Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 77

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

Result: No consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails criterion 2c: The article is overwhelmingly sourced by primary sources, which is an original research issue per WP:PRIMARY.
• Fails criterion 3a: The article provides little coverage outside of news-style reporting of the actions involved. No meaningful analysis or study is covered.
• Fails criterion 3b: The little content outside of that is a list of tangentially related events that go out of scope Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re 2c: Your interpretation of 'primary sources' is kind of a stretch here - Everything is properly sourced to reputable news sources, the majority of which could not be considered "breaking news" as it wasn't even published on day of the attack.

re 3a, 3b: Not to be rude, but you're making up criteria here. 3a states that "it [the article] addresses the main aspects of the topic" (which it does), and 3b "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", kind of the opposite of what you're implying here. Rami R 11:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, have you seen the above from Rami R? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I felt that no response was warranted to the claim that new information cannot be primary after something had been ongoing for more than 24 hours. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• News sources are secondary sources. So primary sources is not really the correct complaint here. Are there any secondary sources you think should be consulted? I did a Google search + Google Books search, and saw almost entirely 2008 articles coming back from Google, and nothing substantive on GBooks (references the attack happened, mostly, not in-depth dives). It's not great to be mostly sourced to at-the-time coverage, but if that's all that exists, then that's all we have. (But if something else can be found...) SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:PRIMARY: For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
  • WP:RSBREAKING: When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution

  Also, if all of the sources are from 2008, then this isn't a GAR issue, it's an AfD issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Notability is not temporary. This topic would obviously be kept at AFD, so I wouldn't suggest bothering. The matter reached the attention of both the PM of Israel at the time and the Attorney General, who had to respond to it.
  • Checking... that line in NOR was added just a few months ago. Granted, it's been at the RS guideline for longer, but I'm not sure it's ever come up much there. Regardless, suffice to say that this is just a case of a policy being poorly phrased IMO. It's not worth quibbling on this too much, since I agree that heavy sourcing to contemporary news reports is not ideal, but IMO calling them "primary" sources dulls the meaning of just what a "primary" source is. Primary sources would be, like, interviews with people at the incident or the like. Breaking news stories might be inaccurate and outdated, but that doesn't make them primary, in the same way that a published book by an independent amateur on a topic who makes factual errors might be unreliable, yet still secondary.
    • EDIT: Also, per your own link, Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Examples_of_news_reports_as_primary_sources suggests that by "breaking news" it really means precisely that: like, news that is happening right-the-hell-now. So I don't think it would be nitpicking to say that sources from a few days later after things have calmed down wouldn't necessarily qualify as a primary source by this definition. SnowFire (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to the merits: So are you saying by the AFD comment that you agree no better sources exist than what's currently used? The best outcome is just to find the better source and save the article, after all. I checked the Hebrew WP article and it seems its sources are from 2008 as well (although, to be clear, not all breaking-breaking news, i.e. stuff from the day after, but rather the weeks after). It's possible there's a better source in some unknown Hebrew work, but it might be worth verifying whether such source exists. SnowFire (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thebiguglyalien, have you seen the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done anything related to a good article reassessment before, but I'm interested in crime, so I'll give it my best shot to bring it up to snuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, do you intend to continue working on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Yes I do, and will get back to working on it now. I acquired some of the book sources and am looking through them. I'm unsure if I can get it good enough to maintain its status but I will try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PARAKANYAA, are you planning on returning still? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Yeah I don't think I can save this. I could probably fix the citation needed issues with enough time but after reading some of these books there are more severe structural/content issues with this article that I can't fix in any reasonable amount of time. Should probably be closed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting, a week has passed and no clear interest in fixing the major issues of this article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GA status of this article is very old, dating all the way back to 2008. As a result, it's not up to standards in a couple of ways. For one, there's a glaring lot of uncited paragraphs, which fails criteria 2 of the Wikipedia:GACR criteria. Another is that there is clearly much more that could be written about the impacts of dinosaurs on culture and vice versa, as the ~169,000 results on "culture" plus "dinosaurs" on Google Scholar demonstrate. This article needs to be improved drastically to meet the GA criteria again. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has the same problem as the parent dinosaur article - everything from 1980 onward is given such a brief and rushed treatment that it does the subject matter zero justice. But, more fundamentally, where should and shouldn't this article overlap with paleoart? It's really many of the same key players and events with both. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it proves to be especially important to cover cultural depictions of dinosaurs in the 1980s onward considering that they've gained increased relevance and interest amongst public audiences, and it looks as if such high interest is here to stay for the time being. I think this article can stand if it extensively discusses dinosaurs in literature (writing, fictional media, public engagement with science, etc.), but this article currently does that very poorly which proves highly problematic. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current state of the article, if it receives no interest for GAR by other editors by the 10th of April and there is no opposition, I will mark it off as a Delist for GA for major unaddressed issues of the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant unsourced text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to substantial uncited text, the lead of the article is a bit too difficult and the body contains large numbers of external links. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request to make the lead image smaller from GA1 doesn't seem to have happened. It is still too big for MOS:IMGSIZE. As well as the unsourced sections and inappropriate extlinks there is a lot of material that appears to be primary-sourced and promotionally worded about individual research projects or implementations, rather than being based on published works by disinterested parties surveying and reviewing the methods that are available, I think maybe problematic with respect to WP:GACR#3b (going into excessive detail). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make time to go over this article this weekend, and I'd appreciate the reassessment remaining open for just a few extra days. Thanks ― Synpath 04:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and removed external links in the body of the article and adjusted the lead, but that only amounts to cosmetic changes to the article. I can see now that handling the citations and removing the conversational tone of the article is more editing than I'm willing to spend time on. Thanks for keeping the discussion open. ― Synpath 06:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite significant unsourced text, especially in the history section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues unaddressed, delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pre-GAR notice on the article's talk page listed specific concerns with uncited text and source-text integrity issues. These issues are substantial and have not been addressed; in fact more uncited text has been added to the article since my notice. Hog Farm _Talk 18:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few unsourced or semi-spurced paragraphs. Hasn't been kept up-to-date: for instance the jargon section is largely based on 1996-2007 sources, and it's unclear these terms are still in use. There is a private YouTube video link in the middle of the text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2009 GA that currently has numerous citation needed tags, too many quotations, and a tag stating so in critical reassessment. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. Igordebraga (talk · contribs) and I are fixing up the citation errors (including the dead ones) and maintenance tags where needed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect thank you! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citation needed tags have now been addressed and the legacy section has been rewritten. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not an article needing the most dire work, this article has clearly rotted since first being listed back in 2008. My following concerns are:

• Some sources I'm also unsure on the reliability of, such as " classicgaming.com" (not listed at WP:VG/S). There's also a not verified in body tag in the lead (which was previously a citation needed tag from 2023 before being replaced mere minutes ago).
• The entire Master Collection version section is unsourced.
• Some unsourced statements that aren't marked as such right now, but are still unsourced.
• I don't think the "Related media" section has very encyclopedic writing.
• Reception could easily be expanded upon for a game that was so influential and got as many reviews as it did. It doesn't necessarily explain very much of why critics liked the game, and rather just focuses on the headlines. An example is below.
• Just extremely weird writing throughout that I can't see being very beneficial to a general reader. For example, "Next Generation reviewed the PlayStation version of the game, rating it five stars out of five, and stated that "rest assured that this is a game no player should miss and the best reason yet to own a PlayStation." is its own line. λ NegativeMP1 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just look at the reception and found how bad it's layout for example, the legacy section could be it own section similar to Banjo-Kazooie, and some of paragraph in the reception could easily be merged with other and be expanded in which I agreed with you so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some comments from a cursory review that may be of value:
  • The lead section for the Gameplay could benefit from a more general description that it is an action-stealth game and generally what this encompasses, given this is a genre-defining game.
  • There's an overuse of leading sections and paragraphs in passive voice (Despite, Except) etc.
  • The reception section really needs a thematic rewrite as per the WP:VG/MOS. Listing the praise from every review source, one by one, is not really best practice or organised to read.
  • The 'Windows version' section is crufty. The reception should be integrated with the main section, and given there isn't much sourcing for it, it does not stand to reason to provide technical details on the nuanced differences. The executable files are not really worth discussing! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. There's also a problem with WP:LEAD. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 13:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article hasn't been updated recently, and so fails criteria 3a, as it isn't broad enough in coverage. And also fails 3b by being overly detailed in places. Domestic career section has too much coverage of 2010-2013 and almost nothing since (and absolutely nothing about the 7 seasons he's played for Lancashire). International career section hasn't been updated since 2022. There are numerous sentences of unsourced text, some of the teams listed in the infobox aren't mentioned in the text at all (e.g. Paarl), or with more than one sentence (Originals). Also, the T20 franchise sections have way too many headers for one paragraph, which aren't needed, and looks to be bordering towards IPL excessive stats and focusing only on incidents too, rather than encyclopedic, WP:NPOV content. So in conclusion, it fails criteria 1b (MOS violations), 2b (unsourced content), 3a and 3b (lacking details in places, overdetailed in others), 4 (IPL section is POV). Looks like it just about survived a GA review in 2018, but the article has got significantly worse in quality since then, and cannot be considered a GA anymore in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified everyone who participated in either the GA promotion and/or first GA re-assessment in 2018, as well as WP:CRIC, and mentioned this on Talk:Jos Buttler where I raised some of these concerns earlier this year. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - article is nowhere close to GA status on a number of criteria. I did some work on it in 2017 but it was hard going and it's much, much worse now. Huge amounts of over detail, far too many subsections, many of which are unnecessary and entirely unsourced - it would be easy to do so, but there's just far too much detail. The lead and domestic section are fine and the playing style bit is probably OK as well. They'd make the basis of a decent article - with a bit of an update in the domestic bit. But the rest is a pretty epic fail as Joseph says above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Keeping any article of a current player of such prominence to GA/FA standard is virtually impossible. Currently, it falls a long way short of the standard required, having been hijacked by IP's and editors of poor competence. AA (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was assessed 16 years ago and it underwent a lot of edits since then. There are a lot of citation-needed templates, along with unsourced filmography sections, a lot of grammatical, (especially punctuation and wording errors), as well as factual discrepancies and poor sourcing. For example, as of this nom, it incorporates her birthday being on two different dates and years. In the lede and infobox, it is listed as 24 January 1989, but in the personal life section, it is listed as "Born on 24 January 1981." It also does not follow conventional section ordering and manual of styles. Right after the lede, there's the "Acting career" section, wherein, it should've been another section, such as Early life and family. But these details are listed sporadically in the latter sections.

It is also generally not well written.

Anyone with a cursory look can tell this does not meet the standard of Good Article we have set here. X (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons four and five, which premiered after this became a GA, are not meaningfully covered Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Fails criterion 5b "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Not in the worst shape though; it could probably be kept as a GA with the right attention. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the only section you have a problem with seasons four and five? If so I could probably throw together a plot summary within the next few days. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the plot summary. A lot of the article is frozen in time. Production is about the production of seasons 1-3 with one paragraph tacked on to the end just mentioning that seasons 4 and 5 exist. Characters and reception don't acknowledge that they exist at all. Right now the article looks like it was written in 2012 and then a few season 4/5 details were added on after the fact, which is exactly what happened. If I were reviewing the article at GAN, I would also take issue with the "controversies" section, giving undue coverage to certain events during production solely because they are controversies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant do you intend to continue addressing the issues? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to but my focus has shifted to my ongoing GA. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist unless the seasons 4 and 5 sections are meaningfully expanded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

short lead. several outstanding inline cn tags. ltbdl (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The problems appear fixable. I'll take a stab at it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have expanded the lead and chipped away at the missing citations. Also added a new section based on more recent sources that weren't available at the time of original promotion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Remaining cn tags dealt with. This should be kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant amount of the article, including almost the entire "Importance" section is uncited. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 it looks like most of this "Importance" section is uncited because it was in the lead section, as it had been added in edits like [1] or [2] decades ago, but was then broken out in this unexplained edit in 2013, by an account that was later indefinitely blocked for other abuse (I found this using the "Who Wrote That?" extension). Maybe the logic of that needs to be reassessed first. --Joy (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've re-integrated the old lede into the lede and edited it mildly for concision. The nomination does not appear to be correct that a "significant amount of the article is uncited" - can you clarify where exactly these uncited parts are, if you're standing by that?
• While I'm not sure if it's GAR-worthy, the prose is not particularly tight, and it seems to have some Croatian nationalist vibes in parts (which I'm sure is in the sources, but it doesn't mean that has to be transmitted here - I removed a "Turkish menace" for example). I'd argue that would be a more productive area to examine and spruce up in this. SnowFire (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing I noticed as well was the quality of the supporting materials - I swapped out the top image immediately. The laundry list of historical years in the infobox also doesn't strike me as well documented or a good use of screen-estate. --Joy (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed now that @Edgars2007 noticed this in 2015 (!). I've moved it around a bit, is this better? --Joy (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to SnowFire's recent edit, I had a look at one of the main sources, the municipality's history page:

• Listeš, Srećko. "Povijest Klisa". klis.hr (in Croatian). Službene stranice Općine Klis. Archived from the original on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2010-05-16.

This archive link implies that the text was taken from a 1998 book called Klis: prošlost, toponimi, govor published by an NGO called Croatian society Trpimir Klis. It would be better to get this referenced to the actual work, which seems to be ISBN 953-96751-3-8, with page numbers.

At the same time, the current website's history link goes to this:

• Firić, Valter (2018). Klis: Kulturno povijesna baština (PDF). Narodna knjižnica i čitaonica u Klisu / People's library and reading room of Klis. p. 112. ISBN 978-953-59767-1-4.

--Joy (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would request that this GAR not be closed too aggressively - I do think that this article could use a tune-up, even if not for the reasons the nominator cited, but it will probably take more time. SnowFire (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I haven't had the time to come back to this like I'd hoped. I think this article has the bones of being in great shape and only needs some minor work to get back to GA quality - just some rereading of the sources and rephrasing, mostly. @Joy:, would you have time to take a go at this? If not, I suppose I'd be fine with a reluctant delist-by-default. SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Contains quite a fair amount of uncited material. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This passed as a GA in 2009, and it definitely does not meet the standards of a 2024 GA. In fact, I'm not sure if it should have passed in 2009 either. The pro section is sorely lacking for someone that had a 10-year career, and reads rather disjointed as written even if the prose was long enough. Wizardman 15:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some expansion was done so I'll make some time and look to see if it was sufficient. Wizardman 22:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a look Wizardman? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's better now so I guess it'll suffice. Wizardman 13:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to close this?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to do closures so I'll let Airship handle it. Wizardman 20:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Regardless of whether Untitled740's edits were disruptive, there is massive amounts of uncited material in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. Just a disgusting amount of things to fix according to the multitude of notifications in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Onegreatjoke: There are a lot of false positives, I see the hand of the disruptive editor Untitled740 and frankly I don't trust this editor, there are probably a lot of things to be fixed. One of them is to remove all the crap that Untitled740 added which ruins the enjoyment to the reader. So I am not sure about a reassessment is truly needed at current, the vandalism needs to be fixed first. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article still has numerous "citation needed" tags in the "2016-present" sub-section of the "Film career" section that are still valid. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is reliable sourcing (2b) and due weight in the "References in media" section, where the listings seem to include every media reference regardless of importance, and include unsourced statements, primary sources, and fanwiki sources.

Besides that, the article structure is unorthodox. The "History" L2 contains the entirely-unrelated-to-history "Description" L3. "Folkloric qualities", "Copyright", and "References in media" are all at least unusual L2 headings. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured. As for the media section, how does one decide which inclusion is worthy? Serendi^podous 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements to the article structure.

Regarding the media section, it's an essay, but WP:IPCEXAMPLES is a good guide on this stuff, and basically says that the work should be significant, the mention should be significant, and that the mention should have been noted by reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concretely going through a couple examples from the article, if that helps:

• Minecraft Endermen: This one is probably fine, as a significant element of a popular game, but ideally we'd have better sourcing than igxpro.com, which appears to be a blog reposting social media speculation. [3] [4]
• Lost Girl: This one is fine, seems to be a major element of a popular television episode, sourced to RS.
• "Sympathy for Slender Man": This one's very shaky. A filler short; the cited source doesn't actually say anything other that hosting the short.
• My Little Pony: This isn't a significant mention. As the text indicates, it is a "brief cameo". ~ A412 ^talk! 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• +Article doesn't even have reception section; which is important for every fictional character articles. Same issue with Michael Myers. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely outdated. At least four academic works (Chess and Shira, Peck, Asimov, Slender Man is Coming) dedicated to Slender Man exist, none of whose content are adequately covered in the article. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 00:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links? Serendi^podous 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "reception" section would have been easier ten years ago. Nowadays the Slender Man is a forgotten and discredited meme tied forever to an act of senseless violence. Serendi^podous 15:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the references in media title should be renamed as "In popular culture". Also, that section shouldn't be written like that. Article a little bit outdated as it seems? and there are still unsourced claim. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What unsourced claims? And outdated in what way? Also, while your sources do make the connection between slenderman and enderman, igxpro is the only one that explains how the connection was made. Serendi^podous 23:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have rewritten it. Looks good now. There are still some cn tags at development section and it might need a bit expansion I think; the quote in history sec seems to be a bit messy? Also, try removing citations on the lead and cite it in the body. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortex3427:, @Greenish Pickle!:, could you please sort your comments? There seem to be a couple threads here, but they're all broken up between indents. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt like some were not covered yet (like what Voltrex said) for such a popular character like this, but for now, my concerns were from the history section that I replied to above. I'll leave it to Vortex since he is more familiar with this than I am as a video game character editor. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A412, Serendipodous, Greenish Pickle!, and Vortex3427: are the issues resolved to your satisfaction? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issues I raised (bloated, poorly sourced "References in media" / IPC section), and section organization, are resolved to my satisfaction. I don't know about the outdatedness concerns. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the folklore qualities should be renamed "reception"? and then moved it into the last section. I also feel like it should be expanded more with scholar sources. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were going to call it reception I would have to split it, since it isn't all about reception. And reception by whom? The parents of Waukesha, Wisconsin? I also think it is where it needs to be, because the idea that it's folklore should be above the fact that it is not public domain. As for more sources, well, there's a book apparently. Almost everyone in said book is already cited in the article, but if you want it, I suppose I could buy it. I'm not exactly rolling in cash, does anyone want to go halvsies on it? Serendi^podous 13:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Hmm. Then the remaining issues for you would be to fix the refencing issues and add authors like ref 66 and ref 67 then replace the ref 71 into better one. After that I don't have problem with article keeping its GA status. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Serendi^podous 11:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the talk page back in March, this 2009 GA promotion contains significant uncited text, as well as lesser source-text integrity issues. In addition, the material on the administrative history of the site seems underdeveloped. Hog Farm _Talk 14:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. The Sydney Morning Herald 07:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing includes numerous unsourced paragraphs, some punctation errors, and some single-sentence paragraphs.  750h+ | Talk  08:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it from the recent AFD, where I also mentioned that it needs a reassessment. The article is surprisingly so brief for a GA. It has just 3 sections, the last 2 (History and In Popular Culture) are tiny. I understand that for an article of a cake, this one's above the average quality, sure, but I'm not sure that it merits a GA status. Speaking on technical terms, it fails criteria 3: "Broad in its coverage" - for the reasons mentioned above. NB: It was assessed 8 years ago X (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• During the process of creating and expanding the article, I pretty much used up all of the reliable sources that were available online at that time (e.g. from Google Books, Google News, Highbeam, etc.) Personally, I don't view the article or its sections as short or "tiny". For a cake article, it is very comprehensive as well as informative, relative to the actual sources available for the topic. Regarding the In popular culture (IPC) section, extensive listings are actually discouraged. There's even a template for overly long IPC sections in articles: {{In popular culture}}. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (Article creator)[reply]
• I think over the years -- and especially during the recent AfD, when there were multiple edits including additions from now-available sources -- the narrative flow has suffered. And the images could be improved. But the coverage isn't incomplete, it's all cited and verifiable, other than the recent AfD and those edits it's stable, it's neutral. Agree with NA1000 that we don't actually want any pop culture section to be longer than is strictly needed. And that applies to the article in general -- broad coverage doesn't require a certain length. I'm not sure this is a fail, it's just a GA that needs to tending to. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've improved the images and narrative flow. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Contains expansion needed tags and numerous uncited areas. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs major work to meet the broadness criteria:

• WWI section is empty.
• Article states, "About 50,000 people were executed there, including more than 60,000 Jewish victims of the Holocaust." those things can't both be true
• No information about the use of other forts besides the ninth during WWII—the sixth fort was a notorious site of abuses against Soviet prisoners of war and apparently held Polish prisoners at a different point.

(t · c) buidhe 04:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]