-depth sources like Cuccia's book. The article is also not understandable to an audience that isn't already familiar with the Napoleonic wars and lacks information on how the siege fits into broader military developments. (t · c) buidhe 05:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider those criticisms to fall under "major aspects" or "comprehensiveness"? While comprehensiveness is needed for an FA, this isn't one: we shouldn't delist on breadth grounds unless we feel that major aspects of the subject have been omitted. Comprehensibility is another matter, but I think the GA standards only assess whether the prose itself is comprehensible as English (which I think it is), not whether the article gives enough contextual information for its information to be fully understood. I suppose what I'm saying is that there's a gulf between "this article could be better" and "this article should be delisted", and my sense is that we're currently in that gulf rather than over it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. From my perspective (I wrote this well over a decade ago), this "looks" to short for modern GA standards, but is it too short to be kept? If I had access to good sources, I'd expand it; sadly, I don't have the time to work on this right this moment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major aspects. Especially, the absence of proper context means that it is difficult for someone to understand if they do not know much about the Napoleonic wars. (GAC#1a) (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context is there: "In April 1799, the Austrians placed a military blockade around Mantua as part of the War of the Second Coalition with the intent of withering the French by attrition. " _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if its fair to assume the reader knows that "Austrians"=Habsburg monarchy and what the war of the second coalition was about. Further, this is in the lead but not the body (MOS:LEAD, GAC#1b) and does not have a source (2b). If the book covers the siege extensively it would be possible to expand it 5-10x, which means there are likely major aspects that none of us know about because we can't access Cuccia's book. (t · c) buidhe 03:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to the body. Problem solved. Expansion with Cuccia's book is a good idea for getting this to FA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, but a more urgent issue is that the source you added doesn't mention the siege of Mantua at all (either the first or second siege). How do I verify that there is no original research in how the two sources were combined in the new "background" section? It doesn't help that you haven't specified which content is supported by which source. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which fact are you concerned about? That section provides a generic, few sentence long overview of the War of the Second Coalition, supported by the sources (partially based on the referenced part of the lead of War of the Second Coalition, and the rest on the old version of this article, which I AGF myself to have properly based back then on sourced cited). If you see any REDFLAG claims, I can look for more sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Some parts of the article seems to rely on biography/profile pages. There are also a few unreliable sources and possibly some unrelated information. Spinixster (chat!) 13:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spinixster, could you please expand on/give specific details for "some parts of the article", "a few unreliable sources", and "possibly some unrelated information"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29

References 1, 4, 6, 9, 11 (duplicate), 12 (duplicate), and 69 are biography/profile pages.

Some parts seem to not be related at all, ex. why do we need to know that [s]he enjoys running and Pilates, and practices meditation?

Reference 76 doesn't seem to be a good source - seems to be a blog. An IMDB source is used, and also a Youtube source, the latter I would normally consider okay if it's the only existing source, but based on the information it's citing, surely there has to be a better source.

The article seems to focus a lot more on her late 2000s career, because the rest of the career section is a bit thin, although she has definitely starred in a lot of films after that. The article also lacks an Award section.

That's all I saw. It might not be all. Spinixster (chat!) 02:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fails criteria 2.

only supported by four references (the fifth is used to support one sentence), which is already an issue.

the literary hub source appears to be based on the sixth tone source, and the engadget source appears to be based on the vice source. ltbdl (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ltbdl I'm confused. Criteria 2 is Verifiable with no original research. What part of the article is not verifiable? You appear to be making an argument about notability, which is something else. The place for that kind of discussion is WP:AFD. I would warn you that I do not believe this will fail an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a question of notability. pretty sure just having 4 refs is a problem for being a good article, or am i wrong? ltbdl (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no "number of sources" requirement. See the GA criteria and I recommend asking questions before opening a reassessment next time. czar 03:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies. i withdraw this reassessment. ltbdl (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Original GA reviewer here) - I am busy with a cross-country move and don't particularly have time to participate in a process past this comment, but I don't understand the concern here. The article is supported by five references and there's no "number of sources" requirement past the three we expect for notability. Some of the references linking to other references isn't a disqualifying factor, it's basic journalistic ethics. The sources used describe an event, so naturally they'll cover the same ground. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted; with only one edit on the article since December, it doesn't look like anyone might step forward. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant uncited material—nearly half of the ~1250 words in the body are in completely uncited paragraphs—which fails GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A big portion of the article lacks sources but the article is not very long. Maybe it could be saved is someone has the time to go through the sources to add the required references. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several citation needed tags throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, the tags have been fixed. Was there anything else? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence in "Early life" and all the entries in "Discography" need a citation. I would also expect filmography and "awards and nominations" to have notable highlights, not just a link to daughter articles. Many references are incomplete as they need author info, sentence case (no words in all caps). Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, the issues in your first sentence have been fixed; those in the second and third sentences are not part of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "I would also expect filmography and "awards and nominations" to have notable highlights, not just a link to daughter articles." Criteria 3a says "it addresses the main aspects of the topic;" In my opinion, a link to another article is not addressing the topic.
• "Many references are incomplete as they need author info, sentence case (no words in all caps)." Criteria 2a says "it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline", and the layout style guideline says "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." For consistency's sake, either the author should always be given, or never given in each citation. I think giving the article is better.
• While it is correct about the all caps, I would still think that it should be corrected to conform with MOS:ALLCAPS. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Z1720, the notable highlights of the awards and filmography sections are addressed in the body; I mean, if you really want to duplicate the films and awards in a separate section, go ahead. See existing actor GAs such as Matt Damon, Forest Whitaker, Hugh Grant, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, etc. I've merged the sections to a hatnote at the top of the career section. WP:WGN specifies "If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA." Anything else falls under WP:FIXIT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: WP:WGN is an essay: it is a statement of opinions not vetted by the community and should not be used as a substitution for policy and guidelines. I also do not suggest linking articles that were last reassessed 7+ years ago as the criteria has gotten more strict as Wikipedia gets older (the recent additions to inline citations and mandatory source spot checks are examples). As for FIXIT: I am reviewing the article and it is not the reviewer's job to fix issues. If they do so, that's great, but it's not an obligation and reviewers should not be asked to fix articles themselves.

That said, I don't mind what you changed in the article by removing those sections and putting them as hatnotes at the top of acting career. The article looks fine now if someone wants to close it as keep. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reopen this as I find that the article is:

• too sympathetic to the viewpoints of Galante and Small, especially as regards their “retirement”, giving the site to an anonymous account seems ridiculous—who pays the bills?
• is not clear enough on how access is being blocked in certain countries, by what legal authority, by which ISPs, et cetera;
• lacks historical context. Suicide discussion forums did not start in 2018 or with Reddit. The concept indeed goes back to Usenet, as noted, but then thirty years of history are condensed in a sentence. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also includes potential WP:CITOGENESIS; see Talk:Sanctioned Suicide § Potential citogenesis incident. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto Here are my responses to your comments:

1. That's what the NYTimes article states. We also state that that's what they wrote, not that that's what happened.

After the article was published, on Dec. 9, Marquis announced on the site that he was resigning as an administrator, permanently deleting his account and turning over operation of the site to someone using the online name RainAndSadness.

Mr. Small and Mr. Galante also resigned as administrators of several websites they operated for involuntary celibates, or incels, men who believe women will never have sex with them because of their looks and social status. [7]

2. That's because the sources aren't specific enough on this. However, even if they were, that would not disqualify this article from the "broad overview" that the GA criteria requires.

3. That's unnecessary to the article. If reliable sources on the subject aren't giving thirty years of history when talking about SS, then I see no need for this article to do so.

4. The article does not include citogenesis. My comment was that the source should not be cited because they copied from us. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto It should also be noted that the page is very unstable at the moment. I completed the GA on July 27th, since then this page has had over 100 edits and it appears a vandal that is sympathetic to Galante and Small has taken an interest in this page. While I don't think we're quite to the point of needing page protection, the rather abrupt shift should be noted. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 14:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus A lot of those edits were at my request, as the article has also been nominated at DYK since the first GA review was completed. Edge3 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3 Thanks for the clarification. There does appear to be a vandalism stint that's going on but at least it's not as bad as I thought. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus I'd like to add on that all of the edits of the specific "vandal" you're talking about have been reverted. It's a sockpuppet of a WMF-banned editor and I was just waiting on the SPI to be closed before reverting the edits. The specific IP range is now blocked for a month (and the editor in question was the opposite of sympathetic towards the site). :3 F4U (they/it) 20:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same IP here? Willwill0415 have universally been against the existence of the site and its owners Trade (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Looks good. Thanks to Feoffer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really in GA shape. Contains uncited text, as well as some rather questionable sources like Daily Express, Inquisitr, as well as sources that aren't really suitable for what they're supporting, for instances Finally, a third hypothesis suggested that the Moon may have been a planetoid captured by Earth's gravity. sourced to a website that probably isn't RS and a 1960s news report. Needs general cleanup. Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Daily Express and Iniquistr, added a 21st century RS for the pre-Apollo (now disproven) "captured planetoid" hypothesis. Feoffer (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Feoffer: - Thanks for resolving that. I'm also a bit concerned of the degree of primary sourcing at some points - mostly the entire popular culture section, but other spots as well. For instance, how can we know that it's really WP:DUEWEIGHT to cite the existence (and implied importance) of Steckling's Alien Bases on the Moon, to Steckling's work itself? Or even something like In 1920, fringe author Marshall B. Gardner cited Wells's speculation of a Hollow Moon as support of the Hollow Earth theory cited only to Gardner's book? Especially for a topic like this that attracts significant fringe attention, it's really best to be using a secondary source that indicates these usages or mentions are significant, rather than just using the existence of the work for inclusion. Hog Farm _Talk 01:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point! I looked into the Gardner book and agree it can be omitted -- it was just there to talk about the influence of the Welles novel and we have plenty of content that already accomplishes that purpose.

I re-screened the Pop Culture section adding sources where possible and removing an entries where notability was negligible. See what you think! Feoffer (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Feoffer: - from a quick look, there's still some uncited text that would need addressed. The IMDB cites (which don't seem important) should also be removed as that source is user-generated. Hog Farm _Talk 00:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer have you seen the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping! I chopped the IMDB cites, which indeed weren't important at all. But I forgot to mention it here. Thanks, Hogfarm, for the improvement! Feoffer (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There still seems to be quite a bit of uncited information Feoffer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You happen to catch me right in the middle of a major revision of an important article on 20th-century fringe (L. Ron Hubbard), so I'm not as prompt as I might like. I took another pass as the text. I think info is now explicitly cited, but feel free to give a shout out if you still can't find the sources for anything. Feoffer (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No improvement from a very low starting location; consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant sourcing issues (36 citation needed tags) and an update banner mean that this 2006 listing is at risk of failing GA criteria 2b and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In its current states, it fails the GA criteria. Delist unless someone takes care of the problems, in particular the sourcing problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - clearly doesn't meet the GA criteria, with all of those tags. Please ping me if anyone volunteers to work on the article as then I'll support giving them time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Closing as no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article back in February 2021 and I now believe that the article is too unstable to remain a GA. There were edit wars in May and March 2023. There was a period of heavy editing back in October 2022 which included countless reverts and changes ([8]). The article recently underwent some significant changes in the space of a couple of weeks and continues to be edited heavily. Since I reviewed the article it has increased in size by over 2 thousand words and in Wikitext size by nearly 50k. Ahsoo1122 11:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

As stability doesn't often come up in GAR discussions, I'll ping the coords @WP:GAR coordinators: and ask for their opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, something being unstable (inheritly or not) is not a reason to delist. We need to asertain that the articles new text is suitably far from the criteria for delisting. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will take a more thorough look at the article this afternoon. A first glance and it seems that the article has changed significantly from the reviewed version, so I find it likely that the article will have moved further from meeting the criteria. Willbb234 11:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with Lee's comment above. Instability isn't a reason to delist in and of itself, but it may indicate other issues are present. I just skimmed the article and it appears to be very well cited. I do see an awful lot of one-sentence paragraphs and PROSELINE, but I'm not sure that alone would merit delisting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with Lee V.'s assessment. We could introduce some sentence connectives here and there to help with the flow, but the information and the sourcing are relevant and appropriate. QRep2020 (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources During my source review in the initial review, I think I failed to properly question the reliability of all the references or some potentially unreliable sources have been added in the time since. Here is a list of sources which might not meet reliability requirements:

• Ref 8 [9]. Unsure if Teslarati has an editorial process in place [10].
• Ref 21 [11]. Self-published source. Content in question does not meet WP:SELFPUB.
• Ref 41 [12]. Same reasoning as ref 8.
• Ref 103 [13] is a blog.
• Ref 121 and 207 [14][15] same site as ref 8.
• Ref 149 [16]. What evidence is there that this data is reliable.
• Ref 175 [17] is primary.
• Ref 202 and 350 [18][19] appear to be a blog site.
• Ref 216 [20]. No evidence of an editorial process.
• Ref 307 [21]. Unable to access, but appears to be a blog site. Url now directs to a Turkish gsmbling site.
• Ref 328 [22]. No evidence of an editorial process.
• Ref 359 [23]. Deadlink. Unsure of reliability of the site.
• Refs 395, 397 and 399 are primary.
• Ref 403 [24] likely a blog.
• Ref 431 [25]. Blog.
• Ref 440 [26]. Foreign language. Can't verify reliability.
• Ref 442 [27] is a social media site.
• Numerous sources have an editorial team, but no other indication of reliability: Green Car Reports, Road and Track, Green Car Congress, Tech Briefs, Tesla North, Mining.com, Torque News, Transport Evolved, CSO, Daily Kanban, ZDNet, The Drive (used lots of times).
• Lots of reliance on the source Elecrek, which is at the least a questionable source [28]. A single author, Fred Lambert, has written 29 of the sources in use in this article. This needs to be discussed at the very least. Nom defended this in the review [29], but I'm not so convinced. It appears it's come up in other talk page discussions as well.
• Lots of references missing authorship and there is inconsistent wikilinking and formatting throughout the references.

Stopped at ref 450 because this was taking too long. I think the problem here is that a significant proportion of the article is based on sources which we don't know are reliable and need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis which could potentially take some time. Of course there's some blatant issues here like this source which looks a lot like TikTok. Of course, this can be removed in a few seconds but if there's more issues like this that have fallen through the cracks, then the article surely can't be up to GA standards.

Prose

• The vehicle models section has been trimmed quite significantly from the reviewed version. I question whether this takes away from WP:GACR point 3 as it reduces the breadth of coverage, especially when the vehicle models should be covered in reasonable depth and breadth.
• WP:PROSELINE is an issue and the lead seems fragmented. Other formatting issues need addressing to improve readability.

Stability

• I understand the point about stability not being a reason to delist simply because the article is unstable. However, it is safe to assume that the article will continue to be unstable given previous editing pattern and thus it is difficult to predict whether the article will continue to meet the GA criteria in the future. If social media sites continue to be used as sources and not removed, then I highly doubt that the article can remain of GA status.

I'm happy to discuss this further and look for more evidence. The issue with an article of this length is there is so much content to try and work through, as I found in my initial review. Willbb234 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At 11663 words, 74902 characters, the article is past the point at which trimming and/or splitting off content would be clearly reasonable, per WP:SIZE. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on the above, @Lee Vilenski and QRep2020:? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could trim here and there, of course, but nothing that warrants a reassessment. The company receives near constant attention in the media and invites controversy at every turn, naturally its article will be long. QRep2020 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the main issue raised above was the quality of the sourcing, QRep2020. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have complained about the article's overreliance on Electrek in the past, but the website has grown less partial to Tesla and Musk in recent years. The primary, tesla.com-based sources are minimal and the cited industry news sites seem reliable enough to me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask @WP:GAR coordinators: to close this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble closing this on consensus, so I thought I'd add my thoughts. The issues raised in this discussion were stability, writing and layout, sourcing, and overall size. While each may or may not (as has been mentioned) be enough of an issue on their own, they are not alone which suggests a higher level of work would bee needed. In addition to the sourcing, at least some of which seems to have been improved, the aforementioned WP:PROSELINE issues remain significant throughout the article (relatedly, the table of contents is over two screens long!). I would assess this as quite far from the GACR, and agree with a delist. CMD (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that while Electrek has not been directly reviewed, it's parent company 9to5 has been given a 100% score by NewsGuard for adhering to all of that organization's to standards of credibility and transparency. I'd say its up to the level of many trade publications at this point. Because of it's focus on one industry, it can come across as somewhat partial to that industry, but I have seen skepticism in recent years, especially of Musk's statements. But we use trade publications because they have a level of intimacy with an industry to be able to offer in depth and frequent coverage. As to the PROSELINE issues, it's valid, but I think it's unavoidable with a company with Tesla's stature. Inexperienced editors will always come in and add the latest factoid to the history section. It's incumbent on more experienced editors to come in every so often and convert the proseline into actual prose. I don't see these issues as disqualifying for GA status. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Violates WP:DUEWEIGHT (part of WP:NPOV) so fails GA criterion 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to being rather uncited, this 2007 listing is mostly "OR/SYNTH from US legal code & court cases", in the words of Hog Farm. Thus, the article may violate GA criteria 2b) and 2c). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Court cases are primary sources to the extent that they discuss the determinations of the conflict being litigated. However, I see no reason why they can not be secondary sources for supporting propositions not directly at issue in the case, such as the holding in a previous case involving different parties. BD2412 T 18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this could use work, it is written too much like a law review article, has an overreliance on quotes, and its grasp of Bluebook style leaves something to be desired. But I'm with BD2412 that cases can be secondary sources when it comes to summarizing the law (after all, the US legal system already has a rather robust system of deciding what gets published, and how much weight to accord decisions, which meets the general RS requirements). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am seeing that we essentially have no indication that WP:DUEWEIGHT is being followed here. Take, for isntance, the Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe section. We have a statement Another United States Supreme Court case frequently cited by tax protesters is Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, and yet we have no citations in this entire section to anything other than the case itself. Even in other sections that don't claim to have frequent use of these cases, we can't demonstrate that these court cases actually warrant the weight we are giving them unless we have actual sources that support the idea that say, Southern Pacific, is truly important in this field. What we have here is more of a legal thesis than anything else. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts CaptainEek BD2412? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I agree that more other sources would be good, I already noted that this is too much like a law review article. Instead we need to be relying more on law review articles to write a neutral encyclopedia article. I do think that this article is not following DUE...it strikes me as the sort of libertarian essay that early Wikipedia turned out a lot of. This got GA reviewed so long ago that it doesn't even seem to have a GAN page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). The lead, of which a large proportion is not supported at all by the body, is included in that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, it should be delisted due to a severe lack of inline citations unless someone adds the corresponding references. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant portions of the article lack inline citations. This is a violation of criterion 2b. There are also a few old maintenance tags. (sidenote: this article received a GAR 13 years ago, see Talk:History of the Royal Australian Navy/GA1) Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist needs significant cleanup ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting per consensus Hog Farm _Talk 17:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of paragraphs lack inline citations, including the whole section "Rivalries". The current sourcing is not sufficient to meet criterion 2b. There was a GAR 13 years ago, see Talk:Dundee_United_F.C./GA1. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• De-list woefully short of sources, and so fails WP:GAC 2b/2c- some sections such as "Rivalries" have 0 sources at all, which means this article should be orange-tagged for more sources, not listed as a GA. Note the version promoted in 2006 and GARed in 2009 were even worse in their sourcing, and would be straight failed under the current GA guidelines. The history section also has too much detail on 2022 season (in comparison to the other 113 seasons), the "Historical home kits" section violates WP:NOTGALLERY. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• De-list Yikes, just, yikes. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 20:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting per consensus. Hog Farm _Talk 20:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uncited passages. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• De-list too much uncited content, so fails WP:GAC 2b/2c. Note the version approved for GA in 2010 [30] also lacks most of these sources, so wouldn't meet today's GA standards. Other issues include issues with the sections: why a separate section for IPL, Australian captaincy and international recall, all of which are part of his career and should be sub-sections of that section? Also, the amount of text about the last 9 years of his career (2011-2020) is insufficient to meet 3a (broad in coverage). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• De-list - too many citations missing. 14:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I've copyedited this article and edited fictional content into present tense. However, this article was promoted to GA status back in 2014, and the article looked vastly different to what it is now. This article may violate GAC criterion 2D, and the copyright violation report can be found here. Note that the top result is a fan site. I also feel that some of the images in the article violate criterion 6B, as the images may not have suitable captions. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 21:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The article's last GA review was back in 2009, not 2014. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 01:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On criterion 2D ("not plagarism" - side note, it's convenient to remind readers which criteria is which): The copyright violation report doesn't look remotely problematic to me. All of the top hits are bloggy sources that don't actually appear to be that close to the article and were published long after the article was made a GA, so they're just copying Wikipedia rather than Wikipedia copying them. For images, "suitable captions" is WP:SOFIXIT territory - I don't see what's so problematic with the existing captions, but if you have ideas to improve them, you should just go ahead & edit them in. Now, it's possible that the article isn't GA and/or just needs a refresher due to looking very different from the promoted version, but I'm not sold the problem, if any, is in image captions or in copyright violation. SnowFire (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I made a quick check of the article and found no noticeable problems, and as pointed the reasons for delisting are rather weak. Cambalachero (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous unreferenced sections, including the entirety of the "Groups and divisions" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per uncited content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited sections, large quotes, section with an "additional sources needed" banner. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: There is general agreement this should be delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 01:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had a "recent events" yellow banner since 2018 in the "Politics" section, which I agree with. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As original nominator, I agree with having GA removed. I won't have time to update the article, and frankly with the 2024 elections coming up and her politicking the article won't likely be stable for a while.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As reviewer, agree with both above. Wizardman 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "structure" and "the sonatas" sections of this 2008 GA are near-completely unverifiable, with inline referencing seemingly haphazard in the extreme, failing GA criterion 2.

If someone does have relevant literature to hand, however, this will probably be a rather quick fix. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, the GA reviewer thought it was WP:OR back in 2008, but declared it passed anyway. Since they were probably completely correct in their opinion about how the article was written – by a knowledgeable editor, i.e. relying only indirectly on sources for those sections, a fix would likely mean rewriting the offending parts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OR is definitely an issue. More specifically, there's quite a bit of essay like synthesis. And even if such information can be more reliably sourced/presented (which is doubtful), it must be too specific for an encyclopedic overview article. Aza24 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced passages, some fancruft in some book summaries. Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Decrufted, there wasn't much. There are only 9 unreffed passages, mostly short, so GAR seems a bit drastic really: the article is in good shape. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• List of works section is almost completely uncited (films section has an orange "citations needed" banner) and there are still sections in the main article that are uncited. Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720 A list of works (titles, dates) is already a list of citations. Nevertheless, I've cited all the books. Half the films were cited already, I've cited the rest now. The one short uncited section on In Evil Hour I've rewritten and cited. The remaining minor bits I've variously removed, rewritten, and cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to my eyes like we're good here now? Coming at this from fresh, I'm not seeing any referencing or cruft concerns, and the article looks generally pretty good. There's a few areas where it might be polished up, but I can't see a GA delisting on the cards. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept, with thanks to filelakeshoe. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited sections, cn tags since July 2020. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following this - got a few sources at home, and a lot of the cn'd statements are cited and discussed in more detail in linked sub-topics. (One was even on a fully substantiated claim, which I've just removed). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the "unreferenced" tag in the "Selected writings" section, what exactly are we supposed to add as a source there? It's literally just a list of publications, which can be verified by looking up each publication as you would any other reference. (There is a much longer list on the Janáček foundation website[31], but requiring a citation here seems a bit ridiculous to me) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some bibliographic information would be good; e.g. location and publisher. At minimum, the section should link to that website, preferably in English: Writings published during Janáček's lifetime. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - there's also an index at the back of Tyrrell 2006–7 (pp963–971) so I've added that too. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently reworking the lede, btw, as it's too short and the cites need to be moved into the body (except the one on the pronunciation) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited Grove for some of the {{cn}} tags and fixed a couple of others.—Jon (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this paragraph:

Janáček was an atheist, and critical of the organized Church, but religious themes appear frequently in his work.^[1] The Glagolitic Mass was partly inspired by the suggestion by a clerical friend and partly by Janáček's wish to celebrate the anniversary of Czechoslovak independence.

The only bits of this which I can verify are "critical of the organized church" and "religious themes appear in his work" (which is certainly true but the "frequently" might be doing a bit of work). While looking for info on inspiration for the Glagolitic Mass I found this [32] and Paul Wingfield's monograph on the piece, the intro of which is publicly viewable on gbooks. [33] These sources describe Janáček as "not particularly religious", "rejecting Catholicism", "pantheist" and "agnostic" which are all different from being an atheist. Also none of these sources suggest who the "clerical friend" was or make any link to Czechoslovak independence day (28 October). Rather Wingfield seems to suggest the mass was inspired by a trendy pan-Slavist movement which sought to revive OCS liturgy. Even if those facts can be verified I think they're probably being given undue weight. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's now just one cn tag left on the first para in "legacy", does anyone have access to the source "Sehnal & Vysloužil 2001, p. 175"? I don't, and it's possible that might have been intended to be a cite for the whole paragraph. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it in the library - it substantiated the first part of that paragraph, I found another paper which talked about Volek et al and Janáček's influence in music theory. No cn tags left now. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 10 years since this article was promoted to GA. Since then, I see the article deteriorating and missing a lot of essential new information. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: no improvement; delisted ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited sections, short lede that needs expansion. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like the article quality may have declined since the GA nom, so we could revert backwards a bit. Is the 2008 new-GA version better than the current version? It certainly looks better on a quick read. 2018 may be a possibility as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @The ed17: The 2008 version uses a source called angelfire.com. Do you know what that is? This article might need to merge the 2008 version with the 2023 version. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oof, that's why I specified a quick read. Angelfire was a place where anyone could make a webpage. To some of the other sources, thehistoryofwwe.com has at least been questioned per this discussion, although I'm seeing RSs cite it via Google Books... same goes for Kayfabe Memories and being cited in RSs via Google Books. I'm not the original nominator nor an expert here (I found this by having User talk:Bellhalla on my watchlist), so I'm going to post to WP:WWE to see if anyone wants to carry this forward. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2008 GA promotion. The article contains substantial uncited text, major issues with WP:NOELBODY, and is heavily outdated. For instance, detailed statistics such as which manages 778 residential connections, offering continuous service to some 4,200 users. It operates a sewerage system and a wastewater treatment plant. Water consumption is metered. The average monthly tariff is US$3.5 for 28m3. There is no social stratification, but special tariffs are applied to those users who consume more than 28m3. The annual cash surplus is about US$10,000 are presented as current, but are from a source from 2007. This article needs substantial overhaul. Hog Farm _Talk 20:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Per previous ItsLassieTime GARs ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was almost exclusively written by the banned serial copyright violator ItsLassieTime, primarily with offline sources that are not easily accessible. I've sent the article to WP:CP where it'll most likely be shrunk to a stub, and as such will be nowhere near GA quality. Wizardman 22:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No picture of the subject, and Free Image Search Tool couldn't find any either. (There was a picture from 1955, which was deleted from commons for no evidence of permission, but if the picture was indeed from 1955 it may pass {{PD-US-no notice}}.)
• Breadth of sources is lacking. Most of them are from one book or Library of Congress entries.
• This list represents only a small fraction of her recorded performances. - WP:SELFREF violation. Also no criteria for what's included in the discography, making it very cherry-picked.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  • Note 6 on WP:GACR says "The presence of media is not a requirement." so I don't think that's a valid reason to delist this.
  • There are a number of articles used as sources. If the "one book" you're referring to is Hartman, then that's 9 of the >50 non-discography citations. Considering that it's a book that's substantially about her, I don't think that's excessive.
  • Is a solution to the selfref violation just a case of removing that sentence? Agree about the criteria, maybe just a link to the main discography would be better. That would be a simple fix.

Garnet-Septagon (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garnet-Septagon I've removed the discography list, as it failed MOS:EMBED, part of 2b) of the GA criteria. I am in agreement with your other points. Keep ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only just noticed this. TPH, you could have left a note on my talk page, and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Green - for the latter point I have raised a neutral (ie: non-canvassing) note at that project page. Anyway, it looks like the sequence of events is roughly that I improved it to GA in November 2018, then got fed up of IPs and inexperienced editors making BLP violating edits and adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, that I gave up, assuming consensus that nobody cared whether this was a GA or not. Indeed, you can see my lack of contributions from this protection for BLP violations tell that story. Therefore, raising it to a GAR to get the article fixed is acceptable. I don't have a great deal of time to dedicate to fixing up issues right now, but as a starting point, it may be worth comparing the article as it passed GA, to the state it's in now : [34]. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Open for seven weeks and issues not fixed; delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There are some uncited areas in the article that should be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Cplakidas. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help backfill some sourcing, but will have more time after a week or so. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to take this on, as I had long ago started a personal project to write a series of good articles on this conflict, but I have really little time to devote to it at the moment due to real life concerns. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed from your contributions, Cplakidas. Do you think there is any chance you may be freer in the next couple of months? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very reluctant to promise anything. If I do this the way I want to, it represents a major commitment of time: I would effectively rewrite the entire article. And right now I find myself pressed for time even to do a GA review. Constantine ✍ 06:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Iskandar323 do you still intend to work on this article, or should I delist it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It fell to the bottom of the pile a bit, but that is still the plan. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance underway. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: are you planning further improvements in the near future? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Per previous ItsLassieTime GAR precedent. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was almost exclusively written by the banned serial copyright violator ItsLassieTime, primarily with offline sources that are not easily accessible. I've sent the article to WP:CP where it'll most likely be shrunk to a stub, and as such will be nowhere near GA quality. Wizardman 23:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citations in various sections and missing information about his birth, early life, personal life, death, and possible legacy. Z1720 (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Among the sources used, there are multiple primary sources, including 2 profile pages, and many sources are dead. I know this is probably not a problem, but the reference formatting is not consistent. Aside from the essay template, the article may not be up to date with her bodybuilding career. Overall, it needs a lot of work to maintain its GA status. Spinixster (chat!) 07:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. There's seems to be some uncited material in the article including what looks to be most of the teams section. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An "update needed" orange banner from 2019 and numerous uncited statements throughout the article, particularly in prose relating to recent bio events. Z1720 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article clearly does need a run-through by someone familiar to clean stuff up to pass a reasssement. That said, the problem is not the "update needed" which should probably be removed, but rather removing fancruft and updating tone. The Update Needed banner was placed by a no-longer active editor on a version of the article that included less on his recent career than the article has now, so it can be safely removed IMO. That said, the guy is nearly 60, and obviously isn't really wrestling much anymore. I don't think there's much to say about his recent career. SnowFire (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist on verifiability and tone grounds (but not comprehensiveness grounds, per above do not think the article needs super-detailed accounts of his twilight career activities - I've boldly removed the "needs update" cleanup banner). SnowFire (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not neutral, and although I've cleaned up everything that I could that was mentioned at this ANI, specifically, this section, and on article talk (see also WT:GAN), there are still many unresolved issues, as well as the dubious, non-independent sourcing mentioned by FOARP and Thebiguglyalien at the ANI. I'm unable to do any more to improve the article considering the faulty sourcing. The History Wizard is the only significant editor of the article; I have not notified them as they are topic banned, but Mike Christie, the GA reviewer, did ask to be kept in the loop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm encountering a large WP:CLOP issue throughout The History Wizard's writing; this needs to be evaluated here, as I'm unsure if I've gotten all of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per sourcing and probably tone issues. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Significant violations of criterion 2b and minor violations of criterion 3b. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many unreferenced paragraphs and also many half-referenced paragraphs, especially in the second half of the article. There is also one citation needed tags. Those are violations of criterion 2b.

A few paragraphs are very long and should be split in two. Some of the descriptions of the voting process go very much into detail about the possible and hypothetical steps that can or should be taken in different scenarios. This could be a violation of criterion 3b.

The article received a GAR 14 years ago. It also received a peer review 6 years ago where concerns about the sourcing were discussed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements in the article and it has been tagged with an "additional citations for verification" banner since 2019. Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a biography on him and never got around to fully using it, so the article could also be a lot more comprehensive biographically aside from the citations needed. Best to delist it I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per ItsLassieTime precedent and issues with GA criteria 2 and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was partially a copyvio by the banned ItsLassieTime, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, but honestly even if the article was clean I still would have sent it to GAR. The performance history was mostly unsourced and seems all over the place, there seemed to be undue weight and the analyses of the role given the light sourcing, there shouldn't be an in popular culture section, and the original GA review in 2009 was just a quick pass without much looked at. Wizardman 22:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: While instability is not in itself a reason to delist, poor quality sourcing is; the discussions on the talk page constitute, in my view, consensus that the sourcing has been degraded. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has recently been brought to light that this page and its sourcing have been altered fairly wholesale since the page was last reviewed and kept as GA, and that there is little reason to believe the level of former quality has been maintained; on the contrary, recent informal assessments by editors have uncovered significant issues in terms of prior content and source removal, as well as in terms of the quality of new sourcing and the resulting balance of the page and its contents. The sum conclusion of the current state of affairs has already been assessed by several editors as no longer meeting GA standard. For details, see the existing talk page discussion at Talk:Muhammad#Removal of "good article" status, as well as the broader discussion entitled Talk:Muhammad#Recent neutrality concerns, and other subsequent talk page discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria It is not stable due to edit warring on the page....: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Moxy- 04:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Even excluding the wholesale rewriting the article has undergone recently, 2012 is a long time ago, and the article quality standards back then were arguably lower. I do not see a reason to maintain GA status given the current edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues resolved. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section tagged for sources since April 2020. This makes it fail as it fulfils insta-fail criteria 3 and does not fulfil criteria 2b. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been removed, Brachy0008. Was there anything else? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A remix featuring rapper Lil' Kim (titled the "Kimme More" remix) was also made available for digital download." is not sourced. Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, fixed very easily Brachy0008. In the future, could I request that you consider whether you could fix issues without creating a GAR? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then! All issues are addressed and resolved. Closing it now… Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. Ppt91^talk 00:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous unreferenced passages, including almost the entirety of the "Gameplay" section. Legacy section could possibly be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently adding refs to the gameplay section or removing parts I could not find sourcing for (there are currently two unsourced paragraphs left). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: How does the article look now? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any remaining major problems, so I think this can be closed as keep. Z1720 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Open one month with no objections and minimal edits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article passed GA over 15 years ago, where standards were more lax. There are several maintenance tags on the article and too much unsourced and controversial content. As the exact reasons for why Pete Best was fired from the Beatles depends on who one speaks to, we've got to use high-quality sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uncited passages, use of unreliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled by the complaint about "unreliable sources". I notice a reference to "Encyclopedia Titanica", which appears to be a user-generated wiki; but what else? Not saying there aren't any, but rather than spending time wondering what Z1720 might have in mind, it would help if they straightforwardly listed what they have in mind.

There certainly is at least one problem with references: a host of references to "Meade" and page number ("Meade 12", "Meade 329", etc) -- does each refer to what's currently in reference 4, i.e.

Meade, Marion (1987). Dorothy Parker: What Fresh Hell Is This?. New York: Penguin Books. p. 5. ISBN 0-14-011616-8.

or to what's currently in reference 10, i.e.

Meade, M. (1987). Dorothy Parker: what fresh hell is this? New York: Villard Books.

? If the Penguin were indeed available from the Internet Archive, I'd take a look; but it isn't: "Book available to patrons with print disabilities"; however, not to me. But even without borrowing it, one can see the copyright page, which shows that no publication by Penguin in 1987 occurred: The book was published by Villard in '87 and by Penguin in '89. I wouldn't be surprised if the Penguin were a simple reproduction of the Villard (and therefore has the same pagination); but I wouldn't be surprised if it were not (and therefore did not). Somebody with access to a copy of this or that edition of Meade's book is going to have to do the tiresome job of checking, and very likely altering the page numbers so that they are correct for that edition. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got your ping above. Some other examples of unreliable refs, using this version of the article:

• Refs 43, 87 is to IMDB, which WP:IMDB says not to use.
• Ref 61: In 2020, RSN deemed the Jewish Virtual Library unreliable in this RfC. I don't know about this source so I do not have an opinion.
• The External links section has some sources listed, and I wonder if a look through WP:LIBRARY and Google Scholar will yield additional sources.

While going though the article, I noticed that there are lots of small additions that do not make the article cohesive. I have a feeling that many contributors have added things to the article over the years but no one has gone through to make sure the prose is organised and of a good quality. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, it's hard to know whether to put the current state of this article down to editorial laziness or editorial incompetence. Also, there's quite a bit of silliness in this article, notably an attempt to tabulate all (or just the best-known among?) her individual poems ("List of poems"), complete with bibliographical details of their early appearances: a wildly inappropriate goal and one that reached a grand total of two poems and has remained that way since. (For a sense of scale: She's just one among dozens of poets sampled by John Hollander in his 2003 book American Wits; at a quick and perhaps faulty count, this book has 22 of her poems.) I'd be inclined to zap the table (even though a greatly augmented table could be worthwhile, if only somebody would (i) dedicate many hours to it, and then (ii) upload it to some other website). I'd also want to delete some of the trivia/coat-tails section. I hope that I've already made this article slightly less horrid (e.g. by removing IMDb references). But only slightly: it needs a lot more work, and I wouldn't be able to devote that kind of time/effort to it until November. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One option is to delist this now, and then bring this back to GAN in November/December when it is ready. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that somebody other than me would be interested in improving this thing during summer? -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that it isn't, no. Not unless/until the subject matter is somehow propelled to the talk shows (if only Ron DeSantis would suggest that Parker's writings risk corrupting innocent Floridian minors...). Or if Parker were found to have been an invention/pseudonym of JRR Tolkien. ¶ The discussion of whether a 2007 version of this article should be "featured" was oddly rancorous; but K72ndst argued against promotion citing at least one defect that I think now, sixteen years later, is a major hurdle to GA status for the article we have now. That is, Parker's notability -- in the normal sense (not the Wikipedia sense) of the word -- is that of a writer; yet the article says little about her writing. At this point I'm ignorant of Parker scholarship, but a quick look in Worldcat shows four books: Kinney, Dorothy Parker (conveniently at archive.org, and already cited once); Pettit, The critical waltz; Pettit, A gendered collision; Melzer, The rhetoric of rage. An efficacious fixer-upper of this article surely ought to be familiar with two or more of these. And then there'll also be papers about her writing. ¶ This really isn't a job for me, even in/from November. Even if I had the needed time, the fate of this nomination of an article on a related subject suggests a disqualifying incompetence. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, the longer I look at this, the less promising it seems. The organization is poor; though to be fair to its main creator (unfortunately now blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry), no simple solution to this problem is at all obvious. As is extremely common in WP articles, a reference may follow a pair of sentences in a paragraph, leaving it unclear whether the reference is for the content of both sentences or only for the latter one; sampling these, I find that a reference might fail to back up the latter part of the latter sentence: the job of checking the references I haven't looked at, moving them where necessary, and splattering "citation needed" templates would be arduous, and even if completed the whole thing would have to be rearranged and augmented (and, of course, referenced). This article is not particularly bad, but it's not good, or close to "Good". ¶ Incidentally, although at the top of this reassessment we read "GAN review not found", the (desultory) review may be found in the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I note you've been working on this article; do you think it now meets/could meet the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, I'm sure that it does not. I had believed that Parker was at least moderately well known and her work rather popular, so I've been surprised as well as disappointed not to see other editors doing something to improve this article. As for me, I've only made minor changes (in part because I've had no access to any book or similar about Parker), and I've had to stop these. I won't be able to restart until November. A thoroughgoing revision is needed and, if I could do it at all, I can't imagine finishing it until summer next year (!) at the earliest. -- Hoary (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]