Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 82

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 81) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 83) →

It's All Over Now, Baby Blue

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited statements. There are lots of one-sentence paragraphs which were not in the article when this passed GAN. Is all of this information notable Can all of this information be merged together into multi-sentence paragraphs? IMDB is used as a source, which is considered unreliable. Can another source be found to replace these? Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not just roll it back to an older version or trim out the unsourced/poorly sourced stuff? It doesn't strike me as insurmountable personally, especially considering I doubt there's many recent/new developments to be retained in a song like this... Sergecross73 msg me 02:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GA version from 2010 also used IMDB as a source, so that would need to be resolved. The uncited stuff could be trimmed out, but some of it might be necessary in the article for it to be complete: I'll let subject-matter experts decide that. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The unsourced one-line statements can mostly if not entirely be excised. The IMDB source seems to be limited to soundtracks, which can almost certainly be sourced elsewhere (e.g., the movie credits) and if not those are not essential to the article. Rlendog (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if its at full FA/MOS-level acceptance, but generally speaking, the music WikiProjects don't even require sources for track listing unless they're unreleased or particularly contentious for some reason. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to work on the article. I think rolling it back risks losing some useful info such as the 2015 release. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few small changes and tagged where some more are needed. Please feel free to add other tags. I'll try to maintain NPOV despite seeing Dylan give three amazing live performances of the song at the Royal Albert Hall this month! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose, do you intend to continue work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 Yes, I hope it won't need too much effort now. Feel free to ping me after about another week. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably back to GA standard now, but please tag any further issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry for the late response: I have been busy in real life. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joseph Franklin Rutherford

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article cites too many primary sources to be a GA. This inevitably leads to some synthesis. By my count, 96 of the cited references are to the group's own publications. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clannad (video game)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited paragraphs throughout the article; most of these do not fall under WP:PLOTCITE. Z1720 (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Don't see any issue with it, to be frank, the plot summary is clearly citing the work itself even if it doesn't have inline citations. All I see that might be an issue is a sentence or two that isn't cited, and can be removed in less than a minute. Delisting things the moment that some random person adds original research sets a very bad precedent. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, I think you misunderstand the purpose of GAR. If someone has added in a minor amount of WP:OR or uncited content, you remove the darn stuff if you can't find anything on the first two pages from a Google search. Again, not sure why removing poorly sourced or uncited content is such a terribly difficult thing to do. BarntToust 23:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a sentence of inference and an entire paragraph about some themes that was unsourced. Isn't that dandy? BarntToust 00:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BarntToust: The point of GAR is to review the article in comparison to the good article criteria. If others wish to address the concerns, then I encourage them to do so. It is a lot of work and time for one editor to maintain all 40,648 good articles to ensure that uncited information in the article is not OR. This article had entire paragraphs of uncited information: if I am checking for OR, I check much more than Google to ensure information is correct (such as newspaper databases in WP:LIBRARY or sources listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources) for each sentence of information. I am glad subject-matter experts can complete this process more quickly than I can. I encourage those who can quickly complete this task to review all good articles to ensure uncited information is either cited or removed. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720, it is not by any means difficult to look at an article, see where there is no citation or a {{Citation needed}} tag, and remove the offending content. Google test for info using keywords found the content in those uncited paragraphs, and if the bare minimum is done for due diligence, then the unsourced stuff goes bye-bye. Trying to look for sources to support existing unsourced content is the rough equivalent of Writing Wikipedia articles backward, and nobody should be doing that. BarntToust 00:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    now, if someone looks at a bunch of content about, say, music in a game and it's all unsourced, it's better to remove the stuff and someone can do proper research about the music. BarntToust 00:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BarntToust: In the past, I have been pinged, similar to how I have been pinged above, for removing unsourced information from a good article without looking for sources. I am not willing to be wiki-yelled at for removing information from a good article without effectively looking for sources first. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720 Hey, removing unsourced content is what is objectively in the right, and getting wiki-yelled at needs to be met with a harsh reprimand of "if you care so much, wiki-yeller, then you may look for sources yourself. the content is in the revision before I removed it, and if it can be cited, it may be restored". There's nothing better than being objectively right about policy. BarntToust 00:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Thermopylae

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Closing as keep to allow Matarisvan to work on the topic in the order they want. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several uncited statements, including the entire "Thespian monument" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I was planning to work on this one and all the other articles in the Second Persian invasion of Greece topic. I was just about to ping the GAR process to ask for 6-8 months of time for rewriting all these articles like I did with the article on Plataea. My plan was to start with Mycale (easiest), and do Thermopylae (toughest) at the end, but this GAR being opened now could reverse that. Could a pause be put on this GAR, or perhaps could it be closed till I am done with the rewrites? Tagging @AirshipJungleman29 and @UndercoverClassicist for their views. Matarisvan (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: I'm fine with this being paused, and potentially put on hold and removed from the GAR list while edits are ongoing. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: There's no rush to bring an article to GAR. Please ping me if you would like me to review the article again. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American automobile industry in the 1950s

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Two votes of keep constitute a keep vote 750h+ 14:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including some tagged with "citation needed" since March 2023 and a very large paragraph. History.com is used as a source, which is considered unreliable on Wikipedia (WP:RSPHISTORY), while "Auto Universum" and "supercars.net" might not be considered reliable. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to assist soon. 750h+ 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly which sentences are being called into question? It's hard to address if you aren't specific, particularly in a reassessment of a GA. For instance: "Like many similar cars of the time it was not operational, except for the electrical components such as the motorized trunk and front hood, although some of its innovations appeared later in the Lincoln Premiere.{{r|supercars}}" all that is being cited is the fact that many of the features of the concept car Mercury XM-800 were non-functional, which is very common with a concept car (being a non-production model created for "looks" and promotion only). I wouldn't find it so controversial or contentious of a claim that would require more robust citations. 14.1.92.115 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC) (aka, dennis)[reply]
    If the issue is whether the Premiere later had these features, <ref name="flory2008">{{cite book|last=Flory Jr.|first=J. "Kelly"|title=American Cars, 1946-1959 Every Model Every Year|year=2008|publisher=McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers|isbn=978-0-7864-3229-5}}</ref> is in the Premier article establishing that. 14.1.92.115 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: seeming as the article saw significant vandalism over the 11 years as a GA, i restored the only bad section, "Innovations", back to its 2013 condition, albeit with changes to make it GA worthy. What do you think 750h+ 16:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Dennis Brown logged out, btw (wikibreak, but saw the notice for this on my talk page). I've commented out the "history" ref for now. While it might now pass WP:RS, I'm not sure that makes it completely useless for trivial citations. I would say after the clean up, it is worth keeping the GA. It has seen a lot of less than stellar editing over the years, but I try to be careful to not look like I WP:own it when policing it. Thanks, 750h+, for the clean up. 14.1.92.115 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USS Texas (BB-35)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 17 year-old GA to dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):

  • 1b. The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.
  • 2b. Some claims are cited to unreliable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
  • 2c. There are at least 18 portions of text that solely cite primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012)
  • 3a. The article lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024.
  • 3b. The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources.

Note: the above is modified from my request for MILHIST A-Class reappraisal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GAR coordinators: Per this discussion with the MILHIST coordinators, can this be placed on hold pending A-Class reappraisal? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wasn't involved in the Coord discussion, I don't think there's any conflict of interest, so granted. Unless I'm just blind, there's no place to amend this on the template itself, but it should be considered on hold pending the A-Class work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a notice at the top of the article talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue on waiting to close this until the A class reassessment is closed either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the A-class reassessment page. If A-Class is retained, this GAR can probably be withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How active is Operation Majestic Titan, which would seem/have seemed to be interested in polishing this article up? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan where does this polishing-job stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to post this at the A-class page? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No? That would be the job of the MILHIST coords, if anyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, going a little slow but should be done in a month. Matarisvan (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, I don't think I will be able to work on this rewrite. I've gotten stuck with the rewrite of the Persian invasion of Greece articles, and cannot find the time. Matarisvan (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Forbes Field

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The "Gallery: 1910s Panorama" and "Gallery: other illustrations" should probably be removed for WP:NOTGALLERY and their images redistributed in the article or removed. Many short one- or two-sentence paragraphs should probably be merged for readability, particularly in the "Baseball" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mark Kellogg (reporter)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite short, with several sources listed in the "Further reading" section. I am not sure that all major aspects of this biography are covered in this article. The lead is also quite short and does not cover all major aspects of the article, and there are uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, but this is in pretty rough shape. At least the Hatch book is on Internet Archive. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barnard is also on Internet Archive; I'm making some progress but the sources significantly disagree with each other regarding a number of aspects of Kellogg's life. Hog Farm Talk 05:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - How does this article look now? I've incorported the Saum source from the further reading, and have relied very heavily on the Barnard source, which is the single most detailed and thoroughly researched work on Kellogg from what I can tell. I've replaced the unreliable web references, everything is cited, and the lead has been expanded. It is also more comprehensive thanks to the Barnard source, with the ProseSize tool measuring it at 4317 bytes and 721 words when this GAR was opened, and 12kb and 1,953 words now. Hog Farm Talk 03:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Haile Selassie

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses lots of long block quotes: these create copyright concerns and make the text very long. I suggest that these are summarised, reduced, or removed. The article is over 11,000 words and contains too much detail: WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles of this size are spun out to other articles and the prose reduced. I think summarising the block quotes will help with this, as well as removing other material. The article also contains uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the quotes in this article provide no substantive contribution to it, and seem to be included only for aesthetic reasons. You could argue that this article also uses too many images for the same reason. Removing some of these would be for the best. As for prose issues, I've been working on cleaning up the worst of it (the Personal life section). genderBiohazard (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GenderBiohazard: I see that you started working on the block quotes. Are you planning to continue working on this? Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but any help is appreciated. genderBiohazard (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOOBIG helps ensure articles stay within WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, but in this case (and for many other biographies) it's not clear what the sub-articles might be. The existing main articles do point to obvious places to be cut (eg. the Collective security and the League of Nations, 1936 subsection is a lot for one speech and has some prose issues, and the background in Wollo famine could be condensed), but in general I would not delist a slightly longer biography with no sub-articles just for size reasons. The various bits of unsourced text is more of an issue. CMD (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the article is rather long but not absurdly so, and the material is very evenly distributed among the biographical sections, and almost all properly cited too. I'm accustomed to hiving off lists and bibliographies and so on into subsidiary articles, but there's really nothing here that would make sense to split out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was between 9,000 to 10,000 words, I probably wouldn't be too bothered (and a copyedit would probably reduce that word count). However, at over 11,000 words I think some information should be removed. I think some places that subject-specific editors might want to summarise information more effectively throughout the article. Some specific areas I would target are the lead (to get it down to four paragraphs, and ensure that all the information in the lead is also in the article body), "1960s", "Rastafari messiah", and "Personal life". The "Gallery" at the end of the article should also probably be removed and images redistributed in the article, per WP:NOTGALLERY. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly mustn't delist an article because an editor finds it uncomfortable. The shared criteria do not specify any exact length, and major subjects can have longer articles, that's just how it is. I've copy-edited the lead, Collective security, 1960s, Rastafari messiah, and Personal life. I've removed the terminal gallery; there seem to be plenty of images already in the text. The text is down to 10,700 words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 I am inclined to agree to keeping. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the speech section, removing the peacock language in the process, and also removed the league of nations claim which was not supported by the source. I can't find a source for the French Somaliland trip I can access, but I'm pretty sure it's in the NY Times archives. CMD (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added cn tags to places that need citations. Except for the first paragraph in "Name", the citations are for a sentence or phrase which should be quicker fixes. As for length: 1a says that "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience." If an article is WP:TOOBIG, then I have doubts that it is concise, but since that itself is not enough to be against WIAGA, I added places where I felt the phrasing was not concise, like the lead "1960s", "Rastafari messiah", and "Personal life". I'm not too fond of the connotation that I recommend delisting because I find something uncomfortable, as I try to ensure my comments are based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not my own feelings. If others think the TOOBIG editing guideline needs to be modified, they are happy to propose changes in the appropriate venue. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GAR coordinators: discussion has stalled, a close would be appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a suitable consensus to delist here. Happy to close as keep unless anyone has any last minute cases to not do so. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: There is established consensus to keep this article. All issues have been addressed. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 16:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited text, including many entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might take on this, but it won't be quick. Much of the uncited stuff is pretty WP:SKYISBLUE, like this para:

All the medieval buildings that are now cathedrals of England were Roman Catholic in origin, as they predate the Reformation. All these buildings now serve the Church of England as a result of the change to the official religion of the country, which occurred in 1534 during the reign of Henry VIII.

Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, as well as the amount of unsourced commentary, the article lacks focus on its title, particularly the rambling historical background. Maybe it could instead be re-structured around common features in English cathedral buildings with contrasting examples of each feature. Clearly a lot of work has gone into the article which needs to be kept somehow but, over time, it seems to have drifted away from its initial aim. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way of doing it, perhaps not the best. But it doesn't really have a bearing here. Johnbod (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of what we'd need to do to keep it meeting the criteria. Currently, in my view, it has problems in 2b (inline sources) and 3b (staying focused). --Northernhenge (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "we", are you intending to do anything yourself? Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant “we” collectively – I’m happy to help as part of a group but it’s not a subject I know anything about really. I agree with your previous comment! --Northernhenge (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod and Northernhenge: can you provide an approximate timeframe for your work on this article? No rush. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won’t be directly involved. It’s not my subject and, as Johnbod said, my idea was “not the best. But it doesn't really have a bearing here”. I’m happy to leave it to the experts, but can help with length, phrasing, reference formatting etc where appropriate. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made a start, but I'm not making promises. This is a very busy time of year for me (until c. 10th January), but I'll see what I can squeeze in. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I think I'm finished. Re "Maybe it could instead be re-structured around common features in English cathedral buildings with contrasting examples of each feature" - that seems to me to pretty much how it is structured. A number of generalizing sections followed by concise individual entries. If anything there are too many longish lists of ones with feature A, followed by a list with feature B. Fortunately I have 2 strong book sources, one taking the generalizing approach, and the other with several pages on each example. The basic material was good, & I haven't needed to change much, in fact mostly just adding touches. I'm very confident this meets GA requirements. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the list should be in this article, but if others think its fine then I'm fine with it as well. I added some citation needed tags in places that I think need a source to verify the information. This would need to be resolved before I would recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy for this GAR to remain open and to wait a long time for concerns to be addressed. If the Sherborne Abbey information isn't needed, I'd support removing it. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no view on Sherborne Abbey, but as a general point I imagine an article called "Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England" could legitimately discuss centres that were cathedrals in medieval days, assuming that wouldn't add an enormous number of them. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, where?? Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the bit about "Winchester, St. Albans and Peterborough" having short towers. I took it out. You put it back! --Northernhenge (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the aircraft carrier (not in fact "hangar") bit he/you didn't like. It is certainly true that they are long, with short towers, and that's a part of the Pevsner etc analysis of the English cathedral style. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So could you source it to Pevsner? I don’t have a copy. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve drawn a blank on finding a reliable source for this. Having failed to do that, I tried claude.ai which confirms that: "St Albans Cathedral has one of the shorter towers among English cathedrals - it would fit between Winchester (150 ft) and Peterborough (156 ft) in our earlier ranking of shortest towers. However, despite its relatively modest tower height, its length makes it one of England's longest cathedrals, even longer than Winchester Cathedral (558 ft)", so there may be something published “out there” but otherwise investigating the significance of this would be original research. I propose deleting the sentence again, but I’ll leave it alone myself. It’s not worth an edit war just to see an article stay in GA. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boron

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: While there are some needed citations, the article generally meets GA criteria. I assume a silent consensus has been reached since the last comment was a week ago. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 13:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited text, including an entire section. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I checked I found two sections, #Boranes and #Organoboron chemistry without sources. However, both have "Main" or "See also" which is a place where there are probably a few sources. I think a post to WT:Chemistry is appropriate, plus perhaps a little tagging to make it clearer what the concerns are. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ldm1954, an article with GA status is required to have all the sources in the article. Otherwise, you could have an entirely unsourced article with lots of "Main" or "see also" links and none of the article's content actually verified. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted to WT:Chemistry (the right Project, it seems they were not notified on the talk page), and it looks like @Plantsurfer, Preimage, and Smokefoot: are making edits. I will defer to them to respond to any concerns @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29 have. I have only done a few GA (both sides), they are not as bad as applying for tenure, but there are similarities. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954: Thanks for doing that. Feel free to ping me when this is ready for another review, or if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smokefoot, thanks for your excellent work improving this article. Some uncited material remains; do you intend to take care of that? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Noctilucent cloud

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Established consensus for keep. All issues resolved. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Citation needed tags in the article since 2021. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've removed uncited info. How's it look now? I say keep. EF5 13:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United States constitutional criminal procedure

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the content seems like a good contribution to free & shareable media. It seems competently written and is probably a great start for developing a GA-class article. Unfortunately there is a gigantic blocking issue here that means it really can't be a Wikipedia GA article as is: WP:PRIMARY, massive overdependence on primary sources, failing GA2b, referenced to reliable sources. Maybe this is the style for an article in a legal review journal, but it's not Wikipedia GA-class referencing style. Of the 179 references, 3 of them are to secondary sources, and 176 are to case law or the Constitution directly. Now, having case law citations "on the side" is fine and useful (whether integrated into citations like "Secondary source p. X, citing Devouard v Wales", or in a separate references group), but there needs to be sources to, say, the kind of textbooks law students in the US read. Citing case law directly is even worse than articles that are heavily reliant on, say, Herodotus; at least with classical-era writers, what they wrote is all we have to work with at times and clearly relevant even when wrong. But there are tens of thousands of modern case law decisions handed down, many of which are ignored as far as precedent, and others that are outright overturned. And others where the dissent is considered more controlling and cited! Citing these can potentially be very misleading. We need a secondary source to mediate which cases are considered relevant. If we're lucky, maybe the article doesn't have to change that much, but someone really does need to go check it against modern high-quality secondary sources and add in references to the secondary sources.

As a secondary concern... and this one is less pressing.. GA3A, broad in coverage. The references mostly peter out after 2012 or so. My understanding is that there has been some changes since due to the Roberts Court (e.g. weakening the exclusionary rule, which seems not to be discussed at all currently). Further, this article appears to be heavily set in the contemporary of ~2012. Maybe a new spinoff article needs to be created on "Evolution of United States constitutional criminal procedure" or the like, but the history of US law is relevant, too. What was procedure like in 1783-1955? That seems completely unexplored currently. So we need both updates on 2012-2024, and possibly some more acknowledgement of historical criminal procedure (even if this might be spun out into a new article). SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Unless someone is willing to address these problems, I think this article is far from meeting the current criteria. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 07:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Melbourne Airport

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "History" section does not give much information after 2006, which is surprising considering that many airports were affected by COVID-19 lockdowns. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1997–98 Manchester United F.C. season

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "Transfers" section is uncited. While some players in the chart are cited, most are not. There are also some uncited statements elsewhere in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tristan da Cunha

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Significant uncited material remains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large amount of uncited text, including entire sections such as "Religion" Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temper (film)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains many uncited sentences, included entire paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). Some of the sources may also not be reliable. @We are the Great, Rotideypoc41352, and CNMall41: pinging those who previously commented on the talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for inviting me. I initially started the reassessment because a large chunk of sources cited such as IndiaGlitz, 123Telugu, Oneindia.com, and International Business Times, were unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. The Times of India’s reliability is under question, but that’s for another day. RangersRus, after taking my suggestions, removed all the citations that were unreliable. Benison did opine that the article’s GA status could survive if we found more reliable sources, but this has not happened yet. Additionally, many Tollywood movie articles on Wikipedia rated GA have sources that are unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES, which I have removed in some of them such as Srimanthudu, 1: Nenokkadine, and Attarintiki Daredi. These articles mostly use International Business Times as citations for Box Office sections, which is deemed unreliable per WP:IBTIMES. I believe most of them were rated GA at the time when the reliability of these sources I mentioned were not challenged. We are the Great (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the {{cn}} situations are handled either by being deleted or replaced with better refs, this article can retain GA status. Does Veera Narayana have time or interest? I have neither. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think anyone would have the time to do this since I have not seen much activity on this article ever since RangersRus removed the unreliable sources. We are the Great (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait and see whether others join in the discussion. Otherwise, if nobody does, then the article could be delisted. We are the Great (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, i was the contributor for this and many other Telugu film GA articles in the past. We are the Great here was right in assuming that i worked on these GAs when the abovementioned sites' reliability was not challenged. And i am thankful that Kailash took the time to respond to this when i was away, and i must admit he echoes my sentiments too. If you think this article, or any other GA/FA/FL i have ever contributed towards, does not meet up the criteria anymore, please delist them. You dont have to reach out to me for this, and i assume this message here would stand valid for all of those. After all, despite all the hours i passionately put into these articles, i own nothing and i am mature enough to understand the gravity of the situation. Thanks for intimating me. Hope you all have a happy holiday season. Cheers! Veera Narayana 06:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: A GAR cannot decide to merge, but it can decide to delist. Hog Farm, a proper merge discussion should be started. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012 and 2016, significant amounts of the article's content [were removed Buckshot06 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)], mainly by Buckshot06. There is a discussion supporting the removal of this content at Talk:1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)#Lot of content removed after GAN review, but the article's honors section (which is unsourced) is a series of tables that still assumes that the removed content is relevant to the article subject. This relevance of this content needs sorted out and finalized whether or not this belongs. Much of what remains in the article is sourced to Global Security, which is no longer considered to be reliable. In fact, as almost all of the remaining content is more about the division as a whole than this subunit, I'm not even convinced that this warrants a separate article - even with the content removed since promotion included, as that is focused on the HQ unit of the 7th Division. Hog Farm Talk 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited statements throughout the article. Also, I think this song, its lyrics, and the album it is part of has been the subject of academic analysis, but other than the structure there is very little analysis. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist – no surprise here. The article is incredibly dated and as you said is no longer broad in its coverage (literally zero reception). And the way the references are laid out... woof. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anuel AA

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Massive amounts of uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited prose, including almost everything in the "Career" section post-2019. Some "citation needed" tags have been in the article since March 2023. Z1720 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

National Register of Historic Places

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The "History" section doesn't seem to have any information post-1996. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fantastic Four in film

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Although stability is not a criterion for delisting per WP:GAR, sourcing is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. I am also concerned that this article might be mostly Wikipedia:Fancruft, with real-world information about its development or various studio rights underdeveloped. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this only for the reason that a new film and possibly film series about the Fantastic Four is coming out and this page will very fast become a magnet for multiple edits. Criteria #5 requires the article to be stable, which it will fail. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: It might be good to reevaluate when that happens but for now I think we should evaluate the article as it is today. Z1720 (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the edit history? 50 edits since September 26, maybe 4 have an edit summary. The article is in no way stable, again a criteria for GA. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Khandoba

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Uncited material has been removed, while the note on GA criterion 3a is relevant for the broadness issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:" section is a list without context. What is this, and why is it important? The lead is quite short, and doesn't address all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720 for pointing it out. Over time, various users have added uncited text in the article. Will cleanup Have removed the uncited section "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:", which seemed as a random list of temples. However, most of the article is still cited.
Will rewrite the lead. Redtigerxyz Talk 12:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Z1720, have cleaned up the uncited text. About the lead, IMHO it covers major aspects. However, welcome to hear suggestions about which sections need to be covered in more detail. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtigerxyz: The lead looks a lot better with the expanded text. I added two "citation needed" tags: these need to be resolved. There's also a lot of sources listed in "Further reading": does the article address the main aspects of the subject, or can these sources be used to add information on a major aspect? Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz do you intend to continue improving the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mitch Daniels

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements and paragraphs, including some tagged with "citation needed" since July 2022. The article is also very long, showing that the language is not concise. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Protein

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{citation needed}} to the statements that seemed to be most obviously needing references, to aid in the process of cleaning up the article. I never got too far in molecular biology so forgive me if I can't completely fix this up to GA standards. I also noticed (as Smokefoot did specifically with the use of "key") that the tone of this article is unusual. Reconrabbit 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a basic biochemistry article. We do not need to add citations for facts that can be found in any textbook. Genome42 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Genome42: No, WP:V says that information needs to be cited. Textbooks can be used as the citation if it is a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basic facts about proteins fall into a "sky is blue" situation; you would either be laughed at or shown very concerned looks for your well-being for challenging them. Still though, this article does cite textbooks and other round-ups for most of these things anyways as it is still specialized knowledge at the end of the day.
I was wondering though, is there some policy or guidance on how to select a textbook for referencing out of the hundreds (thousands?) that exist with the same information? I ask as a high-traffic article like this might unfairly elevate one textbook over others, inadvertently. Should textbooks be prioritized for referencing by ease of access? Are there even open-access textbooks kicking around for biochemistry/science topics generally? Is this something that Wikipedia is even concerned about? ― Synpath 17:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Synpath: SKYBLUE is an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." WP:V is a policy, and "describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow." To select which sources to use, the WP:MEDCITE essay will give some advice. More recent sources are more favourable than older sources as it will have the most up-to-date information. For articles with a lot of literature like this, sometimes Wikipedia has to pick some of the highest quality sources and exclude others. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MEDCITE is only an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors." and is not really relevant to a basic biochemistry article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I should have piped the phrase "still specialized knowledge" to WP:NOTBLUE to balance the emphasis of my comment. Regardless, MEDCITE doesn't give advice on how to select one reliable source from a sea of reliable sources saying the same thing. Just opting for the most recent textbook is not an ideal solution if no one can read it without dropping a hundred dollars or more (being generous there). ― Synpath 19:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synpath is correct. We do not need to add citations for obvious facts. Overcitation is a problem on Wikipedia because it makes articles difficult to read. Perhaps Z1720 could show us what bits of information he thinks should require citations by inserting tags after every bit of information in the introduction?
The issue about which textbooks to use is also a problem. I'm a biochemistry textbook author so, as you might imagine, I have definite opinions about which textbooks are the best ones to cite. :-) Surely we don't want citations to four or five different textbooks after every sentence in the introduction?
I marked the article with citation needed tags where I thought they were needed. Information only needs to be verified by one source, so that will solve the overcitation concern. The lead of the article doesn't need citations, per WP:LEADCITE, as the information is supposed to be the body of the article (and cited in the body). Z1720 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Thank-you for inserting those citation requests. I disagree with all of them but it helps focus the discussion. I don't think we need a citation when there's a link to another article that explains the topic. Genome42 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Genome42: Per WP:CIRC, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source and the reader should be able to verify the information in the protein article without going to another Wikipedia article to find the source the verifies it. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Gimme a break! The citation you want inserted is a textbook reference. How many readers have that particular textbook at hand in order to verify that "The field of bioinformatics is now indispensable for the analysis of genes and proteins" or that isopycnic centrifugation is a useful technique? There are times when Wikipedia's picayune rules get in the way of common sense. Genome42 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Genome42: Editors do not have to ensure that every reader has access to a source. Rather, the source has to verify the information if someone looks it up. If Wikipedia policies are against common sense, editors can propose changes at Wikipedia:Village pump. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portland Monthly

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not contain any post-2008 information, and thus does not cover all aspects of the topic. Z1720 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: While the article has a sentence or two about post 2008 content, it is serverly lacking. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 13:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UConn Huskies women's basketball

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Concision is definitely needed here, along with a better appreciation of WP:NOT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article. I also think the article can be summarised more effectively to make it more concise. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Teleological argument

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited prose in the article, and another editor on the talk page mentioned that the article is missing key information because of underdeveloped sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I guess I am the other editor? I don't see any posts using the words you've used. I would encourage other editors to read my real remarks. But in a nutshell, in terms of what I understand to be important for GA status I think this article has never yet reached a stable structure. It is still in a phase where people add new "stub" sections, and are likely to send the article in new directions, which might become stable. I'd encourage any editors who are interested in the topic to see what they can do, but I doubt that the article was ever really at GA quality, and I don't think that getting that label too early is necessarily a good thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per @Andrew Lancaster's posts to the talk page. Even if citations could be produced where needed, the article lacks a cohesive structure. In particular it would benefit from an introductory "Definition" section describing the topic in general terms and distinguishing it from other major arguments for the existence of god. An "Overview" section might also be helpful—depending upon how much can make it into the lead.Patrick (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist While the lack of citations is certainly an issue, I think the bigger problem is the fact that it's structure is incoherent, making it hard to read. I think it should be re-written a bit. Also the fact of it's instability makes it further from meeting GA criteria. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 13:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marshall Islands at the Olympics

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not include information about the Marshall Island's participation at the 2020 or 2024 Olympics. An orange "update needed" banner has been present at the top of the article since August 2024. Z1720 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in saving this GA. Cos (X + Z) 17:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 I have updated the article. Do you have any other suggestions? Cos (X + Z) 23:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I compare the 2008 section to the other years, I feel like the other years are under developed and information on the athletes' results in the games can be included. I also think the lead needs to be expanded. I also think other information, like the flag bearer at each Olympics for the ceremonies, can also be added to this article to make it more complete. The lead can also be expanded Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AirshipJungleman29 merged some info from the 2008 article into here on January 31, 2024 so that is why the 2008 section is bloated. Cos (X + Z) 00:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article seems to meet the criteria now. Z1720 (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Decompression equipment

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any tagged uncited paragraphs, and I don't see any uncited paragraphs outside the lede. I'm just the prior reviewer, not a subject matter expert, but this doesn't give me enough actionable information about what the problem is and what steps are needed to fix it. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I have added "citation needed" tags to statements and paragraphs that are missing citations. Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Anything else? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 02:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kwik-E-Mart

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No one offered to update the article, and no edits since the GAR opened. Z1720 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fails criteria 2b 2c 3a. The fictional history needs updating the most recent event referenced is from 2005. The broadway at the beach section contains the following: "Google also lists the attraction as permanently closed, and there a couple Reddit posts indicating the closure as well." no sources in that whole paragraph. No developement info nor reception Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Milky Way

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No major edits to the article since posted at GAR, no one has indicated that they want to make the necessary improvements Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some citation needed tags, unreliable source? tags in the article, The "Appearance" has had an orange "additional sources needed" banner and the "Satellite observations" has had an orange "update needed" banner. Real4jyy (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

High-level radioactive waste management

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several uncited statements, including the entire "Spain" section. I also do not think the recommendations at the end of the "United States" section are necessary and would be better summarised as prose. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tawau

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited statements throughout the prose. The history section ends in the 1960s, missing more current events in the town. The "Demography" section is dated to 2010, and sources are from 2010 or earlier. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

350 North Orleans

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains numerous uncited statements, including the entire "Window Installation" and "Tenant Amenity Spaces" sections. Z1720 (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eurasian Economic Union

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. There are also too many images, including a group of images at the bottom of the "Geography" section that are presented without context. Unreliable sources are used in the article like International Business Times (WP:IBTIMES) and vz.ru. Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of Pittsburgh

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is not much information post-2004, and the "Pittsburgh today" section needs to be rewritten due to MOS:CURRENT concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2015 Australian Grand Prix

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added some citations, and added repeat citations where necessary. I think that the main issue here isn't uncited statements but actually that some statements are not correctly cited inline. E.g. these uncited paragraphs are actually uncited, they just lack the appropriate in line citations. Let me know if there are any specific statements that lack in line citations, and I can have a look. SSSB (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've included some information from sources I've added to the article and made the formatting of the references consistent EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lisa Simpson

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. 1989 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of cruft in this article. It was never been maintained. The article needs some revision + plenty of unreliable sources need to be removed, including the refbombs. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneless Pizza!: As the recent primary contributor to this article, I've just come back to give it another read, coincidentally, and, after only just stumbling upon the talk page and the comment left on my talk, I couldn't help but wonder if I should chime in here, which I am promptly doing now. I shall now explain the reason for the recent developments on this article.

This character is generally regarded as being the most well-developed on the show, and is certainly one of the most culturally influential (even if still not as outright iconic as Homer and Bart). It therefore makes perfect sense for there to be a bigger article on her, and I have nothing but kudos for all those who have put in considerable effort over the years to make the article what it is today, including myself. Quite a few parts could be trimmed slightly though, I agree in hindsight, but it is important to keep note about this character's major aspects. (Also, I'm on a dynamic network, which means that I myself in particular have been unable to manage to keep the same IP for that long a time, most recently due to a power cut last week, meaning that I didn't catch the initial message, but most previous edits of mine to this article can be found here.) I was actively taking inspiration from Bart's article and the FAR for that for ideas on how to improve this article, though I didn't quite realize, apparently, how seemingly overboard some of the additions may have gone from the site's point of view.

That out of the way, I'm thinking about asking Xeroctic and Pallettown, who seem to be the overall main frequent registered contributors to the project as far as The Simpsons articles go, for some helpful ideas on what to do next, but otherwise I myself am moving towards keep rather than delist, as aside from its length and certain various copyedits that I agree now in hindsight could be implemented throughout, the article appears to still be in good shape. It is also well-sourced throughout, which probably accounts for much of the page size. Some copy-editing in the later parts of the personality and cultural influence sections could be of help. Trimming some of the reviews about this one's cultural influence to the most important points raised by each could also be helpful. Some issues relating to the detail of certain examples notwithstanding, I don't think the prose is too bad, but as soon as I know what exactly needs to be done to try and undertake some salvation aimed to improving the prospects of keeping the badge, I shall aim get on with it, because, paraphrasing what 750h+ said over at Bart's FARC, one would probably rather something never be at least a GA rather than it being a GA and seeing it get delisted, and so if it's an iconic person that just makes it all the more depressing.

To prove my point, I'll seek to make a start by aiming to trim down a few of the excess phrasings and examples again, along with some seemingly redundant citations, beginning later on today, though the size of many of the actual references themselves will still be challenging in their own right, due to virtually all of the web references having archived versions of the links alongside the original links themselves for the sake of posterity. Obviously, episode examples that basically summarise their plot in anything but a laconic way can be refactored or trimmed entirely, for instance. In short, I have a generally good idea of what needs trimming back down, and am willing to cooperate in every possible way.

46.208.36.42 (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. Unfortunately, the expansions that you've made adds you additional work per WP:UNDUE. I wouldn't definitely gonna read this entire article since it's kinda obvious that are a lot of problems that are visible. Take your time or if you can't; just drop it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP, i'm going to revert the article back to the way it was before. 4,000 words to 17,000 words is absolutely insane. Your edits have added so, so, so much cruft and have made the article a pain to look and browse through. Most importantly the "personality" section LITERALLY has more words than the ENTIRE Bart Simpson article. As for your comment where you state, perfect sense for there to be a bigger article on her, i understand something below 6-7k words but 17k does not make "perfect sense". The majority your changes do not belong an encyclopedia, and a lot of the article seems to be WP:COPYVIO. Simply, an article about a cartoon character does not need nearly 20,000 words. I would recommend, as per WP:ALTERNATIVE, trying out The Simpsons Wiki, or, as Boneless Pizza! mentioned, reading WP:UNDUE Thanks, 750h+ 19:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneless Pizza!: do you have any thoughts on this? 750h+ 20:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I don't believe it. I can't believe what just happened. And I did have plenty of trims of my own in mind. I'd say, after that, strongly keep the status after all, and perhaps, using my final edit to the article as a starting point, reworking many of the more useful elements of the content as it stood as of my final edit to the article on New Year's Eve back in to eventually elevate this article for future promotion when ready. There is no reason for me myself to continue here.
Goodbye, my friends, and I wish you all the best of luck with improving this article yourselves. It was good while it lasted...
46.208.36.42 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+ Since this is GA not FA, the only remaining issues I think would be the unsourced claim at personality section. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: On second thought, I've decided to come back somewhat, even if only to make this follow-up comment. I felt emotionally overwhelmed by yesterday's wholesale blank that somebody else did, and didn't feel like taking part again at the time.
If not for that, I would have undertaken my own major round of trims of various apparent "trivia" and seemingly superfluous examples and references, reducing the page, as it stood on New Year's Eve, by close to a third of its previous size. While at that, I would also have improved the flow of some of the retained prose. The bulk of my planned trims would have been to the later parts of the personality section, after the part on family matters, and to the cultural influence and merchandise sections, to remove certain episode examples given in certain observations, collapse much of the role model reception down to mere citations and remove the specific roles in Tapped Out and Funday Football. Other trims elsewhere would primarily have been to tackle the apparent over-citation for some of the more interesting details.
That said, the first half of the article, right down to the end of the development section, had predominantly been made up of lots of outside documentation and commentary that is key to explaining why Lisa's character has developed so well, especially compared to most other characters.
Finally, if, on the other hand, I am not going to be able to be given the chance to prove myself that I had promised above, then there isn't much point in me staying around, and if so, will leave it in your trusty hands. 750h+, I applaud you for improving Bart's article vastly. I see that you are improving Homer's (or at least trying) at the moment, and, I'm sure, you could improve this one as well, as one of the best updaters around. (I, and I'm sure Xeroctic and Pallettown as well, would hate to see this page go the way of Maggie's. I really would.)
46.208.36.42 (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP. I think still has issues and the lead should be trimmed. Anyway, I do hope you're staying in Wikipedia further and learning it slowly. I also experienced this before like you did, but I eventually learned. It is really tough once you're still new, but it'll be worth it. I do hope you're having a good New Year! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP, while a lot of text was cruft, it is very impressive that you've squeezed out about every source there is on the girl, and i will take some of these sources into consideration when improving the article 750h+ 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for those kind words, @750h+:. They mean a lot to a close fan of the girl such as I. That said, however, after all that drama over the past couple of days, I have decided to step back and take some time out from all of this after all (apparently they call that taking a wikibreak), and wish you all the best of luck in taking up my stead. To reiterate from above, if you use the complete source code of the article as of my final edit on New Year's Eve, you will find plenty of sources and useful information to eventually put back in when ready, even if the wording of some of that information itself has to be tightened up considerably, especially where certain additional traits of the girl's personality and additional opinions on her cultural influence are concerned.
It was a pleasure working on the article myself while it lasted. Maybe I'll come around again at some point just to observe how things get on, but not right now. My wikibreak will help me get over the shock of the past couple of days. Until next time, as they might say: Good luck and, from me for the time being, goodbye.
46.208.36.42 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm going to vote keep for now, as this article is GA; if FA it would require more. 750h+ 12:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw this GAR since I think this should be fine as is now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dragon Ball

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains uncited passages, including entire sections and paragraphs. Notes are used as citations to other Wikipedia articles, instead of citing the information directly in the article (note b and e) Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm pretty sure all those notes and several paragraphs regarding sales, estimated circulation figures and such were added by sockpuppet user Maestro2016, known for including that kind of information in several articles, doing sums with different sources (which is against WP:SYNTH), using sources of questionable reliability, and more, so I would recommend to check and remove that kind of content. Xexerss (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Die casting

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has lots of uncited prose, including entire sections. The "Design geometry" has had an orange "additional sources needed" banner since December 2017. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lobster (magazine)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article's history seems to stop in 2010, even though the magazine is still seemingly publishing online. There are also no post-2012 sources, even though they are still publishing issues. The "History" section also seems disorganised, with information in "Controversies" moved into this section and design aspects moved into other sections. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Buenos Aires Underground

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some uncited passages throughout the article. The "Current fleet" has an "update needed" orange banner from October 2022 and its prose might be counter to MOS:CURRENCY. Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On uncited passages: It doesn't look that bad at the moment. Can you tag stuff you think is problematic with citation needed?
  • On "update needed": This issue is unimportant and not a reason to remove GA status. A top-level Wikipedia article on a topic like this is WP:NOT a railfan current fleet update, but rather a historical overview of the 100+ year history. Detailed information on the past few years would not be required even at the featured level. New_York_City_Subway#Rolling_stock stops in 2019 too and is a GA. (I suppose the update banner is a mild warning sign, but only in that it implies there weren't maintainers to simply remove such a banner.) SnowFire (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I don't think I have time to address this like I'd have preferred, especially because some of the topics seem to be looking for "confirmation nothing is happening" (i.e. that these planned lines are on the books, but they aren't actually being built currently). Anyone else want to volunteer to take a look at fixing these? Otherwise, might have to delist after all. SnowFire (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Romaine Brooks

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and a "citation needed" tag from November 2021. There's also a "Gallery" section at the end of the article which, per WP:NOTGALLERY I recommend that these images be redistributed throughout the article and this section removed. Z1720 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agreed on the citations. However, I think the article already has perhaps too great a density of images in the body: given that it's an article about an artist, the gallery is a good thing and should, if anything, be expanded. Despite the name of WP:NOTGALLERY, the supporting text actually says Wikipedia articles are not merely (emphasis mine) collections of ... photographs or media files with no accompanying text. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia articles shouldn't include galleries, and indeed we have artist FAs that use them very well: see e.g. Vincent Van Gogh, El Greco or Robert Peake the Elder. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

102nd Intelligence Wing

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains numerous uncited statements, including almost the entire "History" section. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Globalsecurity.com is used numerous times as a reference, but per WP:GLOBALSECURITY it is considered an unreliable source; these inline citations will need to be replaced with reliable sources or the information it is verifying removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arthur Phillip

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. Cremastra (u — c) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Legacy" section has a "more citations needed" banner dated July 2023. Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Working I've fixed the legacy section and started fixing uncited statements. Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 16:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 How is the article now. Do you have further concerns, and did I miss anything? I think I've done the possible sourcings and necessary removals. Cremastra (u — c) 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Cremastra (u — c) 23:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alfred North Whitehead

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also an overreliance on block quotes, negatively affecting the prose and preventing the article from being concise. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist unless anyone offers to improve the article soon. Apart from the points in the nomination, there appear to be personal commentaries such as "It may not be inappropriate to speculate that some fair portion of the respect generally shown to Whitehead by his philosophical peers at the time arose from their sheer bafflement." and "Here it is worthwhile to quote Whitehead at length". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist in line with both recommendations above. The content is also not apparently well-balanced/DUE: for instance in "Political views" the first sentence appears to me to be original research (the anachronistic attribution of Libertarianism) and then the section makes no mention of Harvard's Pareto Circle, which has been the most-often-mentioned political activity in the secondary sources on Whitehead's politics that I'm familiar with. RowanElder (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bouldering

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited statements, including some tagged with "citation needed" since April 2021. Z1720 (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As difficult as this will be, for all kinds of reasons, I think that I'm uniquely suited to rescue this article's GA status. So I will. I will also depend upon the abundance of good will, grace, and understanding of the editing community. Thanks in advance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've gone through this article, updating and improving its references and sources, doing some copyediting, and removing all unsupported claims. Many of the issues were added after the original GA review way back in 2013. The original review was certainly old enough for an assessment, anyway. It now fulfills the GA criteria. It could use more work to make it more extensive and more comprehensive, but it's adequate for GA at this time. Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is OK now. Z1720 (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Honda Super Cub

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Issues unaddressed. Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Some of these statements have been marked with "citation needed" tags since August 2019. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fizeau experiment

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Controversy" section is mostly uncited: there are mentions of the works where others disagreed (with a year placed in parenthesis) but these will need to be converted into citations and the prose afterwards also cited to their works. The section also has several, long block quotes. Even though many of these quotes are from the 1800s, and probably do not fall under copyright anymore, I think the information can be better explained and more easily understood by the reader as summarised prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the "Controversy" section seems to be directly out of the John Stachel reference, which uses quotes and the parenthesis. I think the section size is undue or at least it is unclear: the controversy was about Fresnel's justification for his formula, not about Fizeau's experiment. Stachel needed these quotes to build his case, but we only need the Stachel reference to give the case he has built.
I propose to reorganize the article by converting the Controversy section to a section on "Impact" which would include the Stachel story line about Fizeau's result as well as Einstein's use of the Fizeau result. I would would change the "derivation from special relativity" to "Modern interpretation". I think there should be a Background or Context section before "Experimental setup" outlining why the experiment was undertaken.
@ReyHahn any thoughts? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 I worked this article over. Please review. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton: I added "citation needed" tags to places where I feel a statement is provided without the equation or demonstration verifying the information. Please take a look at them and add the citation if it is necessary, or let me know why a citation is not needed in that location. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I fixed those you marked. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MacBook (2006–2012)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 re-promotion appears on the new GA Sweeps listing. There is uncited content, including several CN tags. There are also additional content problems - the listing of "quality problems" is a mix of unsourced and stuff sourced only to Apple Support announcements; to be drawing conclusions about quality problems we need better sourcing. The forums portion of MacRumors is cited once, and I doubt that the Other World Computer Blog, which appears to be a mixture of a sales site and a blog, meets the modern RS standards. Most of the details in the supported operating systems tables aren't sourced, although a few are sourced elsewhere in the article. A claim that "The polycarbonate Intel MacBook is easier for users to fix or upgrade than its predecessor." is sourced only to the user manual, which is problematic for obvious reasons. This needs a lot of work to meet the modern GA standards. Hog Farm Talk 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deus Ex (video game)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has lots of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Simpsons Ride

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has problems in the production section + the entire ride experience section and voice casts are unsourced + reception is flimsy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can add more information on the CGI animation. Can you include photos of the ride cars? LDW5432 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited statements including entire paragraphs, particularly in the "Formation history" section. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steam (service)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Per Zxcvbnm's comment. This is pretty much a snow close. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 15:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A maintenance template at the top of the page has gone unaddressed since 2023. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 14:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is still within the typical size for pages before the issue of intricate detail is brought up. I agree with ferret's view that there is no overly intricate detail here and the banner is not relevant. If you believe otherwise, then, please explain in more detail, simply saying "there is a banner there" to justify a reassessment goes against not a bureaucracy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Badr

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Battlefield" section has an orange "additional sources needed" banner at the top since March 2022. There are also uncited sections elsewhere in the article. The article relies too much upon long block quotes, particularily in the "Aftermath" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what is in the Battlefield is already covered in Battle. The last paragraph has a citation. We can just remove the uncited parts if need be. The aftermath section now has only one quote, and its an important quote. I've seen that particular quote from Muir being reproduced in several other works.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also lots of primary references and sources written by Dawah publishers such as Darusallam. Overall, the article reads like a history lecture from a religious viewpoint. Quite a few important articles related to Islam suffered from what I presume to be activism rather than encyclopedic work. Recently the GA status of Muhammad in Islam was renounced for the same reason. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wilsonville, Oregon

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" section ends in 2007, and I think more recent information should be included. The "Demographics" section is largely uncited and contains a lot of information about the 2000 and 2010 censuses. I think this section can be reduced and should be cited more effectively. The lead needs to be updated with the latest demographic information. There are some uncited statements in other areas of the article not indicated above. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as all of the issues have now been addressed due to the hardwork of various editors. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I added cn tags to a couple places in the article that still need citations. I suggest that the "History" section be broken up with Level 3 headings for readability. Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like some slight issues remain with citing. I'm also curious why the voting history begins in 2014 and ends in 2018. I don't have any strong view for when the history should begin, but it feels like it should end in 2024, no? Happy to keep this open as work continues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aboutmovies: It looks like only two {{citation needed}} tags remain. I looked briefly but wasn't able to find a source to verify the following sentence in the history section: In 2007, the old city hall building was turned into a new public works and police department. The following sentences in the geography section could be verified with a map, but I couldn't find a good online source to verify: Coffee Lake Creek is on the west side of the city and includes Coffee Lake and the Coffee Lake Wetlands. The foothills of the Chehalem Mountains lie to the west of Wilsonville, with most land within the city on level ground. Have you searched for sources yet to verify these two claims? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lord Bolingbroke: I have provided a source for the city hall part, but I disagree that one beyond a map is really needed for simple geography. While long ago I thought everything that wasn't written (as in, actual text) was OR, but after a few years (and I know you are not a new editor either) I moved off that hill. My thoughts are similar to those in this essay, as it is not synthesis or original research to read a map for what a map says. Any contour map shows it is a flat area (hell most of it is in a floodplain) and a physical map shows were the geographic features are. Further, WP:CITE (a content guideline) does not require citations for everything, only per the lede: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Does anyone (besides perhaps flat earthers) actually challenge Wilsonville is to the east of those mountains and those features are where they are? Aboutmovies (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aboutmovies: For what it's worth, I agree with you about maps being acceptable to verify geographic features. However, it's probably better to use a text source for ease of verifiability (all else being equal), since not all maps use the same names for features or include exactly the same info. For example, I'm not able to find a "Coffee Lake" on Google Maps or the GNIS database, just Coffee Lake Creek and the adjacent wetlands. I will remove mention of the lake, which does not appear to exist, unless you have any objection. Everything else is easily verifiable through Google Maps and I'm happy to keep as is. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. Odd though that there is a creek and weylands named after a lake that GNIS says does not exist. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing concerns appear to be addressed. After cleanup work by myself and other editors, I think the article has been brought back up to GA standards. The one other concern is updating the voting history table, although I'm not even sure if it's necessary to be honest; not sure if it's typical to include this kind of table in city articles. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a citation needed tag to the article. The "Wilsonville vote by party in statewide elections" should be updated with more recent elections. Those are the only concerns I have right now. Z1720 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lord Bolingbroke: I see that the citation needed concern has been resolved. Would you be willing to update the chart outlined above? Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aboutmovies and Iazyges: Would either of you be opposed to removing the voting history table altogether? The sources provided appear to discuss the election results by precinct, not by city, and I'm honestly wondering if the table is original research. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No opposition there; for a larger city (Houston, LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.) that might be a more important feature, but I don't think the 1,000ish vote margins are breaking any elections here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, probably not necessary information to include for a smaller city like Wilsonville within a larger metro area. I went ahead and removed the table, but I'm not strongly opposed to adding it back in if anyone wants to update it with additional sources. Z1720, does this resolve the issue to your satisfaction? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on removal of the voting info. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trondheim Airport

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Article is very out of date. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has two "update needed" banners to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anarchy Online

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: There has been no movement to fix issues, nor pledges to do so, as such, delist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an "update needed" orange banner at the top of the page since 2019, and few updates since 2015. There are also uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Citation issues remain with no work performed or pledged; delist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has two orange "more citations needed" banners from 2021 and an "update needed" banner at the top of "Faculty and staff". Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Johor Bahru

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted, based on content issues still unresolved. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead contravenes MOS on citation and filled with superlatives that have zero coverage in the main text. Possible COPYVIO for a night image (Johor Bahru Skyline 20171230.jpg). "Demographics" section is dated to 2010 and contains unsourced sentences. Chunks of "Transportation", "In popular culture" and "Notable people" sections lack citations. hundenvonPG (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a copyvio concern please raise it on Commons. CMD (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support delisting the article for the time being, given the abovementioned flaws in the article that has not been maintained consistently. I will try to improve the article accordingly based on the advices above. 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the enthusiasm, but I'm not sure simply stripping sources from the lead is an overall improvement. CMD (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just made several amendments, can you kindly suggest further improvements if any? 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the citations into the main text with further elaboration, so to match the MOS on citation and cover the leads' content in the main text. 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case my apologies for misreading the diff, carry on. I would suggest trimming down the superlatives in the lead a bit more, mostly by rewriting that second paragraph. Perhaps the economy info in the first paragraph should be combined with the economy info in the second paragraph. The history in the lead is also missing something at the start, "further development" from what? CMD (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rectified, thanks so much for the advice! 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate citations have been suitably added to each of the mentioned parts of the articles with sentenced restructured and summarised, contents in leads are covered with details in the main content and COPYVIO images deleted and replaced. 2001:D08:1031:86BB:901B:14AD:9156:DFCF (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis are you satisfied with the changes? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the edits myself, but the previously uncited text is now cited. The lead is also improved. CMD (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Circling back to this after more than two weeks, while several issues were addressed, CMD's comments about the superlatives in the lead appears insufficiently tackled.
But on top of that, there is one major problem: the claim that JB is the "second-largest national GDP-contributor among Malaysian cities", which is based on

1. a news report citing district data (not cities),[1] and
2. a publication using GDP percentages from more than 10 years ago[2]:

Underlying this is the fact that the Department of Statistics Malaysia has not provided GDP figures for individual cities, except for Kuala Lumpur. IP address appears to have used district GDP to come up with the claim, when Johor Bahru District itself encompasses three cities, including JB.
In the absence of a definitive GDP figure for JB, the sentence thus relies on either non-existent and/or outdated data. Said content being disputed calls this GA status into question. hundenvonPG (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) hundenvonPG (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have rectified the sentence to reflect it is the district's GDP figures based on the latest DOSM's data. 202.55.81.52 (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why was this sentence not in the Johor Bahru District article instead? hundenvonPG (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fortinet

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Assuming silent consensus here. The issues stated by the nom are still unfixed. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has unfortunately endured cycles of promotional editing and subsequent removals, and as a result, it no longer seems well-written or consistently verifiable. Brandon (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gilbert Perreault

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has uncited text, including entire paragraphs, along with "Playing career" not having anything past 1976, which misses 11 years of his career, failing 3a. Kline • talk • contribs 22:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist 10 years of his playing career is missing. The post-retirement section's last source was in 2011: does that information still reflect what Perreault is doing now? Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as per nom and @Z1720. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caltrain Modernization Program

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an "Overview" section which seems to be a second, mostly uncited lead. This should be combined with other sections of the article. There is an orange "update needed" banner at the top of the "Environmental effects" section, and a "needs update" tag at the end of the first paragraph of "specific modifications". There is some uncited prose elsewhere in the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2017 World Series

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed three of them. The others can be addressed and I will soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Reminder about this. What's your timeline to complete this? Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, forgot about this. Should be done this week. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it. The "aftermath" section will need work that I should get to tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, thank you for your patience. I think I addressed everything. Let me know if you see anything else. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Horror Story

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Title sequences" section is problematic: it quite long, might give undue weight on this aspect of the show compared to others, and is largely uncited. There are also uncited statements elsewhere in the article, and several sections are quite long with one-sentence paragraphs that can be written more efficiently with longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole title sequence section can be binned off wholesale as it's just WP:TRIVIA. Whilst there's definitely bits that need cleaning up other than that, I don't think it's not doable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Section removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Number of the Beast (album)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article, particularily in the "Commercial performance" section. The article uses many unreliable sources, including IMDB, Discogs, and rateyourmusic.com. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Structural alignment

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There's also an "expansion needed" orange banner from 2012. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lionel Luthor

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old GA from 2008 or so, far from modern standards. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Luthor. This is likely going to be kept - arguments show good sources exist (tnx User:Daranios) - but they are not used in this. Instead, we have a lot of WP:OR or plot summary masquerading as analysis (as such, this fails GA criteria 2 and 3). This might be rescuable, but is certainly at GA level. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist: A short "Reception" section is the only discussion about the character's portrayal or role in the series; I would expect the article to have much more of this. Information about the character's development is scattered throughout the article; I think it needs to be brought together and further developed. Overall, most of this article focuses on in-universe and plot information, and is therefore missing major aspects of the article topic. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Burn the Bastards

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geography of Croatia

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements, particularly in the first two paragraphs of "Climate". Many sections need to be updated with the latest figures, like the "Climate characteristics in major cities in Croatia" chart, the "Known and endemic taxa in Croatia" chart, the "Demographics" section, and the "Land use" section (which has an orange "update needed" banner underneath it since June 2021). Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the nominator is complaining about GACR 2b in the first two paragraph of the Climate section referring to missing citations in the section (added/restored in the meantime) and an update tag (addressed and removed in the meantime) placed without any reason stated in the template itself or article talk. The rest are vague complaints about the need to update without saying which main aspects of the topic (as required by the GACR) are missing. By being unspecific in their complaints, I believe the nominator is misinterpreting GA criteria too stringently. They do not say which main aspects are missing specifically, and I think all main aspects (as required by GA criteria) are still met as no major changes in geography occurred in the article scope since the GA reveiw.
Since the specific complaints are remedied and the rest of the reassessment complaint is unspecific, I propose to close this reassessment as keep. (For previous similarly vague reassessment opened by the same nominator, and the same outcome as proposed here see: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Adriatic Sea/1.) Tomobe03 (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tomobe03: I just did a check, and saw a citation needed tag in the article from December 2019. I also added another tag.
  • I recommend that the charts be updated because the figures are over a decade old. "Climate characteristics in major cities in Croatia" is cited to a reference from 2012. "Known and endemic taxa in Croatia" is cited to a 2006 source.
  • The "Demographics" section has some statements cited to outdated sources, like " the natural growth rate of the population is thus currently negative." (cited to a 1998 source), "In terms of age structure, the population is dominated by the 15‑ to 64‑year‑old segment. The median age of the population is 41.4, and the gender ratio of the total population is 0.93 males per 1 female." (2010 and 2011 sources) and "Croatian is the native language identified by 96% of the population." (2011 source). Wikipedia indicates a 2021 Croatian census: I think this figures need to be updated for this article to retain its GA status.
  • If you are concerned about my reviews, feel free to open a new talk page discussion on WT:GA. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The missing references pointed out by tags have been added as actionable complaints.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the unactionable issues: Z1720, why do you think a source is outdated? It is not outdated unless there is a more recent source stating something new. It does not appear from your remarks you are aware of any such sources, it just appears as if you're curious for others to find out and let you know (as was the case in the completely unjustified Adriatic Sea GAR too). What "you recommend" is good, but not a part of the GA criteria. Moreover, saying I think this figures need to be updated for this article to retain its GA status. reads a bit condescending because it is a statement of what should others do without an ounce of effort to supply evidence that the contested figures are indeed outdated. I am concerned about your "reviews". Neither this, nor the recent Adriatic Sea GAR were actual reviews, but attempts at bureaucracy based on personal opinion that those articles "need to be updated" because you feel so. Simply saying that few years have passed since a source was published is no review. Don't you see how lazy you appear when you essentially say - go look up if something new is published because I can't be bothered to look at anything except the calendar? In this "review", you either believe the geography/climate of the Balkans changed remarkably enough to be a "major aspect" of the topic in the period since the GA review but can't be bothered to point out to the offending datum specifically, or you feel powerful for you have initiated a GAR today and others will clean up their act or else. Please note that newer dates do not necessarily bring new data. For example, the Yearbook reference I restored earlier in the climate section is an eight years more recent publication - and lo and behold, all the relevant figures there were the same as eight years prior. Similarly, gender ratio of the total population is still 0.93 males per 1 female. If something new and major comes up, please point it out as it should be included in the article by all means. In the meantime, research some topic that interests you other than dates of publication of existing sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tomobe03: The 2021 Croatian census would be an updated source that would give the most recent figures for those charts. Our Wikipedia article states that the results of the census were published in 2022; if these are not the ones used in the article, then I do not think the article meets WP:GA? 3a, as a major aspect is missing. I do not know if any major stats have changed, but that is why I am initiating a review: to highlight that this information needs to be checked and updated where appropriate.
  • There are over 40,000 good articles on Wikipedia: I cannot update and maintain all of them. Updating these charts would require me to review the Croatian census information, and I do not speak Croatian. No article has to have GA status: I think it is better to delist an article that no longer meets the criteria rather than have it perpetually listed as a GA because it passed a review several years ago. I cannot spend hours or days of my time updating this article: if someone else can, I will support them.
  • While disagreement with a reviewer's assessment is welcome and appropriate, this GAR is the wrong place to post critiques of my review style. Here's my talk page to discuss with me one-on-one, here's the good article talk page to solicit feedback from a wider group of editors on my GAR conduct. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GA/R explicitly says only GA criteria are assessed. I disagree that census 2021 is a major aspect of Geography of Croatia since it does not appear to modify any cited number appreciably (as I have pointed out above after spot-checks which should have been done by the nominator), so 3a is still met. Updating charts would not require knowledge of Croatian, since the Census Bureau publishes its results in English (and there'd be machine translation if it didn't) - but your work is clearly done when you "highlight" an article for others to look at. This is not a critique of your rieview style since this is not an actual review. This "review" started with complaint about a maintenance tag and two unreferenced passages, then two missing citation tags are added, and then a gripe about publication date of sources used. There's no qualitative review of any contents of this article whatsoever. Maintenance tags have been assessed, publication dates are not a part of GA criteria unless there's a qualitative problem - and none have been "highlighted".--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I sort of agree with @Tomobe03 here. I don't think the census is a crucial part of the article. Don't get me wrong, I would still like for it to be updated. Word of advice for Tom, I don't think you should try and pressure @Z1720 to make edits and update sources. It may not be his expertise, or maybe he just doesn't want to, which in my eyes is completely fine. As Z said, "*While disagreement with a reviewer's assessment is welcome and appropriate, this GAR is the wrong place to post critiques of my review style. Here's my talk page to discuss with me one-on-one, here's the good article talk page to solicit feedback from a wider group of editors on my GAR conduct." This GAR just isn't the right place to comment on their review style. (Hey, I mean, they are better than mine). i personally think Z is a pretty good nominator but that's just my opinion. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. That is the point - maintenance tags aside, nominators should be at least sufficiently familiar with the given topic to be able to comment on whether an issue is a major aspect of the topic required by GA criteria. The nominator remarked there are 40k GAs in need of periodic review - I trust there must be some they are familiar with sufficiently to comment with some level of expertise. Not necessarily professional expertise, having done a spot-check of a relevant source would suffice. There is no need to randomly list GAs asking if someone check numbers in the article because they're curious if something has changed since the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I think someone should address the more actionable issues as specified by @Z1720. Maybe someone can update the census info too. I personally don't have the time. I just wanted to comment in case this GAR devolves into a dispute. Just wanted to be the third opinion. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that in terms of outdated information, while some of the information is outdated, they can be addressed and alone do not warrant a delisting. I personally think @Z1720's argument is not compelling enough. This article does not have any major flaws warranting a delisting. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lake Vostok

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. Hog Farm Talk 19:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. Some of these have been marked with "citation needed" since May 2023 or December 2020. The lead is extreamly long and overly detailed. I suggest that this be reduced to four paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eucalyptusmint Any progress? All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All Tomorrows No Yesterdays, not yet, but will do today. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@All Tomorrows No Yesterdays or @Z1720, think I've addressed the concerns, please take a look. Thanks. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eucalyptusmint: Lenta.ru (ref 6) is a blacklisted source on Wikipedia. It will need to be replaced with a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, done. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leeds Country Way

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited information throughout the article. There's also a very low amount of information: when sources are found for the uncited information, I would suggest that any additional information is added to the article. In particular, I think more details on its history and critical commentary/reception of the path should be added. Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is lacking in breadth and content: if I had come across it not in the context of a GAR, I would have rated it a high "C". It needs a lot of research. Hopefully an editor with suitable background will step up? — hike395 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've flagged a couple of specific issues inline, but worth making them visible here too:
  • "it is suggested that.." is classic weasel wording. Say, in active voice, which source has suggested that (and why they suggested it!)
  • the citations for the waymarking symbol do not state that the symbol comes from the city arms – one of them states that there's an owl on the waymarking but doesn't mention the arms, the other one states that there's an owl on the arms but doesn't mention LCW. That looks like WP:SYNTH.
And thinking about it further, I'd add:
  • Ordnance Survey maps are cited a few times, which isn't ideal – they require interpretation, and whenever possible it would be better practice to use sources which explicitly support, in prose, the claims being made.
  • It's very weighted to the route guide, to the point of getting into unencyclopedic minutiae – WP:NOTGUIDE – and in doing so it's just repeating primary and self-published sources that say the route goes that way.
  • Ideally it would have more secondary coverage, though perhaps there hasn't been any. Has the walk been reviewed or written up in any magazines, newspapers or books? What do those sources think about it? Has there been any assessment of its impact?
cheers, Joe D (t) 18:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the concerns about "is suggested that" and the owl/waymark/coat of arms, flagged in the article.
I've also added its brief mention in Parliament, and the fastest known time for its completion.
There seems very little unsourced content. PamD 20:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Citation concerns addressed. I AGF that additional sources were looked for and the article includes all that can be found. Lead could be a little longer, but not enough of a concern to decline this keep. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bleeding Through

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been aware of this article for some time, but have been reluctant to bring it forward to GAR. It is the last surviving music-related A-Class article, is a band I enjoy listening to, and for a while I believed I could save it. Alas, it has caught the attention of the community, and I believe that the time has come to restore it or delist.

When I was new to Wikipedia 10 years ago, this article was in good shape, and the band broke up only months into my time as a Wikipedian. Time has not treated the band's article kindly; they faded into obscurity while inactive, then regrouped and never really regained the spotlight, and consequently, proper care on Wikipedia. The GA nominator has been retired some 15 years.

The main concerns initially brought forward were lack of sourcing (2c), unreliable sourcing (2b), and a lead that's too short (1b). I personally that the article's breadth of coverage is suspect in its current state (3a), but the previous issues I would agree are the primary issues.

I believe this can be saved with some work, but I am probably too busy to do it alone in a reasonable amount of time, and would welcome any who are interested in assisting me. Also @Z1720: here we go. Sorry, been a very very very busy week. mftp dan oops 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the prose in this article is, at times, less than satisfactory, but I am up to the task. mftp dan oops 22:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a significant improvement to the lead. It is not quite what I'd consider ideal, as I need to read the rest of the article, but I took some notes from the original GA version (yes, believe it or not that old piece of 2007 junk helped) and it's certainly not as bad before. mftp dan oops 00:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chchcheckit, @Iazyges, @MFTP Dan if there are no objections, I will be closing this GAR as keep. All major issues have been resolved in my opinion. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ready. Bleeding Through#Reunion and Love Will Kill All (2018–present) needs rewriting and is currently missing citations. i might write this part up. the article has def. improved and looks better but don't close the review until that's done. // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bowar, Chad (2018-05-25). "Bleeding Through Interview". Heavy Music HQ. Retrieved 2025-01-15. SOURCE useful for why band reunited. self note Chchcheckit (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it, but this needs some more work in my opinion. I'll be fixing it before the end of the week, but again, I've been juggling an FAC with this one. If you insist and really think it's worth keeping, you can go ahead, but I'll still be doing substantial work on it for the band's later years. I think it's keepable, but I just need to commit time to it. I'm back to waiting for response on the FAC, so I'll shift back over here until more of that arrives. mftp dan oops 14:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I only just skimmed through it when asking, I don't it's ready just yet. I'll close once I get the opinions of the other commenters and the Reunion section is fixed. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a checklist:
  • checkY Reasons for Disbandment aren't there.
  • checkY Better sources needed for 2014 touring stuff. the schepetti podcast interview is now inaccessible.
  • Interviews on the reunion? Heavy metal HQ.
  • checkY Add more/copyedit. to Reunion and Love Will Kill All (2018–present).
  • Add more/copyedit. to Rage EP and Nine (2022–present)
  • checkY ensure no primary sources: instagram posts appeared more than once. find other stuff.
  • More reliable sources needed for Composition section; barely any besides 1 instance of AllMusic
  • checkY discography table needs fixing (Moved into its own article)
It should be done after that , i think. ive added some more stuff to the earlier paragraphs. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading in some source I sifted through that the band originally broke up because they no longer had the financial means to do so at that time, but I'd have to dig it up again and I don't remember which one it was. mftp dan oops 17:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated checklist/crossout. // Chchcheckit (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also did some copyediting of some earlier sections. // Chchcheckit (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Not a fan of the overlong and confusing prose, and that line in lead about being a "band to watch" in 2004 really makes them look like a former hype band. I think it has the groundworks to become a good article (you could try speedrunning??) and has plenty of citations to work with, but as it is now, it's pretty bad. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am OFF WORK tomorrow, and will dedicate that day to fixing this article. If I cannot get it to a satisfactory level by midnight EST on January 2, anyone is free to close this any time afterward. I fear this article may require print references for the smallest, but necessary, details, and I cannot acquire it in a timely fashion. mftp dan oops 14:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan: As a matter of principle, as long as work is actively being undertaken (and the present article isn't hideously malformed), I think a longer period of time to keep it open is more than acceptable. Our focus in reforming GAR was just to ensure that articles that no one had any desire to fix can be delisted, not to rush delisting articles that have interest. Other Coordinators are free to act as they see fit of course, but I would ask that some time be granted to finish off the fixes. Thank you for all your work! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thank you! I have some great news on the source front: the content in the ancient Prime Directive Records reference is salvageable! You have to inspect the page elements to see it, so I might include instructions inside to view them. This site runs on long-unsupported programming, so I'm afraid there's no other way to see it, but it can be seen. mftp dan oops 20:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another person has found a workaround for the MusicMight bio I thought was lost forever. This will be of great help. I think most of our remaining work is now from the time of the self-titled album on, and plenty of more contemporary sources exist to help us there. mftp dan oops 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Progress report: the style section, as well as everything on the band's history up to the end of Declaration, I believe I have completed. If anyone has any questions or feedback on those areas, I would encourage you to get ahold of me. I'm juggling an FAC for another article with this GAR, but I'm still confident I can do both. mftp dan oops 18:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
quick suggestion: remove the final paragraph of the lead. it is dated (again: 2004, hype band stuff). It is getting there. // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@All Tomorrows No Yesterdays: I believe we are at something keepable, finally. Let me know what you think. This is the best we can do with what sourcing is available. mftp dan oops 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second Dan. // Chchcheckit (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it seems they are unavailable for the next month. Missed them by a day. @Iazyges: you commented here earlier, what say you? Is this article about up to snuff? I think I've gotten everything. mftp dan oops 19:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, it seems both of these two will be/have been missing for an extended period. mftp dan oops 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a cursory look at the article, and from that I don't see any serious issues remaining. Biggest thing I saw was a duplicated citation (cites 133 and 134 should be combined) Note that this is the first time I've looked at the article and while I read the thread here, I didn't do a comprehensive read. I'll leave it to others to make a final determination but figured outside input might be helpful here. I will say at worse this is probably very close to the finish line. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WSJ Magazine

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of the article is unusual, and it is hard to find the "History" of the magazine. There isn't much information post-2008, with no information post-2017. Z1720 (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, the first sentence of your rationale is not relevant to the GACR. Regarding recent updates, are there sources available? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: WP:WIAGA 1b specifically talks about layout. "The usual practice is to order body sections based on the precedent of similar articles." My impression of other media articles is that the history of the subject is listed chronologically and consecutively, without the information separated by other headings. If the consensus is to organise the article differently, I will adhere to that. In searching for sources, I found several news articles about the "WSJ Magazine Innovator Awards", but there is no mention of this in the article: this might be a major aspect missing from the article. I also suggest subject matter experts search for sources, as they can find things much more quickly than I can find new information. Z1720 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SummerSlam (1988)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Euro area crisis

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited passages throughout the article, including a "citation needed" tag from 2018. The article is not concise in its information, and the yellow banner at the top of the page indicates that it might be WP:TOOBIG. There are some sources that might not be considered reliable, including "seekingalpha.com", "New Economic Perspectives" and "Jim Rogers Blog" Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of Indiana

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. It also struggles to be concise, with over 15,000 words in the article: information should be spun out to daughter articles or removed if unnecessary. Potential unreliable sources like "History.com" and "Bell, Trudy E. (February 18, 2013)" (a blog) are used and should be reassessed for their use in the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sycamore Historic District

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has many uncited statements, including several sections. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spider-Man: One More Day

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, particularly in the "Subsequent direction" section. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Providence College

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited prose in the article. The "History" section needs to be updated, as it stops at 2018, and the "Student life" prose needs to be updated, as most stats are from the 2000s or 2012. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There have definitely been expansions and changes to the university since 2018 (I would know, I actually was at PC for work a few times in support of construction there at a previous job). So at minimum, the article is out of date. I agree with the other concerns raised in the nomination as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Aman, Azanis Shahila (2024-11-03). "Petaling district has Malaysia's next highest GDP after KL, says DOSM | New Straits Times". NST Online. Retrieved 2024-12-28.
  2. ^ "Achieving A System of Competitive Cities in Malaysia: Main Report" (PDF). World Bank Group & Khazanah Nasional. November 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_82&oldid=1271758018"