Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GAR)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQBacklog DrivesMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

  1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
  2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
  3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
  4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
  4. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
  5. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one month.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
    • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
  4. After at least one month, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

  1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
  2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
  3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  2. Pest control 2024-08-22
  3. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
  4. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  5. Battle of Marion 2025-02-22
  6. Battle of Wilson's Creek 2025-02-27
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

Articles listed for reassessment

Harold B. Lee Library

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

Article has prose issues, particularly the active templates. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Cage

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

This article has lots of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The "Return to Impact Wrestling (2021)" section is after the "The Patriarchy (2023–present)" section, and the article is not concise. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Party of Austria

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

There are some uncited statements in the article. There is a "One source" orange banner at the top of the "Populism" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Way You Make Me Feel

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

Uncited statements in the article, and the "Music video" section has an orange "additional citations needed" banner at the top since May 2013. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friends

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

There's a lot of uncited text: while some of it describes plot, others (especially in the "Blu-ray and DVD" section) does need a citation. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Man on Hippocampus

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

Some uncited statements. IMDB is used as a source and needs to be replaced or the information cited to it removed. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 7

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

The "Route description" is not sourced. Is this information correct, and can it be sourced? The lead does not provide an overview of all aspects of the article, and is missing the history of the route, realignments, and suffixed routes. Z1720 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was something I noticed as well, but I didn't bother opening a GAR. Wow, the route description really isn't sourced. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can use a mapping software as a source such as Google Maps? I know it should be used with caution, but it would be a good source if we can't find any others. ToThAc (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the best-case scenario would probably be to use the USGS maps as well, since they are official maps which were licensed from USGS and can be trusted easily. This is just a suggestion, so I'm not sure. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender health care misinformation

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

Claims of massive WP:NPOV violations were made at Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation. Courtesy pings to @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Starship.paint, WhatamIdoing, Colin, and Void if removed:. Launchballer 11:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wrt the peer-reviewed claim: Colin removed it from the Cass Review article, was reverted, then went to @Snokalok's page who pointed him towards the p[ast talk page consensus at Cass Review to include the note it wasn't peer reviewed[1] It's been noted at the Cass Review article for months now.
2) Void if Removed claimed the article had NPOV violations, nobody on talk agreed (he was not part of the DYK conversation btw, Colin just cited him)
3) This article was also reviewed by @LoomCreek and @Dan Leonard, and partially by @IntentionallyDense who should also be pinged
4) WP:GAR says Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors. This has not been done. Colin did not raise specific NPOV issues apart from the peer-reviewed claim (which is silly per point 1), he just repeatedly insulted me at DYK (and had other editors warn him for that behavior - Snokalok, @LokiTheLiar, and @Generalrelative)[2][3]
I'm a little unsure how GAR works, if a user goes onto DYK and posts some walls of text insulting another, and brings up only one issue that nobody agrees with and has been talk page consensus for a while, and never goes to talk to improve things (even after being asked to), does that really justify a GAR? Are they normally opened with claims of massive WP:NPOV violations were made without identifying them? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most GARs are not opened with claims of massive NPOV violations. However, having a genuine concern that there seem to be such violations is a valid reason for GAR. Any non-trivial level of non-compliance with any one (or more) of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria is a valid reason for GAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may be old fashioned, but I was under the impression that if somebody claimed an article (with a few dozen contributors and talk page discussions agreeing it's neutral) was full of NPOV violations, they were expected to provide at least some evidence that's true. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, and specifically considering the behavior around trans-related articles during the last ~15 years, I have found that editors frequently do not operate according to the usual principle that "whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules are the same for both sides". I find that people who already agree with an article insist upon unimpeachable proof of error, and that people who already disagree with it do not require any at all. There is, in my experience, no comfortable middle ground.
If the article is going to be tagged with {{POV}}, then someone has to start a discussion "identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies", or the tag can be removed. This is probably lower than your goal of "some evidence that's true", and it only applies for the specific and exclusive purpose of slapping a POV banner across the article. There are no such requirements for accusations made in any other venue or through any other form. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Genuine" isn't really the issue here. I fully believe that Colin's concern is *genuine*, but also his role in discussions about the Cass Review for a while has been to, and I'm trying to be as polite as possible about this, make very strong accusations about other editors ignoring science or being "conspiracy theorists" because they doubt the reliability of the Cass Review. He's already been warned about this at AE once and seems intent on continuing.
I call attention to this dynamic to point out that Colin's opinion is not the consensus even if he is in general a well-respected editor who generally knows what he's talking about. Loki (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Genuine" is the issue here, in the sense that GARs don't get closed just because other editors think the concern is misplaced. We have deleted GARs, e.g., for being outright vandalism, but if there's a genuine concern, the path forward is to address is. That could mean explaining why the article is correct as it is, in which case the GAR will close as affirming the GA status. It could mean editors reaching a consensus that it does not meet the GA critieria, in which case the GAR will close with delisting the article. It could also mean improving the article. For example, this:
The KID-team at Sweden's Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, the second-largest hospital system in the country, announced that from May 2021 it would discontinue providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to children under 16. Additionally, Karolinska changed its policy to cease providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to teenagers 16–18, outside of approved clinical trials.
is rather more news style than is really appropriate (focusing on what was "announced" is news style). That could be re-written this way:
In May 2021, Sweden's Karolinska University Hospital discontinued puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for everyone under 16. Teenagers age 16 to 18 could obtain them through clinical trials.
Frankly, the three-sentence-long review at Talk:Transgender health care misinformation/GA2 does not do a good job of convincing me that the review was adequate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Void if Removed claimed the article had NPOV violations, nobody on talk agreed
Anyone can read the talk and see this is not true. Multiple editors were raising POV issues starting last December, long before I commented in mid/late January. Void if removed (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Cass Review—a non-peer-reviewed independent evaluation of trans healthcare within NHS England - the non-peer-reviewed claim fails verification with the provided source. On the Cass Review article, the non-peer-reviewed claim is sourced to this pdf, where it can be found on page 10, TABLE 2.1, after which this fact is never mentioned again. Indeed, I cannot find this mentioned again in any other reliable source, only Reddit communities and suchlike. So, if nobody else seems to care about this, why should we?  Tewdar  18:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the DYK, the "ALT1" proposal says that it's a myth that trans kids tend to desist. This is 100% verifiable in reliable sources. However, I've been wondering whether that's entirely true – not that we're after Wikipedia:The Truth exactly, but that a simple "it's misinformation" might be misleading.
So let me tell a different story, with a claim that is equally verifiable as misinformation, but perhaps you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
Once upon a time, 300 18-year-old females went to college. In their first year, 200 of them got pregnant. Half of the pregnant ones had abortions or miscarriages during the first trimester. The other half gave birth.
  • The ones who didn't get pregnant until after university have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 8.1%.
  • The ones whose pregnancies ended in births have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 5.3%.
  • The ones whose pregnancies ended in abortions or miscarriages have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 8.1%.
(These are real lifetime risk numbers for US residents, assuming ordinary risk factors.)
Now we could say that if you get pregnant at the age of 18, then having an abortion will cause your lifetime risk of breast cancer increases by 50%, compared to the alternative of giving birth. We could also say that if you get pregnant at the age of 18, then having an abortion will cause your lifetime risk of breast cancer to be exactly the same as if you hadn't gotten pregnant in the first place. Whether the risk is higher depends on the baseline you're choosing.
It is misinformation to say that abortions and miscarriages cause breast cancer. But it is also misinformation to tell pregnant 18 year olds that the decision about whether to get an abortion will make no difference to their lifetime cancer risks.
The reason I have told this long story is because I was reminded of it when I read the ALT1 proposal, which aligns with the sentence in the lead "Common false claims include...that most pre-pubertal transgender children "desist" and cease desiring transition after puberty" and the section Transgender health care misinformation#Desistance myth.
Some of this section seems more overtly POV push-y but still interesting to me personally, like the sentences talking about the etymology of the word desistance and the connection to criminal recidivism. "He took the word from this other psychiatric condition, and that other psychiatric condition took the word from criminology" isn't relevant to misinformation (so it shouldn't be in this article), and it feels like a way to smear the concept. I am fascinated by this factoid, but this is probably a violation of 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)".
Of more importance, and also harder to fix, I wonder whether we've done a good job of explaining reality here. There's ~375 words in this section, and – if I've understood it correctly, which I'm not sure about – it may be failing 1a: "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct".
If I'm correct, reality looks something like this:
  • In the 1980s, gender clinics saw mostly young AMABs, of which a very large fraction were gender non-conforming (e.g., little boys who liked wearing princess dresses but who didn't verbally express a "consistent, persistent, and insistent" desire to be girls) and who mostly grew up to be fabulous gay men, plus a small fraction of "actually trans" kids, who grew up to be trans women.
  • Almost every bit of research on the subject (ever) uses a different definition and therefore gets a different result.
  • When we look back at those studies, we say "Eh, those kids weren't really trans. The real trans kids want to transition."
So it seems to be true that:
  • "Actually trans" kids always grow up to be trans, but
  • Most of the time, if the parents think their kid might be trans as a result of their gender non-conforming behavior, the parents are wrong, and the kid is going to grow up to be gay but cisgender.
If that's correct, then the article isn't IMO communicating it in an understandable fashion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary isn't *very* wrong, but I feel like the emphasis is wrong, because you're using the actual definition of "actually trans" in one place but in other places you're phrasing it as though the way we know kids are actually trans is whether they end up transitioning. That's not true. How this actually works is that generally gender non-conforming behavior is not a good indication that a kid will be trans as an adult, but the same sort of questions that would detect transness in an adult, such as directly asking a kid if they want to be a girl, do work, and kids who consistently say "yes I want to be a girl" end up growing up to be trans women.
I agree this could be clearer in the article, which probably should explain the full situation. But I don't think that it's a failure to be clear, because the statement as phrased really is true. You wouldn't need to say "scientists used to think small amounts of alcohol are good for you" to be able to say "scientists currently think no amount of alcohol is better for you than not drinking". Loki (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the statement is true "as phrased" that if you're 18 and pregnant and obtain an abortion, your lifetime risk of breast cancer just went up 50%. But it's not clear.
I agree that you don't have to explain past beliefs. If you agree with me, then perhaps you'd like to blank the ~third of Transgender health care misinformation#Desistance myth that is all about past beliefs, and perhaps add a clear statement that "generally gender non-conforming behavior is not a good indication that a kid" is actually trans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all stuff that can/should be in Gender dysphoria in children. It doesn't belong on a page about "misinformation" without strong independent sources that it actually is "misinformation" and not just hyperbolically expressed differences of opinion. Void if removed (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to "will most kids today desist" is "we don't know".
It used to be the case that they did, but clinics in the 80s then were as much about stopping prepubescent boys from growing up gay as growing up trans, so unpicking the more coercive/homophobic methods used in the past is difficult.
However, once blockers and came onto the scene, GIDS found 99.5% persisted.
This also coincided with an exponential increase in the number of teenage girls presenting at GIDS in gender distress, to the point they now outnumber boys 2 or 3 to 1.
So the open question is: do blockers (and to a lesser extent social transition) cause a persistence of gender incongruence that would otherwise have resolved during/after adolescence? Are the factors that affected pre-teen boys in the 80s the same as those affecting adolescent girls in the 2010s?
We have multiple unknowns, and I think it is RGW to present any of this as misinformation. The only MEDRS in the "desistance myth" section is a systematic review that says best quantitative estimates are that 83% desist - which means it isn't a myth. Void if removed (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VIR is misquoting the source. As was discussed on the talk page (here) the MEDRS explicitly describes the sources of the 83% desistance as poor quality. Relm (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Misquoting? The abstract says "Quantitative studies were all poor quality, with 83% of 251 participants reported as desisting". Or are you saying that since the studies are "poor quality", they can't also be the "best quantitative estimates" actually available? Sometimes "the best" is also pretty bad (and not just for trans-related research. For example, our best treatments for chronic low back pain are mostly ineffective, and the research on Back labor, which affects about 100 million women each year, is worse than than the research on trans people). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that VIR is quoting the MEDRS as if the MEDRS shows 83% desistance as its own claim:

We have multiple unknowns, and I think it is RGW to present any of this as misinformation. The only MEDRS in the "desistance myth" section is a systematic review that says best quantitative estimates are that 83% desist - which means it isn't a myth.

This is not a truthful depiction of the MEDRS's view of this source who's conclusion is quoted by YFNS below. It is WP:CHERRYPICKING at best. Relm (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the review calculated that 83% itself, and does not disavow it.
What they present in their conclusions is a (non-scientific/human-values) recommendation that nobody actually care whether desistance happens. They recommend a short-term focus: Fix today's distress today, and iff today's fix results in distress tomorrow, then fix tomorrow's distress tomorrow. Do not worry about tomorrow, for sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof – poetic advice, but not science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That just means the number and all its flaws need to be placed in context (as it is now) not omitted entirely (as it was when this article received GA).
It also means the only systematic review that actually puts a number on desistance, contradicts the idea it is a "myth", so the existence of this section at all is highly questionable.
Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years. Crudely, the field has shifted from:
  • We mostly see male pre-teens who will mostly desist in adolescence, and some think its a good idea to withhold "girls" toys and "girls" clothes to "help that along"
To
  • We mostly see female teenagers with a lot of comorbid conditions like depression and eating disorders, and if we give them puberty blockers 99.5% of them don't desist
With no adequate study of the non-intervention case, no explanation of the sex-ratio shift and virtually nonexistant followup.
What we should do here is convey this uncertainty and the limitations to the reader on the relevant article (Gender dysphoria in children), not remove the information from there and present an incomplete and overly-certain picture on an article dedicated to calling it "misinformation". Void if removed (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the review: Of the hypothesis- driven research articles pertaining to desistance found in this literature review, most were ranked as having significant risk of bias. A significantly disproportionate number of these articles were not driven by an original hypothesis. The definitions of desistance, while diverse, were all used to say that TGE children who desist will identify as cisgender after puberty, a concept based on biased research from the 1960s to 1980s and poor-quality research in the 2000s. Therefore, desistance is suggested to be removed from clinical and research discourse to focus instead on supporting TGE youth rather than attempting to predict their future gender identity.[4]
The answer to "will most kids today desist" is "we don't know". - so therefore the claim we do know they will is a myth
Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years. Crudely, the field has shifted from: We mostly see male pre-teens who will mostly desist in adolescence, and some think its a good idea to withhold "girls" toys and "girls" clothes to "help that along" - As you know, and has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the majority of those kids did not say they were trans, or that they wanted to transition, and so the to claim they "desisted" is nonsensical.
I hope whoever looks over this takes note of the fact this was already discussed at the talk page and consensus was against Void's issues with the section[5] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the ping Launchballer, I will say that I am likely not knowledgeable enough about the entire topic to identify WP:NPOV violations that are not also WP:V or WP:SYNTH violations. For that I defer to more knowledgeable editors. If I have the time I may weigh in on whether I found any WP:V or WP:SYNTH violations. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay as someone who got pinged here and has only partially read through everything, I'm wondering if, at this point, it is best that someone, I am volunteering myself here, does a fresh GA review (or at least a partial review of the areas in question), and then invites others to weigh in. I have never done a GA reassessment before so I'm not exactly sure how this works. Since it may be relevant here, I consider myself unbiased in a sense, as I don't usually edit in transgender/sex/sexuality/political/gender-related topics. This may also come as a disadvantage with some of the finer details of WP:NPOV but I'm welcoming feedback here. I've done quite a few GAN reviews and especially like to help with technical wording which I see has been brought up as an issue here. Is this something others are interested in trying as a way to figure this out? relevant pings: @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Starship.paint, WhatamIdoing, Colin, Void if removed, and Launchballer: (sorry for any double pings) IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A GA reassessment is what we're doing right here, in this discussion. It works like everyone telling everyone else what we think. The most helpful thing to do is to read the article and the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and point out any significant problems you see. (Minor problems should be ignored for GAR purposes, or boldly fixed.) Use a ====Level 4==== subsection if you want to separate out discussion of a particular point.
    I would expect one of the GAR coordinators to write the closing summary and make the final decision. Generally, discussions are kept open for 30 days, and if there's no consensus, it typically remains listed as GA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, I'll take a look at the article and see if anything jumps out at me then. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support you doing a GA review - but the chaoticness of this section seems to be the goal. Rather than raising NPOV concerns at talk, we've gone straight into a free-for-all unstructured GA reassessment (where things like the desistance myth, already discussed at talk, are being rehashed) that I think is more liable to give the closer a headache than anything else. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A. That PDF is a RAND corp report, which tend to be considered pretty thoroughly reliable.
B. We should care because the Cass Report makes claims and conclusions separate from those of its peer reviewed sources, and thus we need to make clear the distinction between the two with regards to peer review.
C. Does everything need to be plastered across CNN for it to be relevant to a good wikipedia article? Snokalok (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YFNS wrote "I'm a little unsure how GAR works". Well it sure doesn't work by smearing the person who complained about NPOV violations. Personal attacks earn topic bans, not GAs. Further, they just make everyone else here think: "is that the best you've got?" Same goes for citing our article on the Cass review for backup on the "non peer-reviewed" claim. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What editors have pushed elsewhere on Wikipedia does not influence whether this article is a GA. Is that the best you've got? Tewdar mentions that the best source said editors have found is a table where a column heading identifies it as non peer reviewed, and elsewhere the internet shows only activist social media and blogs repeat that claim. If that source had instead listed the half a dozen systematic reviews that are very much "the Cass Review" the column heading would be different. Is that the best you've got?

The Oxford English dictionary isn't peer reviewed. They don't send their word definitions over to Collins to be double-checked. The NHS health website isn't peer reviewed. They don't ask Kaiser Permanente to offer their opinions. It suits an activist agenda to conflate the Cass Review as a whole with the Final Report as a document, and claim it isn't peer reviewed, because people who don't know much about academic publishing or healthcare reviews think that if you tell someone this feature is missing, they might believe it was typically present and important and clearly not done this time because bigotry. But anyone who actually knows about the Cass Review knows it contains many peer reviewed publications supporting the evidence base. Saying it, as a whole, isn't peer reviewed, is a whopper. No neutral or reliable source says that. Saying the Final Report isn't peer reviewed is as dumb ass as saying a menu isn't peer reviewed. That isn't how an Independent Review chaired by an esteemed paediatrician and former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, works. It is an activist trope and itself an example of misinformation.

Let me give an example from recent current affairs. Zelenskyy was described as a "dictator" by someone I'm sure we all regard as an unreliable source, but more than half the US voting population personally and specifically voted for to be their president. If you or I read a paragraph that said something like "After being expelled by the US president, the dictator Volodymyr Zelenskyy flew to the UK to meet their prime minister and king...." what would your reaction be? Would you think this was a neutral source reporting on world current affairs. Or would you think you'd accidentally clicked on some link to a right wing MAGA blog? Would you think the authors of that sentence had fact checking and accuracy as values, or were more of the say anything that pushes The Truth, facts are inconvenient, approach? It is a MAGA activist trope. This article is full of this kind of writing. The NPOV alarm isn't just flashing read. It is going "honk" "honk" "honk".

The approach from the get-go on this article is that misinformation in the trans debate is entirely one-sided and that it is influential, vs a neutral approach and exploring the far far the more obvious explanations for healthcare decisions that don't require an assumption that all those healthcare or legal professionals are clearly stupid and gullible. The opinion of activist authors is cited in Wiki voice throughout. For example, the claim "Misinformation has affected the decision of the United Kingdom to reduce use of puberty blockers for transgender individuals" is an extraordinary claim. We cite an opinion piece (it is clearly labelled "Perspective" in the journal). The same opinion piece is used for "Misinformation and disinformation have led to proposed and successful legislative restrictions on gender-affirming care across the United States". There's no room in the mindset of this article, that puberty blocker restrictions in the UK were a decision made after a four year independent review of the most thorough degree ever attempted, based on multiple systematic reviews, including those commissioned by the review but also every single systematic review published previously or since. The mindset of this article is that NHS Scotland are fools when their experts spent four months considering the implications of the Cass Review and carefully worked out which recommendations to adopt, including also restrictions on puberty blockers. That these professionals should have just read some American blogs and their eyes would have been opened to the "misinformation". It is an extraordinary claim. Or the more obvious explanation for why Florida went the way it did: good old fashioned conservative bigotry.

As Void and others have noted, the desistence debate is framed one-sidedly in this article. There's an equal myth that desistence doesn't exist or is vanishingly rare. The truth is we don't know and in fact when Cass' research team tried to find out, they were actively blocked from accessing adult care information that might have shed some light. There are activists who even cite the Cass Review final report as evidence that desistence is vanishingly rare, despite the report explicitly saying the evidence and the audit they discuss does not support that (or any other conclusion). The level of statistical incompetence shown by those citing the Cass Review for this purpose is frankly mind boggling. There is misuse of statistics and applying low-quality data for population group X to population group Y going on by both sides. Perhaps in 20 years time, universities will teach statistical misinformation courses citing the arguments coming from both sides in this debate.

I'm sceptical a NPOV article on trans healthcare misinformation can be written right now, what with US politics and all that. There's been a concerted effort at FRINGE and RS/N boards to ban any source that is negative of US trans activist positions or supportive of the Cass Review. Largely done by smearing the authors, rather than addressing whether they have a point. When the debate is at the level of claiming Dr Cass is a puppet of transphobic organisations, and all of NHS England and NHS Scotland have been "captured" by an anti-trans ideologically driven government of Putin levels of evil manipulation, one has to wonder where we're at. -- Colin°Talk 11:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only NPOV violation you identified is whether we say the Cass Review wasn't peer-reviewed - we have an RS saying it wasn't, consensus at the Cass Review article to note that, and consensus at this article to note that.
The medical establishment in the UK has, at best, been skeptical of the government's ban on puberty blockers.[6]
As Void and others have noted, the desistence debate is framed one-sidedly in this article. There's an equal myth that desistence doesn't exist or is vanishingly rare. - Can you find sources backing that up? There are sources saying "most desist" is a myth going back years, I've seen none claiming there's an equal myth that desistence doesn't exist or is vanishingly rare
I'm sceptical a NPOV article on trans healthcare misinformation can be written right now, what with US politics and all that. - this is classic WP:RGW, we can write a NPOV article on any topic, it just depends on setting aside our own convictions and following the sources. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The medical establishment in the UK has, at best, been skeptical of the government's ban on puberty blockers. I'm looking at Table 2 in the source you linked. It says that most pharmacists (e.g., General Pharmaceutical Council) support the ban and clinicians ("doctors"; e.g., General Medical Council) are split 50–50. The main opposition comes from a group called "Charities and voluntary and community organisations" (e.g., Mermaids (charity)), which is not "the medical establishment". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wrt Well it sure doesn't work by smearing the person who complained about NPOV violations. Personal attacks earn topic bans, not GAs. - I have not done a single personal attack here, merely pointed out, as others have, your DYK comments were full of personal attacks. Your first comment there included Readers of this sorry wiki article would be forgiven for thinking it was written by a really enthusiastic teenager who nobody had told NPOV was a core pillar, nor explained the difference between opinion and fact. ... this is an article clearly written by a US activist viewpoint. Ironically, it itself is an example of transgender misinformation., while your second was As I said, this article reads like a teenager wrote it as an activist pamphlet to address problems they only see from a US perspective, fighting a certain kind of US bigot and thinking the rest of the world is like that too ... This sort of subject needs to be written by editors with a commitment to NPOV, not a commitment to The Cause., and your third, after I asked you to strike your personal attacks, was YFNS, I call out this article for the one-sided activist screed it is. And you are an activist single-purpose account.[7] - you have yet to strike any of the multiple personal attacks you left there. You have also yet to raise NPOV issues on the talk page for the article itself. I quote your comments for the closer to consider in deciding who has made personal attacks. I do agree, and think you should consider, that Personal attacks earn topic bans Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism

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

There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. When the article was first promoted to GA status, it was about 6200 words. It is now over 10,000 words, and WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out articles of that size. Is there any information in the article that can be spun out or stated with less words, to make this article more concise? The "Demographics" section seems to end at 2016. Are there more up-to-date statistics? Z1720 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The article already makes abundant use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and I am impressed that such a general article comes in at only 10,425 words, which is perfectly in accord with WP:TOOBIG. I have reviewed the article and tagged every instance of a missing citation. Since none of the statements are controversial, I expect editors will fill them in now that they have been flagged. Demotion seems unwarranted and nonproductive. Patrick (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Patrick Welsh: I have added additional citation needed tags. The GA criteria states "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph". The numerous citation needed tags (including for entire paragraphs and quotes) and the "additional citations needed" orange banners will need to be resolved before I can recommend that this article keeps its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you would add those redundant tags, which make the article look messier that it is.
    As long as the unsupported content is uncontroversial, which it is, I will remain opposed.
    Placing an artificial deadline on editors to make these improvements seems counter-productive. Patrick (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smithfield, London

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Haarsma

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

There is lots of unencyclopedic language throughout the article. The "School visits" section seems quite promotional and unencyclopedic: perhaps it can be removed. There is uncited text throughout the article, and not much information about his more recent work: he won an Emmy in 2021 for "Journey" but the article doesn't have much information about this. Z1720 (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Andreescu

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

Lots of uncited statements in the "2020-2021" and the "2022" sections. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is hard for me to do anything with because I don't understand tennis at all. Here's some sources though.
Should be an easy one for a tennis fan. Good luck folks. MediaKyle (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods

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

There are uncited statements, including an entire paragraph. The lead is quite long and I think it can be more concise. Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tirreno–Adriatico

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

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the issue detected by Z1720, the table is not complying with WP:COLOR. Rpo.castro (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impalement

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

Uncited statements and overreliance on block quotes. Z1720 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal damage in English law

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

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

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

There is a lot of uncited text. The article uses lots of block quotes, when Wikipedia recommends a summary style. The article is quite long: removing some of the block quotes might help with this, but there might also be places where the prose could be shorter. Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in helping, although the timeline of GARs may be on the fast side relative to what I can contribute. I've put this and the article on my watchlist, and I'll see what I can do. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in helping also. Remsense ‥ 论 07:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: GARs now typically stay open for a month (or will be closed as "keep" early if concerns are resolved). If there's ongoing improvements it will remain open past that one month. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Plains of Abraham

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

Some uncited statements, and a Trivia section that needs to be integrated into the rest of the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not see anything wrong here. I guess I contest the assessment with no real points being made. The demotion request is based on a few sentences in a trivia section?Moxy🍁 00:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: The good article criteria 2b states: "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)" There is lots of uncited text in the article, including a citation needed tag from November 2016. Z1720 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've Source the one tag....but can you help out and at least tag what you think needs sourcing..you're basically asking us to Source every sentence because this is the most vague thing I've ever heard. Moxy🍁 01:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think this looks fixable - although the archived kronoskaf source looks like some wiki variant and I don't know that we'd consider britishbattles.com a RS anymore. When I saw this go to GAR, I was hopeful that I'd be able to help, but I own very little source material about the French & Indian War and it looks like my local libraries don't have a whole lot either. Hog Farm Talk 01:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide many sources I just don't know for what as every paragraph has sources? [1]Moxy🍁 01:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moxy. I cleaned up the cites, with the exception of one problem. Aside from the order of battle which needs better cites, an editor (I can't figure out who) added cites to MacLeod in the first section. Now there is a book by MacLeod in the further reading section, but I cannot tell if they used the French or English versions for the cite. I do not have that book, so I am hoping you might. Thanks. Llammakey (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy and Llammakey: It looks like most of the citation concerns have been resolved: I have only added one citation needed tag to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
order of battle ---- some differences?[2][3] Moxy🍁 17:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info[4] Moxy🍁 17:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Moxy! I will incorporate this stuff. Llammakey (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All done and replaced all citations using Britishbattles.com. I hope this helps the review. Llammakey (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Constantinople (860)

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

Several uncited paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree lacks its citation especially critically in the final section where significant claims are made in terms of historical sources interpretation.
A source is cited (Zuckerman 2000) I have done my best to try and find an online accessible version but all I am turning up is book reviews.
Perhaps Zuckerman provides information that would cite the whole paragraph but the editor who wrote that section cited only the first sentence - this is a mistake I have made myself so I would not be surprised. But I think someone would have to access the source to check and amend the citation.
And thus the article fails the verifiable criteria;
"reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);" LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chao

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

Unreferenced section in the "Acting" and "Professional wrestling" sections. Z1720 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Carey

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Some statements have been uncited since 2023. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trade route

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting there are ongoing talkpage discussions on the veracity of some of the article's information. CMD (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Germany–Japan relations

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

Uncited statements, including entire sections. Z1720 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that, there are exactly two (rather small) sections that have no refs. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: The GA criteria states, "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph." I see lots of places that don't have citations. Would you like me to add citation needed templates to those places? Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States)

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

There is uncited content, including the entire Hurricane Katrina section. Additionally, there are a number of citations to Global Security, which is no longer considered reliable. Hog Farm Talk 01:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens' assemblies of the Roman Republic

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

Wildly out of date in terms of scholarship. Essentially wrong about the organisation of curiae, the nature of the lex curiata, age of the centuriate assembly, nature of the centuries (strange anachronisms like "means test"), nature of Sulla's reforms to the centuries. Anachronistically thinks the thirty-five tribes existed throughout the republic.

Heavily reliant on Abbott 1901 (incorrectly cited, contrary to modern policy, to a 1960s reprint) which is not a reliable source due to the number of discredited claims it presents uncritically. Writing fails to comply with modern style standards (strange italics and capitalisation everywhere). Fails to cover 20th century research on the topic entirely. Ifly6 (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The article dates from the early years of Wikipedia (2008). User Romanhistorian made a lot of contributions at the time using Abbott, but it's now not considered a reliable source. T8612 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Carson

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

Article has 11 citation needed tags (at the time of posting) , so probably passes meets the quick-fail criteria. The good article review was also around 16 years ago. TNM101 (chat) 05:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly enough for a promotion this old, I don't see any glaring issues in the version that was reviewed and given GA status. But that was over 1,000 revisions ago, and the current article does not meet our standards. The CN tags appear valid, and honestly the article's organization isn't great either with excessive sectioning and very short paragraphs. If this doesn't get improved, it should be delisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chabon

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

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina

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

The "Demographics" section focuses too much on the 2010 census, and should instead be updated with the 2020 information. The "Economy" section is just a list of businesses: since the first sentence of the article describes this as a resort town, I think there needs to be more information about the tourism economy. There is some uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Japan naming dispute

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

Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. Source quality concerns have been raised on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to try improving this – please ping me if I haven't gotten around to it within a week. Toadspike [Talk] 07:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 I've gone through and added a few tags. Could you please check if all issues that should be addressed in this GAR are tagged? This would help structure my work. Toadspike [Talk] 09:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight/tone issues

I see a few instances of undue weight or an unnecessarily editorializing tone in the article and wanted to check with others if my view makes sense:

  • "In the French language, the word orientale includes both the meaning of "eastern" related to compass direction and the meaning of "oriental", the Asiatic region. The same ambiguity is present in the Russian language, with both "eastern" and "oriental" indicated by one word." – This part is uncited, though I have no doubt that it's true. However, it seems completely irrelevant. I have yet to check the sources to see if it is mentioned, if it isn't I would like to remove these two sentences.
  • "Thus, the Japanese side argues that the South Koreans misunderstand the history of the name." – This may be accurate, but it should be made clear from the examples earlier in the section and not tacked on to the end of the section. I would like to remove this sentence.
  • "As a result, the international name of the sea changed from no name to the Sea of Japan, on the maps drawn by countries other than Japan or Korea during the 17th to 20th centuries." – This is very poor wording, verging on POV.
  • "Contrary to the position of a few major countries..." – This whole paragraph is uncited and reads very POV. I would like to remove it, since the point it makes should be covered by a list of examples (which this section is) instead of evidence-free editorializing.

I haven't checked the referenced parts of the article yet, I assume there are more POV issues to come. Given the topic, I am not surprised. Toadspike [Talk] 09:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"comparison of surveys" table

I had to look at this table several times to understand what it is trying to say. It is extremely wide (going far off of my screen in Vector 2022) and the important trend it tries to show, the switch from "East Sea" to "Sea of Japan" from the 18th to 19th centuries, is hidden in a sea of irrelevant details. To fix this, at the very least the US, FR, and DE columns should be removed. Perhaps the table should be removed altogether and replaced with a graph. The citation (to an extremely partial Japanese government webpage – not ideal) needs to be reformatted to actually link to the data, not just to the main page of the report. Toadspike [Talk] 09:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse University

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

There are uncited statements, including almost the entire alumni section. The "History" section seems to stop at 1990. I am skeptical that there has been nothing of historical note for 35 years. Z1720 (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysł II

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

Uncited statements throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the relevant criteria is "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged.... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". IMO concerns should be expressed in that context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Content in good articles need to be cited. I am happy to add citation needed templates if requested, but there are some citation needed tags from 2018 that are unresolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not arguing either way, just for a clearly expressed-concern that uses the criteria as a guide. And so an uncited statement per se is not a violation. On another note, an unresolved CN tag is a whole different different thing than the general thoughts expressed here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do in terms of sourcing, but no promises. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also an overreliance of blockquotes. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hacker

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

The article contains many uncited statements, including an orange banner asking for more citations that was posted in 2016. There is also no information about the subject's retirement. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Munnerlyn

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

There are a lot of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, and not a lot of information about his later career. Z1720 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J-Air

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

Contains sections of uncited text:

such significant amounts of text uncited makes this no longer a GA. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spirited Away

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

I've been considering this nomination for a while. This is a 2013 promotion that underwent a peer review in 2016. My most pressing concern is the failure of criterion 2b (reliable sources), with multiple self-published sources, primary sources, and other problematic material used. I've added inline or banner tags for all of these issues (though some of these have gone unresolved for over a year). I also doubt the article clears criterion 3a (addresses main aspects) with the number of high-quality scholarly sources left unused in § Further reading. Delist. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked as one of the major contributors to the article, I've also notified the relevant WikiProjects of this reassessment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i concur, i'm surprised that the article doesn't even source napier's anime from akira to howl's moving castle. i see sources from travel websites and amazon (twice), and it seems as though the accolades section has been flagged as requiring attention for over a year. unless all of these issues are fixed quickly, i (regrettably) call to delist. Plifal (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this article can claim to meet current {{Good article}} standards when the Awards/Accolades table is not properly referenced. WP:VERIFY is fundamental. Unless there is an editor actively working to fix it soon then the article should be downgraded for failing to meet the necessary standard. -- 109.76.129.14 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific - I see one overtly problematic paragraph (second paragraph of Sovietization), what other ones are of concern? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I have added citation needed tags where they are needed. Z1720 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making some progress with the uncited sections, will keep working on it, I'll need four or five days. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned with the broadness of this page. This is a polity of 70 years, but little is covered outside of History. I don't think a Geography section is needed given it would likely replicate current Armenia, but there should be coverage of the population and culture. Perhaps the article could have more on the raions and cities, and more on the economy and infrastructure. This was surely a time of huge change. Lastly, should there be an extended paragraph on the flag based only on the Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev? CMD (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is this is a page that will predominantly need to reflect a specific historical period and politics, population and culture will to a large extent be subsumed into that (for example, note the religious aspects discussed during the Thaw section). However, will try to address some of these issues. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Other aspects should not be subsumed under History on this article, that would only be the case for a dedicated History article (currently there is not one). As a comparison, consider East Germany. A much broader coverage of politics, administration, economics, demographics, and culture, as well as a Legacy section, possibly relevant here too. CMD (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW WP:SIZERULE; the DDR article is somewhat bloated. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we may need to quick fail/delist this. I'm seeing some sections which appear to be close paraphrasing of "A concise history of the Armenian people: (from ancient times to the present)" by George A Bournoutian. The text previously referenced was the 5th edition, however I accessed the 2nd edition at the archive.org library, and this shows sections which have been simply reordered. I'll need to do a full check. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The DDR article is long because of its 4,000 word History section, this has little bearing on the rest of the sections. That's also more GACR3b, not GACR3a, which is the issue here. Thanks for the copyvio note, that's a rough find. I don't seem to have access at archive.org. Looking at early revisions, the 2006 version was initially cited[8]. CMD (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, RL has delayed me on this, will be able to review the close paraphrasing within 48 hours. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Presidency

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aksumite currency

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

Numerous uncited statements, including the entire "Weight standards" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian National Revolution

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

Uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving

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

The article has uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There are a lot of block quotes in the article, which would be better summarised. The article is not concise, and some sections are very long which would benefit from being broken up by headings. Z1720 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fund accounting

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

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optical properties of carbon nanotubes

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

Lots of uncited statements including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Equine nutrition

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your nomination, as I see only one CN tag in the article, and I will fix that cite. If you could be so kind as to note the other "entire paragraphs" or problematic sections where WP:POPE does not apply, I will take a look at those and see what can be done. Montanabw(talk) 05:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Follow up Spotted a couple area where a cite could be added, so I did. Flag anything else you really think must be addressed. I hope we are done here. Montanabw(talk) 07:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Montanabw: I have added citation needed tags to the places that need citations. Per WP:POPE, that is an essay, which "...contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" and "has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." (per the box at the top of the page). Meanwhile, the GA criteria 2b states that the content of good articles must be cited no later than at the end of the paragraph. The prose there I added cn tags needs to be cited. Z1720 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Montanabw that the article is adequately sourced and still meets the spirit of WP:GA?; IMO, a one-sentence "paragraph" does not require a citation. The only fixes I see needed are a couple to citation templates. Miniapolis 16:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miniapolis: WP:GA? 2b states, "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);" Yes, that one sentence paragraph needs a citation. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. I disagree. Miniapolis 15:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivar

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, some of which have been labelled as uncited since 2024. Z1720 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragraph 3, states: "Since the creation of the Plant Patent Act of 1930[8] the naming of cultivars has been complicated by the use of statutory patents[9] for plants and recognition of plant breeders' rights" – this is of course, of highly localised relevance, and does not affect the situation generally (not relevant to 194 of 195 countries). Delete. - MPF (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Plant breeders' rights (UPOV) has a much wider scope than just the US. Even plant patents are not unique to the US. I think that an equivalent statement should be retained, but perhaps placed in the Cultivar Names or Legal Protection sections. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lavateraguy @Z1720 - yes, something worded generally without being specific to any one country would be good - MPF (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking further, that sentence is only of highly localised relevance if you read it that way. I suspect that the US Plant Patent Act of 1930 was the first instance worldwide of extending the intellectual property regime to plant varieties and as such is the starting point whether you take a US or global view. The rest of the sentence doesn't have an explicitly restricted scope.
    It remains that the best way of meeting the challenge of providing a clear concise and accurate statement in the lede might just be to defer the topic to the IPR section. On the other hand "Since the extension of the concept of intellectual property to plant varieties in the US in 1930 and subsequently in much of the world complications have been introduced to the naming of cultivars" may do the trick.
    I note that references 9 and 10 have the same archive link. I suspect that the one for reference 9 is incorrect. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • a change was made from "known cultivar" to "named cultivar". This had led to me thinking about edge cases to the definition of cultivars. For example, while taking a distinctive variant from a wild population into cultivation establishes a cultivar (named or otherwise), taking a typical variant from a wild population doesn't. I expect that there's some language requiring cultivars to be distinctive not just from other cultivars, but also from the wild type. But I also wouldn't be surprised if someone has introduced a trade designation for a wild type. (Wild types in cultivation are usually known either by the botanical name, or the collection number.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"taking a typical variant from a wild population doesn't" This has happened many times and I do not know how one would be able to prevent someone from giving such plants a cultivar name. As long as the plants are propagated in a way that all the resulting plants grown in cultivation maintain the same charteristics it is a "good" cultivar.Hardyplants (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavateraguy @Hardyplants - the change from 'known' to 'named' was me, I just thought it read better like that; change it back if you think 'known' was better. But yes, there are plenty of named cultivars that wouldn't stand out as obvious in their wild species populations, like Abies procera 'Glauca' or Cupressus nootkatensis 'Pendula'. And of Chamaecyparis spp., "... three are very variable and have given rise to a ridiculous flood of selected seedlings and mutations, many of which are so similar to others as to be just not worth perpetuating. Unfortunately this flow still continues. Very great restraint should now be exercised in introducing fresh forms that will add more names to our listings but no more beauty to our gardens." [followed by a list of over 500 named cultivars of Ch. lawsoniana!] (Welch & Haddow 1993, The World Checklist of Conifers p.54 ISBN 0-900513-09-8). - MPF (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical terms of location

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

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am willing to try and fix concerns --Iztwoz (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Shakespear's Plays

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

The article is not concise, with almost 18,000 words of text. There is no post-2008 information. The citations rely upon the book that the article is about, instead of secondary sources. There are a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article ended up being very long. But I disagree with one assertion. The citations do include extensive quotations from the book. But everything, or nearly everything, is fully backed up by secondary sources. If in a couple of cases, that was overlooked, please point out those cases, and they could probably be fixed.--Alan W (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in Falstaff (Henry IV and The Merry Wives of Windsor), yes, all the quotations have numerous footnotes citing the primary source. But any assertions about the meaning of that source are backed up by citations of Bloom, Kinnaird, and Eastman.--Alan W (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the size of the article, according to Wikipedia:Article size: "There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion: an article should have clear scope, be well organized, stay on topic, and have a good narrative flow." The article, in my opinion, does meet those criteria. --Alan W (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros.

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

The article has a lot of unsourced statements and 2 active orange banners. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hull House

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

This article was promoted to GA status in 2007 and previously kept at GAR in 2008. Unfortunately, I do not think this article meets modern WP:GACR standards and will need significant amounts of work in order to retain its GA status.

  • There are large swathes of unsourced information. Examples of this are the last three paragraphs of the Mission section and nearly the entirety of the Workers and residents section. In my view, the article fails WP:GACR criterion 3a as a result.
  • Parts of the article may be excessively detailed to WP:COATRACK content. The article is already tagged as not being written in an encyclopedic style. As such, it fails WP:GACR criteria 1b and 4.
    • The Mission section is an example of this; half of the section isn't even about the settlement house itself.
    • While the Hull House neighborhood section is not as severely bloated, it also has a lot of minutiae. An example of this is the first paragraph, which gives three very detailed examples of women whom the association helped.
  • Conversely, although the article also talks about the Hull House building, there is very little detail about the actual architecture. There is also very little detail about the house's use as a museum after 1930. While I understand that there may not have been any major news about Hull House after 2012, this is not a matter of the article being out of date; it's that the article's history sections predominantly focus on pre-1930 history. The article thus fails WP:GACR criterion 3a.

Epicgenius (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Cleansing (video game)

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

Fails GAC3 - broad overview of the topic. This is almost entirely cited to long ago news reports and advocacy group publications from when the game came out, so it does not adequately explain what sources discuss about the topic. While they aren't unreliable and that would be OK if that was all there was, this article contains literally none of the actually quite large amount of the scholarly discussion on this game [9]. We don't need to do all of them, but for a topic on RW extremism this cannot be a broad overview without scholarly sources, which this article cites nothing from. And do we have a cover of the game case or title screen, something to go in the infobox? We used to have one of the title screen but that was removed in 2023 without comment for seemingly no reason. An article like this should have something for the lead, or else it fails that aspect of the GAC too. It's also been basically entirely rewritten since it was GAN'd the first time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The most recent rewrite was done by me when I was reworking the articles of unusual games that use the Genesis3D engine. My edits focused mostly on expanding the existing article (previously with only minor changes from the original GA) with additional journalistic sources and bringing the writing more in line with current standards. As it was a quick side-project on an existing GA, I didn't extensiely check for scholarly sources, but that is something that can be easily addressed. I will look into it in the coming days. As for the title image, using screenshots in the infobox is discouraged (per the template documentation), so I removed it in search of a better alternative. While there is a scan of the inlay, it is of rather low quality, which is why I avoided uploading it. Looking it up now, there is a logo on the game's archived website. Would you consider this a viable replacement? IceWelder [✉] 20:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder Your rewrite was a definite improvement, it was much further away from fulfilling our current standards before. For curiosity's sake, what was the other GA? I could help address the scholarly sourcing issue as well it just seems to be missing a lot of it which is why I sent it to GAR instead of addressing it myself.
Ah, did not know that with the screenshots - still I think the title screen was better than nothing. The logo would be fine. Just something in it to represent the game. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two other Genesis3D GAs I wrote were Catechumen (video game) and Special Force (2003 video game), although the latter might also need some scholarly input now that I think about it. I will look into everything during the weekend, but I believe the article is definitely salvagable. IceWelder [✉] 09:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went through 10 pages of Google Scholar and added what I could access. A lot of papers only name-dropped the game in lists of extremist games, others were merely about the actual concept of that name. When the source was a paid-access book, I checked Google Books but found little cite-worth content. I added eight paper citations as a result, as well as the logo. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you added looked good. I still recall seeing some stuff about this in other books, so I am going to look for what I can and add that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added some stuff to further reading that has sigcov, I will add from it soon. My remaining concern is I don't think Běláč is reliable? PhD theses are generally reliable, Masters theses can be if cited widely, but bachelors theses don't undergo a lot of review. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings for that source, no, although it does provide some good details for the gameplay section. If you feel like it is not even good enough for that, I can take it out. IceWelder [✉] 19:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at it again and removed the Běláč sourced. Also, since the Bowman sources was available online, I added the few details from it to the article. IceWelder [✉] 16:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Business Communicators

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

Whilst it past GA review in 2013, the article has not been updated to reflect organization history since 2014. There's a few uncited statements and number of staff is not verified. Also article says it's based in San Francisco, when this says Chicago. https://www.iabc.com/about/contact. Also although an organization, it would benefit for example with a photo of its activities or leaders to meet GA criterion 6. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup of spammy, trivial, and/or uncited content. It would be great to have some history covering the 2013-2025, but I didn't find anything we could cite for this at-a-glance. CorporateM (Talk) 00:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Leggett

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

2009 listing; has several unsourced paragraphs (including one whole section). The lead is also likely too long relative to the size of the article. charlotte 👸♥ 06:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is sufficient address. However, it is worth noting that the original promotion did have a reference for the first section - to The Washington Post. I generally do not edit in politics and do not wish to start now - I really would have little idea what I was doing beyond the basics - but I did observe that the one source that cited the section (which in itself could be a problem) had been removed. From reading one thing or another, I thought I heard rumblings that there were situations where the Post was unacceptable in articles regarding politics. Would this be such a case? If not, it might be better than nothing at all. mftp dan oops 16:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn M. Brodie

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

Uncited information, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Michigan Boulevard District

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

There are some uncited statements, including an entire paragraph. The "History" section seems to stop at 1920: although there are some statements about "today", there seems to be an empty gap on several decades of history. The "Today" section is cited to 2008 information. I think this article needs to be updated, and this section renamed to avoid MOS:CURRENT concerns. Z1720 (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson family

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

Outdated concept information, zero reception section, and lots of unsourced statements. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

would do this but this is far too long and i'm already working on too much. i'd rather this get delisted and maybe i'll work on it later, unless someone else wants to do it. 750h+ 09:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Philip Sousa

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

This page has a decent bit of missing, fundamental information and poor sourcing. At the time of writing this, the page names sources from Amazon and J. W. Pepper (an online music retailer) instead of the actual publications. And while properly formatted citations are not required for a GA, this page is remarkably bad to the point that dates and authors are missing, simple bare links point to incorrect places, and shortened footnote templates are broken. There are a few statements that need sourcing in general.

In terms of missing information, the coverage of his music is poor, being a simple listing of his work. The section needs to cover how he composed, his compositional techniques, and his musical legacy. All of this is standard information in any of the dozen books covering him (which the page only uses two of). Another major facet missing is in-depth coverage of his bands. His career section is under 500 words. (Why is his hobby section longer?) The Sousa Band (his civilian ensemble) lasted nearly forty years and does not even receive a full paragraph in the article. I can point out some more specifics as needed (and I have access to several books), but this page needs a major overhaul, not just some light editing. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarah Jane Adventures

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

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire sections. I think this happened when articles were merged together after this article received its GA designation. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through it tomorrow, I believe I can add most/all of the refs- bcs Doctor Who Magaizne has a lot of info about the series. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have started fixing the issues, and have added refs to a whole heading. The other citations might be slower in coming- the uncited statementsare the only issue, right? DWF91 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the University of Santo Tomas

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

There are uncited statements, including the entire "Filipinization of the university" section and several paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reminding, will update in the coming days. I hope youll give me a sufficient time to overhaul the article. just a bit busy. KingTiger1611 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some temporary references to that section; please read the edit summary. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Bristol

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

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is a "promotional tone" orange banner at the top of the "Sports" section: is this banner still valid? Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any discussion here related to the 'promotional tone' banner, and the section seems to be a pretty straightforward description of the facilities. It looks like there was some puffery in there when the banner was added, but although this was removed the banner was left in place. I've now removed it.
Overall, though, this gives the impression of an article that hasn't been curated since it reached GA status. There are dated statements that were current in 2007 when it was listed, such as "There is also a plan to significantly redevelop the centre of the University Precinct in the coming years" (reference from 2007), the list of six faculties (also from 2007 – there are only three faculties now on the university webpage), the inclusion of Sutton 13 in affiliations (never an affiliation, and not used by the Sutton Trust since 2011), and the mention of an "Erasmus Charter" in the lead (the UK left the Erasmus scheme after Brexit, and participating in it wasn't particularly notable before that giving this the appearance of puffery). There is definite promotional content elsewhere, such as the statement in the "Admissions" section that "Competition for places is high with an average 7.7 applications per place according to the 2014 Sunday Times League Tables, making it the joint 11th most competitive university in the UK" – not only is this over a decade out of date, but this appears to be editorial use of number of applications as a proxy for competitiveness, falsely presenting Bristol admissions as more competitive than Oxford or Cambridge.
In summary, the article as it stands is quite a long way short of GA standard and it will take a lot of work to reach that standard. Robminchin (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat

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

The article has a lot of unsourced statements, too many GameFaqs/unreliable sources, and it has been outdated. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for removing per reasons outlined. Timur9008 (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Representative democracy in Singapore

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

Serious issues related to balance/WP:NPOV. Overall, its tone and content appear to hew very closely to the position of the Government of Singapore and fail to fairly note the substantial, serious criticisms of Singaporean democracy from reliable sources. Overall, Singapore's status as a democracy is controversial (for reliable sources arguing about or describing arguments about its status, see e.g. here, here, or here, all of which are easily found with a quick Google of "Singapore democracy").

Some sources in the article also appear to be selectively used; for example, the article cites Freedom House once, noting that "elections in Singapore are free from voter suppression and electoral fraud," but ignores the large volume of more critical information from the source.

At times, the article also dives into what is possibly more original research or essay-like material, such as when it discourses on the proper role of freedom of expression in a democracy qua Mill. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 04:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist – a lot of fundamental issues. The whole article has the tone of an essay, with major WP:SYNTH issues including quoting primary sources such as historical philosophers, court cases and government officials to make arguments/ illustrate points. Expert criticisms are sometimes noted (with cherrypicking as noted above) but critical scholarly views are missing and the government's position is reverentially stated and emphasised throughout producing WP:FALSEBALANCE. The opinions of the presidentially-appointed MP Thio Li-ann's are repeatedly uncritically as an expert voice at many points. It overlaps with Politics of Singapore to the extent that it feels like a WP:POVFORK. Other recurring issues include unsourced opinions stated in the article voice and unattributed quotes. Perhaps a merger of the valuable parts detailing consitutional history into Politics of Singapore is the best long-term solution? Jr8825 • Talk 11:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of places merges could happen (Elections in Singapore?), but I suppose due to the essay style it's hard to nail down exactly what the topic is. CMD (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eilley Bowers

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

Uncited statements, mostly in the "Economic hardship" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gay bathhouse

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

This article has several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan crisis of 1895

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

This article has several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

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

Looks like it was rubber-stamped by an inexperienced reviewer. It seems good at a glance, but given that it documents a contentious, ongoing issue, I think a full review would be needed to verify that it is (or ever was) eligible for GA. — Anonymous 01:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was bad at the review, it was my first time Personisinsterest (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Personisinsterest, no worries. I was similarly unfamiliar with the system at GA when I attempted my first review. Generally, there are at least a few issues that can be found in even the best looking articles, so it's helpful to look carefully for them, even if they aren't huge. For a topic as contentious as this, I'd say that goes double. — Anonymous 02:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous username, not my real name - The first requirement for raising a GAR states, "your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria". I don't think that a vague sense of an article being "rubber-stamped by an inexperienced reviewer" meets that requirement. You've not given the nominator, or indeed the reviewer, anything to respond to. On my initial read through, I'm not seeing any of the criteria which aren't being met. KJP1 (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1, my intention was to treat this like a fresh GA review, with the goal of finding someone who would be interested in reviewing it in more detail. If you would like a more specific critique, I see no evidence that a spot check was ever done in the original review. — Anonymous 13:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why, beyond your feeling the initial review was inadequate? That is itself inadequate. You need to set out your rationale for why you believe the criteria are not met. KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1, I've read through the article more carefully, and I have the following specific concerns (in approximate order of significance):
  • The timeline of events does not go past July 2024. That means it's missing information on close to a third of the war.
  • The summary of destruction (which feels out of place at the start of the events section) is dated to January and February of last year. That means more than half of the war has since passed.
  • On various points about being up-to-date, the bulk of coverage dates from early 2024. Heritage for Peace's November 2023 report is still their most recent. Librarian's and Archivists with Palestine's February report is their most up-to-date (unless I've missed something). These maps from the BBC indicates that the greatest impact was early in the war. By Jan 2024, more than half of the buildings in the Gaza Strip were damaged and by Jan 2025 this had increased to "almost 60% of buildings across the Gaza Strip". It's not straightforward, but this indicates the majority of the damage was in the first few months and after that there were fewer undamaged cultural heritage sites remaining. ICOMOS looks to have some more recent publications which I'll look over. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up: The December 2024 UNOSAT assessment is that 69% of buildings in the Gaza Strip destroyed or damaged. Presumably this the the source the BBC piece referred to, and is closer to the recent statement in this BBC piece which says "About two-thirds of Gaza's buildings have been damaged or destroyed by Israel's attacks, the UN says". Richard Nevell (talk)
  • The international reactions section has a single sentence dated to this year but nothing else past early 2024. Seems like another case of not fully updated information.
  • The background section contains a lot of MOS:FLOWERY content about why cultural heritage is important and why destroying it is bad, but it doesn't really explain if/how Israel has negatively impacted such heritage before this war. The only part specifically mentioning Israeli violence in previous wars is The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict into the Gaza War (2008–2009) concluded that the "disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy", but this isn't specifically about cultural sites, making it somewhat random and out of places.
  • Cultural heritage embodies the collective and history of the people, who live in the region. This lead sentence is grammatically incoherent plus MOS:PEACOCK.
  • Plenty of small prose tweaks I would make, but I think what I've outlined is sufficient to seriously call into question whether the article is close to GA criteria in its existing state.
— Anonymous 17:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For future reference, I’d suggest a careful read through before initiating a GAR. But you have now provided a rationale which others can engage with. KJP1 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, let's crack on. Though the steps to opening a reassessment seem to have got a little muddled, I'm firmly of the belief that having more editors involved in the article will improve its quality. Anonymous, I'll wait until you've finalised a list of comments before replying and implementing changes. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what is already listed, I have some further commentary (again, in rough order of significance):
  • The events section follows an unclear organisation scheme. It opens with an overall (outdated) summary, then provides smaller summaries of specific forms of cultural destruction, then for about the second half is in chronological order. The logical style choice for an events section seems to be strictly chronological. Alternatively, perhaps a summary (an updated one) could be presented at the start, followed by a chronological "timeline" subsection.
  • @Anonymous: The 'events' section was meant to be broadly chronological, with some slightly thematic groupings within that, but as specific dates have been difficult to pin down due to the conflict as different approach is worth trying. To that end, I've reorganised the section into themes with an updated summary at the start. Richard Nevell (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Richard Nevell, I think the restructuring looks good. I notice that the last image in this section is creating some whitespace in the desktop version of this page. Perhaps an image could be moved to the left. I also notice that the caption describes Israel's destruction as "demolition", which has more deliberate implications than what is said in the text. — Anonymous 23:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anonymous: You're absolutely right, demolition is more intentional than the broader 'destroyed'. I think that demolition is in line with the source as Ynet describes it as 'toppled' and notes that the unit involved in the event was also involved in the flotilla raid that the monument commemorated. As such, I've adjusted the wording in the body of the article and left the caption as it is. I've shuffled the image up a bit, is it still creating white space? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None that I can see now. — Anonymous 22:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Al Jazeera is cited several times. As I'm sure most editors are aware, its use as a source for Israel-Palestine conflict articles is controversial. I think it can be agreed that its claims should at least be attributed (which they are not currently).
  • Four Al Jazeera publications are used as references. They cover:
  • The article "A 'cultural genocide': Which of Gaza's heritage sites have been destroyed?" which is used to as a reference to support the statement that some have characterised the destruction as a cultural genocide, and to note the damage to Anthedon, the Ard-al-Moharbeen necropolis, and the Sayed al-Hashim Mosque. The damage to Anthedon and Ard-al-Moharbeen was also supported by other sources, and I have added an additional reference for the Sayed al-Hashim Mosque. The accusation of cultural genocide is controversial, but it is suggested by other sources as well, and there are additional references. Mentioning just Al Jazeera would be disproportionate without mentioning the others, and I'm not sure a list is necessary.
  • The airstrike on the Church of Saint Porphyrius. It is one of three sources (the others are Amnesty International and The Art Newspaper).
  • The destruction of the Israa University main building. This event was widely covered, and an additional reference to the NYT has been added.
  • Reports of IDF soldiers burning a Quran in a Gaza mosque.
  • Where additional sources are available, I don't think it is necessary to mention Al Jazeera in the article text. The one instance where I couldn't find an additional source was the report on the burning of the Quran (a previous incident in May had prompted an IDF investigation) so I have clarified that it was Al Jazeera who reported the incident. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middle East Eye is cited twice. It isn't listed at WP:RS/P, but it isn't exactly known for its neutrality (being possibly funded by Qatar). Its two uses are both backed by better sources anyway, so I think it could just be removed.
  • A source can have a political bias and still present factual information, and since other references confirm the information that does not appear to be an issue here. In which case what is to be gained from removing the references? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's fine to keep, then. — Anonymous 22:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consistent usage of US/UK spelling. I see characterized (twice), neighbourhood, defence, defense, and digitise. I also see the expression "First World War", which, while not a spelling per se, is generally more associated with Commonwealth English. Rather shockingly, our article on the Gaza Strip also does not follow a consistent spelling scheme (I had checked in hope that there might be precedence for a particular one).
  • The article now consistently uses UK spelling simply because that's what I default to, but I don't have a strong opinion about which should be used. 'Defense' is used in the context of 'Israel Defense Forces' since that is the organisation's official name. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The international response section could be expanded significantly. I have found the following sources, all of which specifically reference cultural destruction (while some are obviously non-neutral, they still represent the reactions of specific groups): [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].
It looks beautiful now. The layout is clear and logical, in my opinion. One very small addition would be adding an ILL for the Iran Public Libraries Foundation ([20]). — Anonymous 23:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot, I've added that link. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking about cultural heritage broadly, the archaeologist Cornelius Holtorf remarked "If heritage is said to contribute to people's identities, the loss of heritage can contribute to people's identities even more." Blatant WP:SYNTH; no connection to Gaza or the Israel-Palestine conflict.
  • An investigation by CNN using satellite imagery identified sixteen cemeteries in Gaza that had been damaged as a result of the conflict. The Israel Defence Force used bulldozers to level cemeteries and dig up bodies. In some cases, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had set up fortified positions on top of burial grounds. I highly suspect that this chunk originally consisted of only the first and third sentences, with the second inserted later, as it does not link to the Israel Defense Forces (it also misnames it) or provide the abbreviation IDF, both of which are done in the next sentence (which also gets the name right). While technically supported by the source, the wording of the second sentence is needlessly shocking and without context.
  • I have merged sentences two and three as they are the ways in which the cemeteries were damaged – 'desecration' is the term used by the source and perhaps should be used here rather than 'damaged' which I what I used initially in the article. I do not agree that including the information is needlessly shocking, since the context is the sentence that immediately precedes the information. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2025 the World Monuments Fund included Gaza' historic fabric in their list of 25 historic places under threat. Insufficient information and context here. It should be mentioned that this is the World Monument Fund's official biennial Watch List and that it is specifically Gaza's "historic urban fabric" under threat. (Also I somehow fully missed the obvious grammatical error until rereading my assessment.)

I also found a source discussing the connection between cultural destruction and "urbicide" ([21]) and another with very recent summaries of destruction post-ceasefire ([22]). Both seem valuable, particularly the second. Anyway, I would say that is essentially my complete assessment for the time being. — Anonymous 22:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous: I've added the Euro-Med Monitor source to the article. Where do we stand with what remains to be done? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to read through the article, and for pointing to additional sources. Responses are likely to be on one issue at a time.
One thought at this stage is with the organisation of the 'Events' section chronological would be my first preference, but in some cases the date at which destruction happened is not documented. We may have a case of a report being made likely some weeks or months after the event. In some instances where the chronology has been unclear I have grouped similar sites, eg. libraries. This may not be the best way of going about it, so I'll reconsider the structure of that section. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background SYNTH/PEACCOCK/FLOWERY

@Anonymous: I think this falls within the typical remit of a background section: providing information to help the reader understand the topic. The challenge is in what constitutes sufficient context. I agree that Holtorf's statement was not about Gaza's heritage specifically, so I have moved it from the section 'Cultural heritage in Gaza to the following section, 'Destruction of cultural heritage'. I appreciate that is unlikely to address your core concern but the location of the content is significant.

The background section begins with an explanation of what cultural heritage includes. The source does not mention the 2023-25 war in Gaza as it was published in 2014 and does not mention Gaza, Palestine, or war. That should not be a problem because it provides useful context. The reader may have some understanding of cultural heritage, but we should not assume that and they may bring their own assumptions about what heritage is which could exclude some aspects.

Then follows a summary of some types of heritage in Gaza. The third paragraph links this to identity; this is not synthesis as multiple sources used elsewhere in the article make the link between heritage and identity.[23][24][25][26]

With the subsection on destruction, the why and legal framework are relevant and link to points later in the article. The Hague Convention is mentioned by UNESCO in the context of the conflict as obligations of state parties not to endanger heritage sites. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@An anonymous username, not my real name: The ping in my last post definitely failed, so here's this post. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that seems fair. Were you able to find any information specifically mentioning Gaza's cultural heritage being harmed in previous wars? — Anonymous 23:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2008 and 2014 wars both led to damage to Gaza's cultural heritage (I'll look for additional/alternative sources). Moshe Dayan's removal of artefacts from Deir al-Balah in the 20th century has been described as looting, though I may focus on the recent past. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a brief note about previous conflicts. There is more that could be added, including the Second Intifada, but I think that's enough for now. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article looks great now. While my original rationale for bringing it here might have been weak, I think it can be agreed that there were certainly some significant issues that have since been remedied. This discussion has remained relatively narrow, so I don't think closing it now would be especially controversial, but I'd first like to check if @KJP1: is still interested in spot checking sources as they previously indicated. — Anonymous 23:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to do so. Will pick it up in the next 48 hours. KJP1 (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has definitely benefitted from a fresh look. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of sources

  • Source 1 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 2 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 3 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 4 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 5 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 6 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 7 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 8 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 9 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 10 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 11 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content. Not a point that requires any action, but this is more of a footnote than a reference. Personally, I like to separate them, but as this is the only one, I can see why it's not.
  • Source 12 - an offline book source so I can't check the content but the ISBN takes me to the right place on Worldcat.
  • Source 13 - this is a paywalled WP article. Would it benefit from the "Paid subscription required", {url-access=subscription} icon?
  • Source 14 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 15 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content. I see this also appears under Further reading, but in Arabic. I'm assuming that accounts for the double listing?
  • Source 17 - the original is now giving me a 404 error, but the archived copy is fine. Corrected a typo in the title.
  • Source 23 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 30 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content. For some reason the preceding bluelink, Casualties of the Gaza war, won't give me a preview when I hover over it. Can't work out why.
  • Source 38 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 44 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 57 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 60 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, video (which plays fine) supports content.
  • Source 68 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 77 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 88 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 93 - another offline book source so I can't check the content but the ISBN takes me to the right place on Worldcat.
  • Source 99 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content. I had to download the full document to get to the content as the link only takes me to the abstract. I don't know whether the PDF can be directly linked?
  • Source 102 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 119 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.
  • Source 124 - accurately cited, no copyright issues, supports content.

I checked this [27] version, looking at 30 sources, just under 25% of the total. A few minor issues noted above but everything checks out in terms of accuracy. Let me know if there's anything further needed from me. It's a great article, depressing though the subject matter is. KJP1 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking through.
Source 13 - I think it's worth indicating that a subscription is required, so I've added that in
Source 15 - My initial thinking was that linking to the Arabic version of the report in further reading made it more accessible, but with more items now in that section I'm unsure it's needed.
Source 99 - I've now linked directly to the PDF. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Me Up

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

Unreliable sources, sources used in wrong sections, and lots of unsourced statements. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I was told that MOS:PLOT doesn't apply however since it is not the main subject of the article. So, I've added sources to that section (and the unreliable source was already removed). However, the "sources used in wrong sections" part sounds questionable to me since...well, why can't it be used in other sections? ~ Tails Wx 12:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for now. There are still sources being used in the wrong places. For example, Apple Music should not be used to assign a genre for the song. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandman (comic book)

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

There are lots of uncited statements in the article. While some citations are not necessary per MOS:PLOT, others like the publication history are necessary. There is an "update needed" orange banner under the "Lucifer" section that needs to be resolved. The "Reception and legacy" relies too much on a block quote: the section should be expanded upon and the block quote summaried into prose. There should be prose in the "Characters" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

River Avon, Bristol

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem that large. Is it possible to remediate? Ifly6 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifly6: Editors such as yourself can provide the necessary citations where needed. Please ping me if you would like me to add citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk (album)

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

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)

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

Lots of uncited text, as well as an "additional sources needed" and an "expansion needed" orange banners. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington Bank Stadium

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swissair Flight 111

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

Uncited paragraphs, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" since September 2020. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks, I was actually taking a look at this earlier before you nominated for GAR. I think it's unlikely that we are going to find the exact references used for many of these statements, for example:

The search and rescue (SAR) operation was code-named Operation Persistence and was launched immediately by Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax (JRCC Halifax), which tasked the Air Command, Maritime Command and Land Force Command of the Canadian Forces (CF), Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary (CCGA) resources.

I can find quite a few sources for Operation Persistence, but they each reference different agencies, some of which aren't even listed above. I think some re-wording and copy-writing is appropriate for cases like these. FozzieHey (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've managed to cite Swissair Flight 111 § Safety recommendations and a sentence of Swissair Flight 111 § Search and recovery operation. I've managed to find a few other sources for the "Post-crash response" that I'll add to later. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight: The aircraft details are excessive, tending towards WP:CRUFT, in my opinion. Here is the key paragraph, with my suggested edits.

The aircraft involved was a seven-year-old McDonnell Douglas MD-11, with serial number 48448, and registered as HB-IWF. It was manufactured by McDonnell Douglas in 1991,[3]: 21  and Swissair was its only operator. It bore the title of Vaud, in honor of the Swiss canton of the same name. Until 1992, the aircraft bore the title Schaffhausen, after the canton of Schaffhausen and the town of the same name.

  1. Serial number; as I have recently explained on my Talk page, the link to registration takes you specifically to a full article on aircraft registrations. In contrast, the link to serial number takes you to bank notes, firearms, smartphones, and military aircraft serials, none of which apply to this Swissair MD-11. WP:AIRMOS, and specifically WP:REGISTRATION make it clear that the preference is for the registration wherever possible, not both forms of identification.
  2. Name; it barely matters that this aircraft was named Vaud; it certainly does not matter that it bore a different name before that. These aircraft fleet names are mere decoration, and not in the same league as "The Spirit of St Louis" or "Enola Gay".
  3. Age; I am sure that the remaining words could be straightened out to bring seven-years-old and 1991 together in a concise manner, but that is just fine-tuning.

Hope this helps. WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the name of the aircraft, whilst I agree it is not the most relevant addition to the article, the name Vaud is included in the infobox. I've shortened the original phrase from It bore the title of Vaud, in honor of the Swiss canton of the same name to It bore the title of Vaud.[5] (previously uncited). If not, I've addressed your points. The section now reads as:

The aircraft involved, manufactured in 1991, was a seven-year-old McDonnell Douglas MD-11 and registered as HB-IWF. The aircraft was powered by three Pratt & Whitney PW4462 turbofan engines and the aircraft had logged 36,041 airframe hours before the accident. It bore the title of Vaud. The cabin was configured with 241 passenger seats. First and business class seats were equipped with in-seat in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems from Interactive Flight Technologies. [...]

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most excellent! (And yes, I reluctantly accept that Wikipedia quotes these fleet names in every case, but I'm not sure that was the original intention when the Infobox fields were set up; however it's way too late to argue that point) WendlingCrusader (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FozzieHey, Aviationwikiflight, and WendlingCrusader: It looks like the entire article is now cited – are there any objections to closing this as keep? If anyone is looking to improve this further and needs access to Swiss sources, let me know and I'll get them for you. Toadspike [Talk] 08:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I have just noticed that three time zones are referenced, two of them very similar in presentation, hence easily confused. As with most/all air crashes, UTC is provided as a datum. After that, we come to the real problem.
  1. Firstly we have 20:18 EDT (00:18 UTC), local time at JFK at take-off.
  2. The main text refers to ADT, which is a variation of AST, neither of which are particularly well-known. Indeed, the United States National Hurricane Center's official advisories typically report AST and UTC when tracking storms in the Caribbean that threaten the U.S., but acknowledge that this may confuse the mainland public not familiar with the time zone designation.
Meanwhile the article on the Atlantic Time Zone states that various Canadian provinces have differing legal or official positions, but generally observe AST in practice, so there is that to consider.
I came across a similar problem with a recent event, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243, which took off in one time-zone, was (allegedly) hit my a missile in a second time zone, but then flew on to crash land in a third time zone. That was a bit of a nightmare too! In that case, once the edit-warring had settled down, in addition to the abbreviations AZT, MSK and AQTT, the names of each of the time zones were added in full, together with a separate table that listed everything together under one specific time zone.
The guidance on time zones MOS:TIMEZONE mentions the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as another classic example, with events encompassing the exact timing of the declaration of war (in Washington D.C.) versus the actual timing of the events in Hawaii. Perhaps you should consider how that article deals with the differences, in terms of the events in Washington being ranked incidental to the main action in Hawaii.
In this respect, I would identify the timing of the take off in New York as 20:18 (New York local time), linking it to EDT but avoiding using that specific acronym because of its similarity to ADT. The addition of UTC provides the necessary continuity.
(further apologies for rambling on at length)
WendlingCrusader (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we clarify what each time zone is relative to UTC (UTC-4 and UTC-3) we can expect the readers to do some of the math in their heads, rather than listing everything in two or three time zones. Only the first use and most important points need side-by-side conversions. In this article, that means nearly everything should be ADT alone, and after the first ADT time we don't need to put the letters "ADT" after each time. Toadspike [Talk] 21:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huangshan

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

An early 2009 GA that's worse for the wear. Issues include multiple inappropriately large galleries, relatively poor quality sources, somewhat confusing prose, a couple uncited points, but most importantly intense breadth issues (no mention of geology for an article on a mountain range? a one sentence climate section?) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newt Gingrich

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

Promoted in 2011. This article needs a lot of copyediting for concision and evaluation of due weight. Several unreliable sources are used, mainly OurCampaigns. I would not pass this at GA in its current state. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simca Vedette

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

Lots of uncited statements, including the entire "Models (Brazilian market)" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I have resolved your concerns. Cos (X + Z) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove GA. Brazilian market section had one citation, I will gradually add more, but not with the intent of regaining the rating.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers would it be ok if I hid the Brazil section under a hidden comment? Then it would be a compromise because you want the Brazil section and I want the article to retain its GA status. Cos (X + Z) 17:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CosXZ: Gutting an article to make it "Good"? Part of a "Good" rating also implies that the article addresses the "main aspects of the topic", of which the Brazilian production is one: the Vedette range was built for seven years in France and for seven years in Brazil. Two references were already added, btw.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Bandicoot (character)

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

The article might be well written. However, there are visible issues such as unsourced sentences. Additionally, ref 41 is unnecessary, and it should be cited as Behind the Voice Actors instead of bundling it with primary sources; ref 42's website does not show anything and should probably be removed or replaced. The quotes in the citations are mostly irrelevant, especially when the sources are cited in the reception section, like for example. ref 86. Lastly, most of the sources at reception were from game reviews. It wouldn't hurt to expand some necessary sources on the article's talkpage, particularly these [28] [29] per GA's criteria "Broad in its coverage". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a start on making those adjustments. Hoping to get more done soon, namely when I get a retool of the Appearances section figured out. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restless (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

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

Uncited information in the article, including several very large paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to which exact portions need to be sourced? There was some uncited content added to the analysis section back in 2020, which seems to be the only major (uncited) additions to the article since the GA promotion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drovethrughosts: I have added citation needed tags. Some of the information in the Background section is in-universe, which might be better placed in the "Plot" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Woods and Water Route

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

There's uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. There's an "update needed" banner at the top of the page from 2018, indicating that major aspects of the article are missing. The "current concerns" outlined in the history section reference sources from the late 2000s. Z1720 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Donayre

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

There are many uncited statements, including the entire "Political career" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with Z1720 and also would raise the text; "He is currently wanted by the Peruvian authorities."

Is this contemporaneous? Can it be sourced so we at least know when it was accurate?

But certainly, it appears to me that the article no longer meets points 2 and 3 of the GA criteria. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Operative: No One Lives Forever

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

The article contains many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The plot is not concise and should be summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay lack-of-sourcing should be easily fixed. Plot absolutely needs trimming. Only two other things I see missing sources, one being the 2013 quote from Hubbard, but which I cannot find where it came from via a google search yet, and the sequel (which shouild be easy). — Masem (t) 17:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found the quote source, from a Jace Hall interview [30]. --Masem (t) 17:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I added cn tags to the article. According to WP:VG/LEAD (gameplay section is underneath the lead section) the gameplay does need references to reliable sources, so these will need to be added. I put citation needed tags in the article to indicate places that might need them. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, gameplay does need sourcing, but that usually can be pulled from reviews. Culling the plot is tricky only because it's been a long time since I played to know what to cull. — Masem (t) 16:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never played this game (or heard about it until earlier this month) so I'm not sure if I will be helpful to trim the plot. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have tackled cutting down the plot, sourcing the gameplay section, and removing a few statemnts that were tagged with CNs. There's only on CN remaining (regarding the nature of the acronyms) but I do not think that requires any demotion of this as an existing GA. — Masem (t) 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Light

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

There is uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a single paragraph without a citation. What are you talking about? Tigerboy1966  17:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigerboy1966: I have added "citation needed" templates to the article to show prose that need sources. The missing citations for an entire paragraph were the last paragraph in "Background" and first paragraph of "Assessment, honours and awards", although there are other sentences and phrases that also need citations. Z1720 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I will work my way through these in the next few days. Tigerboy1966  06:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

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

The "Overview" section has a "duplicates" yellow banner from 2023. This information should be moved to other areas of the article and removed so that the article can be concise. There is not much post-2016 information, including their current circulation and information on thier current business practices. There are a couple of uncited sentences. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added missing sources to two sentences in the "MediaNews Group era" section and added a line on the 2012 website redesign. I also added info on the 2020 layoffs, Virginia Farmier being named publisher and the Saturday print day elimination to the "Back to the Sneddens" section. Do you think anything else is missing from the most recent sections? Eric Schucht (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Schucht: I am not an expert in this topic, but the article now looks up to date. I think the "Overview" section should be removed as it is just a repeat of the lead. I would also use level 3 headings to divide the "Snedden era" section. Z1720 (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging and consolidating the Overview with the opening section. And level 3 headings is fine by me. Feel free to make the changes. I'm not an expert on this either. Eric Schucht (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I moved some info over from the Overview to the introduction, removed duplicate info, added the year to circulation figures and re-titled the Overview section to "Circulation and coverage." Do you think that works? Eric Schucht (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kempegowda International Airport

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

This article has several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Unresolved citation needed tags have been present since September 2024. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to close this as I don't think the issues have been addressed. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to leave this GAR open for a bit longer? I'm currently trying to address the issues brought up as they seem fixable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beryllium

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

The article contains uncited statements, some tagged with "citation needed" since 2023. Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an easy "save". There are a lot of citations. One area that is weak is isotopes, may be @Double sharp or @Nucleus hydro elemon knows sources?
I Looked in to the two citation needed and simply deleted the sentences as unsourced and not notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton: I added cn tags to the places where I think citations are needed. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...beryllium is, uniquely among all stable elements with an even atomic number, a monoisotopic and mononuclidic element. I'm not sure is CIAAW enough to cite this. It verifies that beryllium is the only monoisotopic element with an even atomic number, but not the only mononuclidic element with an even atomic number. If we list all 21 mononuclidic elements, we can see that beryllium is the only one with an even atomic number, but I'm not sure is that allowed.
  • The shortest-lived known isotope of beryllium is 16Be, which decays through neutron emission with a half-life of 6.5×10−22 s. Is it notable? Even it is, as the half-lives of 15Be and 16Be are 790±270 ys and 650±130 ys, there should be a footnote as in the article technetium to explain why the shortest-lived known isotope cannot be determined based on existing data. It is quite a trouble to me.
  • No beryllium silicide has been identified. I can't verify this. Perhaps it appears somewhere else where I missed, or it adds another [citation needed] into the article.
  • Although Wöhler first used to term "beryllium" in 1828, it is not the first word derived from beryl. The names "beryllina", "beryllerde", "berylline" (all from doi:10.1007/s10698-022-09448-5) were used before "beryllium", and perhaps should be mentioned in the article.
Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have some answers (?) to the first and third bullet points.
Reconrabbit 16:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an Etymology section where I moved come content about "beryllina". Johnjbarton (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are still 3 "citation needed" tags on this article. They are somewhat hard to find references for:
  • It thus has very high ionization potentials and strong polarization while bonded to other atoms, which is why all of its compounds are covalent. This seems hard to prove - there are no ionic beryllium compounds? What about the fluoroberyllates? It may be better to just find a reference for Beryllium's chemical behavior is largely a result of its small atomic and ionic radii..
  • the attached carbon still bears a negative dipole moment. May be supported by the reference immediately preceding it, but I can't access the work.
  • Naturally occurring beryllium, save for slight contamination by the cosmogenic radioisotopes, is isotopically pure beryllium-9 [...] May be in Chemistry of the Elements or another reference work. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry only touches on its nuclear properties briefly.
Reconrabbit 21:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed two of those. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Davido

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

GA articles relating to musicians must include the a Musical style and influences section, possibly titled "Artistry". Without this it is not comprehensive, per WP:WPMAG. For example, A Good Time mentions Afropop as one of his genres while many Nigerian sources and an interview show his inspirations. Best, 750h+ 09:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I can definitely include an artistry section to the article, I will work on the article this weekend. Thanks for your comments.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Versace. You can add a word or two on his musical influences as well. I am following this page.HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an artistry section to the article. Please let me know your thoughts about it.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
citation style is a little inconsistent throughout and some websites should be italicized but i think the article for the most part is better 750h+ 11:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Article meets GA features. Not having a musical style is not a feature and WP:WPMAG is just an essay. - Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have minor issues with the Artistry section. It gives the impression that western musical influences are at par with local singers in shaping his career but that is not very factual. Aside from multiple references that clearly show bigger impacts of local artists such as Dbanj, Don Jazzy, 2Face, etc on his career 12, 3, he has also narrated this local influence in the lyrics of his songs, something I can't recall he ever doing for 50 Cent, etc. There should be a balance in the tone of the section that show he isn't an "Americanized Nigerian singer" that came into afrobeats. In addition, I propose having at last 2 local musicians mentioned as influences as well, and they should be written first. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandsomeBoy: I'm not sure why you aren't editing the article. Is there something preventing you from adding Davido's musical influences to the article? I'm curious because you're complaining here instead of working on improving the article. Just because Davido mentioned Ja Rule and 50 Cent as artists he grew up listening to doesn't mean he cited them as musical influences. As a matter of fact, the artistry section doesn't list any of his musical influences. I really don't know why you derived the false narrative about depicting Davido as an Americanized Nigerian singer.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Versace1608: actually, it's not their responsibility to add to the article, they are a reviewer: reviewers usually highlight their concerns but it's not their responsibility to edit the article, but they can if they want. In this case HandsomeBoy is allowed to bring up as many complaints as they want but they don't have to edit to the article. 750h+ 13:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is HandsomeBoy the reviewer? Weren't you the one who created the GA reassessment page and notified both me and HandsomeBoy about the issues you had with the article? Am I missing something here?  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, i opened the reassessment (by the way, when you open a reassessment, the script automatically notifies the GA nominator, relevant projects, and other main editors). also, from what i've seen above, HandsomeBoy is only giving reviews and has only commented on issues they have on the article (they don't look like they'd like to edit, from what i've seen above), while you committed to helping fix the article. best, 750h+ 14:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    HandsomeBoy is the page creator. You cannot conclude that he does not like to edit simply because he decided to leave a comment instead of making edits to the page. You should give him a chance to respond to the questions I asked him before drawing conclusions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    page creator or not, he doesn't have to edit the article. however, we can ask @HandsomeBoy: if he'd like to edit the article or not and address the concerns he listed. 750h+ 14:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to be adding anymore info to the artistry section. Whoever feels like the artistry section needs more info should edit the article and add the info. You requested for an artistry section to be added to the article, and I did just that. Someone else mentioned that the page you cited to justify this reassessment isn't a policy, just someone else's opinion. I see that you have no rebuttal to that. If HandsomeBoy has issues with the article, he can edit it. There's no law preventing him from editing the article and he is not the reviewer.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Versace1608, I am leaving the article to you since I have removed "your important additions" according to you. I think having two editors trying to restore a GA looks difficult, however I am sorry if I scattered things for you. I don't like it when a Nigerian article is delisted. I would vote keep when things are sorted out, when your "GA-dream article meets GA features. You can revert my edits too. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if you feel like I did not appreciate the contributions you made to the article. It wasn't my intention to offend you bro. I just feel like you removed a few vital info from the article. Davido's musical start as a member of KB International is one of the information you removed. I personally believe this info is vital to the article. You also removed info about some of Davido's singles from the lede. Someone falsely listed Davido as the most charitable musician in Nigeria without backing it up with any evidence. The lack of an artistry section was the only issue that 750h+ had with the article. I believe I have addressed this particular issue despite HandsomeBoy's comments. Please feel free to edit the article and add new info you feel is important. At this point, the article needs more info, not less.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see any issue again. The GA [imporver] has solved the problem raised by the noninator. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a citation needed tag to the article. I also don't think Bellanaija is a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Z1720, BellaNaija is a reliable source for entertainment news. A few Nigerian editors have reached consensus regarding its reliability and added it to WP:RSNG. Our discussion can be seen here.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article seems to address major topics and my citation concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edson Chagas

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

Article does not contain post-2015 information on the subject, and thus does not fulfil WP:GA? 3a in covering all major aspects of the biography. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, what major aspects of the biography are missing that are covered in reliable, secondary sources? Also the article is updated through 2016, not 2015. There is not a lot of post-2016 activity so that will take little time to improve. czar 17:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay we're up to date with recent exhibitions. Let me know if there's anything more you were expecting. czar 18:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Thanks for doing this. I will also search for sources later, but I will be limited because I do not speak Portuguese. I think the article's formatting can be a little better: the "Early life" is quite short, then there's a long "Career" section, then a short "Personal life" section. Perhaps the "Career" section could be split up with level 3 headings, or some information from Careers can be moved to other sections (maybe change the first heading to "Early life and early career"?). I am also open to other suggestions. I also think the lead is quite short: with the added information, can the lead be expanded a little bit? Z1720 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the lede, though I think it covered the basics of the article. Fixed the headings, which were changed in a drive-by edit today. czar 02:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, any further gaps or action needed? czar 03:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar: I removed too much detail of the artist's exhibitions and reception of these as too much detail. If the exhibitions are notable (which I think some are) they can be moved to those articles when created. I think the article is missing critical commentary of Chagas's artistic style or consistent themes in his work: this is different from critical commentary on an exhibition, which only talks about the themes of one work which might not carry over into others. This will add an extra section or two after the biography. Z1720 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Reception is specifically related to his portion of a group show, why would it be off-topic? It's commentary on his career.
    I've included all sources I've found that cover his work. Not all living artists have retrospective assessments of themes across their work. czar 14:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Czar: I think a general statement about an exhibit's reception is not off-topic, but several comments about the exhibition with quotes is a bit excessive. Totally understand about the retrospective: when I've written about choreographers, sometimes a source about a specific work will say something like "in their typical artistic style, the choreographer added such-and-such theme to the piece". This would be a statement that could be cited in their artistic style, as the source has identified something specific as being part of the artist's overall work, even though it is in the context of comparing a specific piece to their overall work. I'm happy to take a look at some sources if the potential for that information might be in there. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dug up a German-language interview and added a summative statement on his style (though it's not so different from what was already there and in the lede). Feel free to take a look for sources if you see anything major missing. czar 12:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I approve of Z1720's removal of so much detail on reception of exhibitions. However, regarding Z1720's comment that "If the exhibitions are notable (which I think some are) they can be moved to those articles when created", we're very unlikely to create articles on individual exhibitions. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: checking back—any further comments? czar 13:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Czar: Not sure if my comment about finding information about their artistic style in reviews was addressed: I would expect an article about an artist to have a section that describes their artistic style. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty Warriors 4

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

There are uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Gameplay" section has a "encyclopedic tone" banner at the top, placed in Dec 2023. I agree with this banner, as the tone of some of the prose in this section is promotional. The article uses IMDB as a source a couple times: this website is considered unreliable and should be replaced with with reliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love this game and wish I had time to take a crack at fixing this, but as I look over the article I think it’s going to need nearly a total rewrite to maintain GA status. The development and reception are super thin and the plot seems quite excessive, even with multiple storylines that are quite similar to each other. It feels like this article needs just about a new everything - research, restructure, and rewriting. Red Phoenix talk 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started filling in what I could find for development. Fleshing out the reception shouldn't be too hard, but you're right the big task is redoing the plot section. I'll see if I can do more later this week. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Out topic @Guyinblack25, glad you haven't retired yet. I wanted to let you know that one of your FA articles Kingdom Hearts needs some hand also. Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I still do consider myself retired; I just help out here and there when I have a spare moment. I'm not really in a position to be back full or part time. I just happen to be very familiar with this game, so I know I can help without it taking too much time. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Question about sourcing - Could the description section of a YouTube video be used to cite composer, arranger, and lyricist credits? It is the music video on the singer's official YouTube channel. I can't find anything else for the theme song "Cross Colors". If someone has the CD insert or another source, that would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I'd say the development and reception sections are in a good place now (still room for improvement for anyone so bold). I'll take a stab at condensing the story section later this week. Any copy edits or feedback would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Here's what's left on the to-do list for anyone able to help.
  • rewrite the "Gameplay" section
  • condense the "Wu story" section in a paragraph under the general "Story" section
  • integrate the "Other stories" section into the general "Story" section
  • condense/rewrite the second paragraph of the "DW4 Empires" section
  • not needed, but reception content for the two expansions could easily be added
As always, any copy edits or feedback would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Another update. Here is what's left to do if anyone is able to help.
  • sourcing for the "Plot" section (the game levels/scene should work, it will just take time)
  • information about non-North American releases for the expansions
  • condense/rewrite the second paragraph of the "DW4 Empires" section
  • reception content for "DW4 Empires" section
As always, feedback/copy edits would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Probably last update of what's left to do.
  • sourcing for the "story" subsection (the game levels/scene should work, it will just take time)
  • information about non-North American releases for the expansions
  • a copy edit/review from someone else would be helpful
(Guyinblack25 talk 15:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Guyinblack25: Thanks for doing these updates. I have added two citation needed tags to the "Gameplay" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those parts because I could not find written sources for them. Parts of it where there before and I rewrote it from what I remembered from playing the game. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
There are a few more references I plan to add to the last paragraph of the story section, but aside from that I'm done. I realize this reassessment has been open for a while, so if you need to close it I think the current state of the article is good enough to stand as is. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
I'm done with my edits to article. If some one else can give it a copy edit, that would be appreciated. Regardless, I think it meets GA criteria now. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

World Chess Championship 1972

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

The article contains lots of uncited statements, including some marked with "citation needed" since September 2023. Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one "citation needed", something about the cold war context. Could probably refactor the statement to say that the match generated considerable international media interest or something to that effect, which is fairly self-evidently true, but could easily find cites from among our existing references. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added citation needed tags to the article to indicate other places where citations are needed. Some of these are necessary to support opinionated statements. about the matches. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of those are completely unnecessary. "Fischer won, putting him ahead 5-3". That's how scoring works in chess, this WP:BLUE stuff. The Alexander quote is obviously related to the book which is cited in the very same sentence. The fact that Spassky would have retained the title in the event of a tie is cited earlier in the article.... MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone thinks a citation is unnecessary, they can remove it. WP:BLUE is an essay, "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors...it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." It does not supercede WP:V. Regardless, I think statements like, "Fischer dominated the 1971 Candidates Tournament; his 6–0–0 defeats of both Mark Taimanov and Bent Larsen were, and as of 2024 still are, unparalleled at this level of chess", "Fischer won 19 games (plus 1 win on forfeit) without losing once, almost all against top grandmasters", and "Excitement grew as the match was postponed and people questioned whether Fischer would appear" need citations. If something is cited earlier in the article, the citation can be repeated. If the citation is earlier in the sentence, the citation can be moved to the end of the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like excessive and possibly reactionary WP:TAGBOMBING for earlier opposition in this thread. For example, how do you justify putting a citation-needed tag on an already cited quote:

According to C.H.O'D. Alexander:<ref>Alexander 1972, p. 96</ref> "This game was notable for two things. First, Fischer played the Queen's Gambit for the first time in his life in a serious game; second, he played it to perfection, the game indeed casting doubt on Black's whole opening system."[citation needed]

If the citation is earlier in the sentence, the citation can be moved to the end of the sentence. Z1720 (talk) Instead of tagging, why not just move it?! --IHTS (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ihardlythinkso: This article has multiple missing citations. It would take me hours to look at each uncited text, understand what the text is telling the reader and possibly find a reliable source that will verify the information. Fixing one missing citation will not allow this article to meet the GA criteria. If other editors are interested in fixing up the article, I am happy to provide another review once the work is complete and indicate where citations are missing, as I did above. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one asked you to go digging to source any missing refs, just move a ref in lieu of tagging it lacking. And am not sure it's required that a ref be located at the tail of a quotation instead of at the head. (Does it in any policy or guideline?) And whether a text requires a cited ref is afterall a judgment call (reasonably open to challenge), you seem to suggest it is more of an absolute requiring "fixing". Am in agreement w/ Max that you've added several unnecessary flags. --IHTS (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ihardlythinkso: Before moving a reference to the end of the sentence, I would have to check the reference to make sure it is verifying the information I am claiming it is verifying. If sources have been moved without this check being done, then the article will have to go through a source check before it can be declared "keep". Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PAIC says "All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies", which also applies to quotes. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:V, all text needs a reference to verify the information. An exception includes the lead (because the information is cited later in the article). Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CITEFOOT says "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity." According to WP:V, all text needs to be verifiable (not "needs a reference"). --IHTS (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GAR coordinators: some adjudicating needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      GA Criteria 2b says "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)." I see a lot of bits of text that could, in my opinion, be reasonably challenged. As such, I don't think we can reasonably call the article good enough to retain GA status until this is dealt with. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:V applies to all of Wikipedia. GA has a higher standard which de facto is "all content needs a reference, apart from the usual exceptions" which Iazyges mentions just above. Now sure, if a quote is attributed to (making up a fake example) "Nuclear Energy by Z1720, Ph. D" but the citation is before the quote, the logical thing is to put the citation after the quote instead. This changes when it's unclear if the cited source also supports the content after it. Not everyone will have access to a given source, and improper attribution is something we should always avoid. It's harder to catch than simple uncited sentences.
      Having taken a quick look at the article, I see clear instances of things that need citations but lack them; for example: The combination of the intrigue surrounding whether Fischer will play or not and the "American versus Russian" narrative within the Cold War context sparked excitement throughout the world has no source (and uses "will" when it should use "would"). This is a claim that could certainly be challenged. If no one is willing to source things like that, then why should we allow this article to remain a GA?
      If someone here does have the sources, and they do support the content, then moving and editing them to reflect this should not be a huge deal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne2: are either of you interested in fixing up the above? To be clear, there is no obligation at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I care, but the reqs to fix are a bit vague, and RL considerations currently keep me confined to casual editing only. Sorry. --IHTS (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made general improvements and added citations in spots marked by Z1720 (except one citation) → "Over the course of the match "nearly one thousand" moves were played,[15] which would equate to nearly two thousand plies." Byrn & Nei cite the number of moves made in the course of the match, and the article makes the conversion of the number of moves (def: two changes on a chess board) into plies (def: one change on the board), thus doubling the number given by Byrne & Nei and getting nearly two thousands. I don't see it as an original research. If you do, it's easier to just remove this uncited info. - LastJabberwocky (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If one number is WP:CALCed from a source, it should be cited to that source. That said, is this just repeating the same number in two different ways? CMD (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"That said, is this just repeating the same number in two different ways?" Exactly that. The same number converted into another unit of measurement (plies). - LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to just say the number of plies, perhaps explaining it? Then an unfamiliar reader wouldn't have to go to the plies article to figure out what the sentence is trying to say. CMD (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a chess expert (I know how to play but little about higher level strategy). Is there a significance to stating the number of plies here? If not, why should it be stated rather than left implied? It seems like a very simple calculation to anyone familiar with what plies are. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lantern (film)

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

Hi, I believe the article and the review does not meet the quality standards outlined in WP:GAN/I and should be reassessed.

Here are some points I think need fixing. Sorry in advance if this ends up being too long.

1. Plot/Arrowverse sections

I don't think the plot section follows the guidelines (MOS:FILMPLOT).

It's almost 700 words, and some parts are too detailed, with "scene-by-scene breakdowns." It also talks about the characters' actions and events in a way that feels more like telling a story than giving a summary.

For the Arrowverse, I don't think it needs its own section. It could be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the plot summary that the movie is set on Earth-12, and then a note could be added maybe something like "Billions of years ago, on Earth-12 the Guardians of the Universe used the green essence of willpower to create an intergalactic police force called the Green Lantern Corps." [a]

  1. ^ The Arrowverse crossover event "Crisis on Infinite Earths" establishes that the 2011 film version of Green Lantern takes place on the world of Earth-12.

2. Music section

  • It's not that significant on its own; it should be a subsection under the production section. (MOS:FILMMUSIC)
    • Done by Lililolol.

3. Release section

  • I think the "Marketing" subsection should be the main section. Under it, the "Theatrical" and "Home Media" subsections should be merged into a single subsection titled "Release".
  • The other subsections, Animation, Comics, Roller Coaster, and Video Game, should be placed under their own section titled "Related Media." This makes more sense imo.
  • The Roller Coaster subsection has an unsourced paragraph. Either add sources or remove it.

4. Reception section

  • The Box Office subsection has an unsourced paragraph.
  • Many industry analysts felt that Green Lantern failed to perform to expectations. This should be expanded to include who made this statement, when it was said, and the reasons behind it.
  • Some publications listed the losses for the studio as high as $75 million could be better worded idk.
  • In the Critical Response section, more reviews should be added (check Rotten Tomatoes for missing reviews). Also, following WP:RECEPTION. Yes, it's not a guideline, but I'm sure it will improve the quality.
  • For Accolades, add another table for refs, also the Reelz Channel ref is broken.

5. Future/In popular culture sections

  • Maybe it's just me, but I think it could flow better similar to the "Cancelled DC Extended Universe Reboot" subsection. The other subsections might work better if they followed the same tone.
  • "Future" section could be re-titled to "Follow-up" or "Cancelled Projects." Idk, it just makes more sense than calling it "Future."

6. References

7. Infobox

8. Lead section

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lililolol (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lililolol, can you not relocate references, fix CS1 errors, rename headers, merge sections, or remove unnecessary detail? Even if you can't add citations, you can do the other stuff, right? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AirshipJungleman29 I can, but I am not interested enough to do so :) Lililolol (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interested enough to start a GAR, and list out a series of easily-fixable things, but not interested enough to actually improve an encyclopedia article Lililolol? Alright then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 i know its weried lol Lililolol (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lililolol It's your choice. But personally I think if you have the dedication to point out all these flaws, you can fix atleast some of them (Be Bold). Not doing so feels a bit rude in my eyes. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I changed my mind. I personally think that a lot of editors refuse editing for practical reasons, whether it be lack of expertise, or just lack of interest. I think that's find reflecting back. I personally never really liked to copyedit. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@All Tomorrows No Yesterdays No im not trying to be rude, sorry if I sound like that!. Omg really sorry, tho, I did the merging a while back :) Lililolol (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't have the time until at least the middle of next week, but I can try and work on this. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Slow progress, but have started. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some more done. Trudging along when I have the time and will. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have very little time for WP this week and this isn't a particularly exciting article. Popping this message in to say I'll continue after this weekend. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire folklore by region

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

There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire sections. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article came about after being excised from the (large) parent article. Been ages since I looked at it - will do so at some point this week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A few bits and pieces (citing or removing the Cambodia section, also pondering about what to do with the Folktales section at bottom) and rejigging the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, follow up poke, just checking you're still interested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Will do over weekend. I have commented out unreferenced section as I suspect it will require more snooping than I am prepared to do currently - I'll make a note on the talk page for later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Library

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

There is lots of uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. A large part of the article is a list of what is in their collections, which I think can be spun out and some highlights written in a couple paragraphs of prose. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless absolutely necessary for length reasons, I'd certainly disagree with spinning off the collection highlights, which are surely the main interest of the article. What's the readable prose length? Gutting an article like that is by itself an argument for removing GA status. Otherwise it's just a very big library with mostly the same printed books as other very big libraries. It's in the nature of the BL that "a couple paragraphs of prose" (sic) is nowhere near enough, and that short coverage would badly unbalance the article. You are completely ignoring the strong rejection of this suggestion in October (article talk) and just ploughing on with your personal view regardless, despite no one else supporting it. Why are you not showing the early part of the GA review, with all this? Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I think the "Periodicals and philatelic collections" section does an excellent job showcasing how the library's collection can be written as prose, instead of as a list. Discussion did take place on the article's talk page after I brought up my concerns there. My review in the introductions of this GAR concerns my issues with today's article version: the list of collections is included in my concerns and can be addressed by other editors below. Uncited text throughout the article would also have to be resolved before I recommend this article "keep" its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Discussion did take place on the article's talk page after I brought up my concerns there", at Talk:British_Library#GA_concerns. Two editors (I was one) stated their disagreement with you on the point of splitting-off the list; that was it. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a different problem, but I'm not a fan of the organisation here: loads of L2 headers, no real hierarchy or sense of coherency. For instance, we have an L2 header for the recent cyberattack (incidentally, the info here is now out of date, as things are back up and running), which is preceded by a few other sections that could loosely be termed "history"... except that we've then got "Using the library's reading rooms" slapped into the middle. The uncited text is a bigger problem, but I wouldn't pass this under 1b at the moment even if everything were cited. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly fell off my chair when I saw UC's comment "I'm not a fan of the organisation" until I realised this referred to the text of the article rather than to the BL itself. The organisation of the text doesn't greatly bother me at GA level, but having thirteen "citation needed" tags – all of them justified – decidedly does. I'm uneasy about the "Highlights of the collection" section, too. I'm with Johnbod rather than Z1720 on the continued presence of the list, but it contains well over 300 statements, fewer than 60 of which have their own citations. If the vague phrase at the head of the list "Highlights, some of which were selected by the British Library, include ..." purportedly covers all the others (and I doubt it) this needs to be explicit in every case. It would, in my view, take an enormous, not to say unreasonable, amount of effort to bring the citations in this article up to scratch. If anyone is willing to undertake that I take my hat off to him/her, but as things stand I think there is a strong prima facie case for removing the GA status. – Tim riley talk 09:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: I see the editor who promoted the article to GA in 2011 was me, but it was then only 2,217 words long and adequately cited. It has since grown to more than 12,000 words including the lists and that's where the lack of citations has crept in. Tim riley talk 09:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Work is being done on the text citations, by SchroCat and others. The majority of the manuscript "highlights" have their own articles, & I'm dubious about the necessity of doing the tedious work of bringing over the links there to the list. The list could be somewhat reduced, in the case of MS perhaps to only those with articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Johnbod. I'll suspend judgement until SchroCat has finished his work on the text. Tim riley talk 17:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for rearranging, UC. That makes a lot more sense now.
    The whole Highlights section is a barrel of OR, based on what people think looks interesting. There is no supporting citations that say each of the pieces is a highlight (there’s a citation at the start of the list (ref 106) to a BL page that lists just fifteen pieces, which is considerably less than the extensive lists. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Here are just 15 of our treasures, chosen to show the range of our unique collections...." I don't think this claims to show anything like all highlights, but concentrates on diversity. No doubt they have produced many such lists at times, for different purposes. Several of these ones are not in our list - at least two are printed books. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be in favour of spinning out an article on Collections of the British Library (especially as some sub-collections already seem to have their own article) and using that as a means to drastically reduce the volume of this parent article, but I'm not sure that would be a make-or-break matter for me as far as retaining GA status is concerned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the list is going to stay, it would probably need a whole bunch of citations. I think it would be easier and more beneficial for this article to follow UC's suggestion above to spin out this section of the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you keep saying. I repeat, I don't think it can be GA if that is done. Is it in fact necessary "to drastically reduce the volume of this parent article"? Yes, several parts of the collection have their own articles, mainly those that arrived from previously-existing collections. I don't really see how that affects the list in this article. Unless you know that something is in the rather haphazard group called Royal manuscripts, British Library, you won't be able to find it. I accept "highlights" may not be the right word. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a 'Collections' page would certainly be beneficial (after all, we have dedicated pages for things like the Philatelic Collections and the Cotton library, so why not) The Collections section on this page would then be whittled down to something more manageable and useful - and something that can be properly sourced, rather than the OR collection of 'Things that look interesting from a long time ago', which is what makes up the list at the moment. Trying to wade through the Maps, music, manuscripts and literature section is like being mugged by a gang of particularly aggressive blue links. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citations

I've covered most of the citation needed tags, but there are four left. There's no info on the BL website (it's still a skeleton version because of the hacking problem), and the archive site isn't clear on these points. Some of the connections may not be valid any more and I've taken out some bits which are definitely out of date, but I've left those four in place as I can't confirm or deny if the BL is still actively involved. (TRILT, for example, has been renamed and the new website (https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/) makes no reference to the BL, nor does anyone from the BL sit on the executive committee, but I can't find anything that says the BL was previously connected, but no longer is). I suspect (pure guesswork) that some of the services may be suspended—or at least access to the services is suspended—while the IT problems are being sorted, but the skeleton site doesn't make it clear what's happening. - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these may help:
  • I found this chapter (preprint of the text here) which goes into some detail on the BL's web archiving system, and makes the comparison with the BNF (though doesn't explicitly say that the process is based on that of the BNF): some perhaps-useful posts from the BL blog here, here (with outlinks to reports from UK papers) and here, the last of which confirms that the process was ongoing into mid 2023.
  • On radio archiving, we have this BL blog. I know blogs aren't generally good sources, but here I think we have an exception to report the barest facts of what an institution announced it was doing. This BBC page suggests that Redux was practically dead by 2022.
  • There's some material in this report for JISC about the BL's role in archiving/allowing access to BBC materials. Again, not the world's best source, but the author is an academic and the company seems like a reputable enough quasi-academic institution.
  • This thesis talks a lot about BBC archiving, but doesn't mention the BL except at arm's length (e.g. specific senior people from the BL being involved in discussions). It does have a 2008 web page on the history of BBC redux in the biblio, but frustratingly the link is dead and not available on Internet Archive.
  • The section we currently have on the BL's digital resources is cribbed largely from this BL blog post from 2012. It says that the BL collaborated with the BBC on BBC Pilot, and recorded the stuff on Broadcast News, but doesn't take any credit for TRILT. In fact, looking at what's written there, it sounds much more like the BL simply bought a licence to use TRILT (like many schools do), which I wouldn't say is really notable (they probably have a JSTOR subscription as well, but we don't need to mention that in their article).
UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declarations

  • Delist While there have been improvements on Dec 28 and 29, works seems to have stalled since then. An editor has not indicated that they are willing to address the issues in "Highlights of the collections", either by providing citations or spinning out the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression is that SchroCat has "volunteered" to take a look at it, but was trying to establish whether consensus existed here to do so? Again, my impression is that it has been established, so it would be good to hear from Schro whether he's willing/able to move forward. As before, I'm happy to help out with some axe-work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If SchroCat or any other editor indicates below that they are willing to conduct this work, I am happy to strike my declaration above. If we are unsure of the consensus on what to do with the Collections section, perhaps we should ping the GA coordinators to if there is consensus (and if so, what action is there consensus for) or if more discussion is needed. Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems rather impatient, especially over the holiday period. I presume that your grandly-titled "declaration" has no more weight than that of any other editor. As I've said above, if the "highlights" was too much reduced, that would lead me to "declare" for a delist. I don't think that citations for items with linked articles are essential, and given the BL's well known difficulties with the website, more time should be allowed. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that citations for items with linked articles are essential: under WP:GACR, they are: criterion 2b has All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). No exception is made for content cited in a different article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the delist: conversation has restarted concerning improvements. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be a consensus, but as I've !voted, I wouldn't feel comfortable calling it. Maybe to get more eyes/comments on the point, a neutrally worded comment could be left on a few projects or a centralised venue (I really don't think we need to go down the route of a full-blown RfC, but Johnbod is right in saying that a bit more time, given Christmas and the BL's website problems, wouldn't go amiss).
I think we could strike a balance in getting some of the more notable pieces sourced to publications (such as this), the BL's archived site etc, while reducing the ridiculously long lists to something more manageable. The 'Collections' Clarification: 'Highlights of the collection' section is over 7,800 words at the moment - about 88,425 bytes (without images!) - which makes it larger than 4874 of our 6072 featured articles - that's way too long for an unsourced section. We reduce individual BL collections down to a paragraph or two while having separate articles about them, so there is (in my not very humble opinion) no reason we can't do the same sort of thing here - but it has to strike the right balance between slimming down some of the 'less treasured' pieces, and still showing a good selection of what is there. Let's get more people involved to get a firmer consensus, though, as a first step. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Clarification on the section name added. SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel like there is a consensus, but I'm also involved. @GAR coordinators: Can one of you determine if there is consensus to take an action for the "Collection" section, and if so what that consensus is? Z1720 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting purely on the "Collections", I think the actual "Collections" section is a good length and appropriate for the article, but that the "Highlights of the collection" section is overly long. I think that section would be better served as being its article, linked in the "Collections" section; I have no opposition to buffing out the "collections" section to better summarize some of the content being moved, but I think the current giant list itself is unwieldy in a non-list article, and should be moved to its own list article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my reading of the above, it seems like there is a consensus to spin out "Highlights of the collection" and have prose that summarises that information. Is anyone interested in conducting this spin out? Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Work on the article has stalled. It has been two weeks since the last comment in this GAR, and over two weeks since the last edit to the article. It looks like no one is interested in conducting the WP:SPINOUT (that I see consensus for above) to fulfil the concise requirement listed in WP:GA? 1a. If the information was to stay in the article, the necessary citations have not been added. Unless someone is willing to get started with these edits, I think it is time to conclude this GAR. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It has stalled because I'm not seeing any closure on the discussion about the collections. I'd rather there was a more formal close than one of the involved parties deciding to act in the same way as they !voted. There is no rush on closing this process and it's doesn't need to be done to a timetable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have spun off the "highlights" list into a separate page. There remains the matters of how it should be summarised, the remaining uncited material, and whether the 3,700-word article is sufficiently "broad in coverage" for one of the world's largest libraries. @Z1720, SchroCat, Iazyges, UndercoverClassicist, Tim riley, and Johnbod: anyone interested in attending to these issues? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a little on the short side, but not too far off the Library of Congress, and the long, nearly unreadable list of items was more of a distraction than a benefit. We need to work some of those details back in, but only in a limited and controlled manner. At least with the main list gone, it focuses attention on what remains. - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this AJ29. I agree with SchroCat that some of the details should come back into the article, but hopefully as prose and not a giant list. Items that are frequently highlighted in reliable sources are probably the best items to consider adding back into the article first. I also think some items in the collection can be described in the "Exhibitions" section: that section is quite small and might be due for an expansion (although I do not know how much of the British Library's collection is exhibited, and do not live in Britain to find out for myself.) Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing

  1. ^ "Home". The National Battlefields Commision. Retrieved 2025-02-26.
  2. ^ "The British Army > Positioning of the troops > The two armies face each other > Battle of the Plaines of Abraham > The national Battlefields Commission". Batailles de 1759 et 1760. Retrieved February 26, 2025.
  3. ^ "The French Army > Positioning of the troops > The two armies face each other > Battle of the Plaines of Abraham > The national Battlefields Commission". Batailles de 1759 et 1760. Retrieved February 26, 2025.
  4. ^ "Northern Armageddon : the Battle of the Plains of Abraham : MacLeod, D. Peter, 1955- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive". Internet Archive. October 23, 2016. Retrieved February 26, 2025.
  5. ^ "SR111 – Die Tragödie der Swissair" [SR111 – The Tragedy of Swissair] (PDF). Cockpit (in German) (9): 14–16. September 2013. Retrieved 11 February 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1225482527"