Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 85

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 84) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 86) →

Astrology

[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) 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure

[edit]
Extended content
Wound theology: I don't see any advance notice of this GAR on Talk:Astrology? The normal procedure is to state one's concerns on the talk page, and if there's no (satisfactory) response, to proceed to GAR. I suggest this GAR should be withdrawn now, so we can discuss the matter on the talk page first. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the archives; I previously brought up certain issues (the theological viewpoints, in particular) and even flagged it with a disclaimer as being unbalanced. It was ignored and the template was eventually removed because no one else seemed to care. wound theology◈ 09:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was well done, and I see you've made some helpful additions to the article recently as well. But neither of those things constitute putting a notice on the talk page that you're considering a GAR, in the week before you do so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: The edit in which I added the Template:POV is here and the previous "discussion" is at Talk:Astrology/Archive 36#Theological viewpoints. Note that the edit in which VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) removed the template has an inaccurate summary, stating there has been consensus for "over a year" -- I did explain to her here that a lack of discussion is an example of WP:NOCON rather than the opposite. wound theology◈ 09:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find "GAR" anywhere in that archive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest: I was just following Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines, which is the first search result for me. That page only says to [c]onsider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors. Unless there is some hard-and-fast policy like the WP:3RR about talk page discussion about a GAR specifically, I think the problems on this page are serious enough to warrant a reassessment. The page is largely the accretion of several slow-burn edit wars and POV-pushing from both sides in the ten years (!) since it was elevated to GA status, and from my own personal experience editing the page -- not many are willing to give the proper historical context needed here. The fact that a cleanup template could stay up for over a year and then be quietly removed for a lack of discussion is evidence enough of that. wound theology◈ 09:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, GAR it is then. Let's proceed to technical discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Much has been changed and argued about since this page was promoted a decade ago. In general it is unbalanced and skewed -- not in the WP:FRINGE sense but in that it tends to ignore how widespread astrology was in ancient and medieval times, and seems to misrepresent the work of ancient philosophical skeptics (who rejected all philosophical and scientific inquiry.) The "Theological viewpoints" section, likewise, implies that astrology was historically rejected in both Islam and Christianity, despite the fact that the exact opposite is true. wound theology◈ 08:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a comment about content; reviewing the six GA criteria, the only one near it is Neutrality, but the page is studiously neutral, despite much added-and-reverted partisan editing. Instead, your remarks about "ancient philosophical skeptics (who rejected all philosophical and scientific inquiry.)" and "Theological viewpoints" (Islam and Christianity) are both matters of historical detail, which can be fixed simply by adding a bit more detail in both cases. I suspect you have historical texts to hand which could fix both matters quite easily? I'll be happy to support you in getting such materials into the article, but I see that as normal development, nothing to do with neutrality (basically, just fine adjustment).
As for your remark about "how widespread astrology was in ancient and medieval times", I'd say (looking at the article after a long interval), that it does quite a good job of indicating the topic's importance in those eras, giving substantial weight in a detailed 'History' chapter to this aspect. That does not mean we can't add more detail, and I suggest we do, to satisfy your concerns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is either Neutral nor sufficiently Broad in its coverage. The single largest section in this page is dedicated to the reception of astrology in the hard sciences, which dwarfs the comparatively tiny section on the principles and practice of astrology -- which covers three entire civilizations in less space than it takes to debunk the particular claims of modern horoscopic astrology. Elsewhere, significant weight is given to skeptical opinions in historical contexts, and even those viewpoints are presented in a very skewed manner -- the description of Plotinus as a critic of astrology without discussion of his very complex astrological views is heinous, in my view (see Adamson, "Plotinus on Astrology" in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35 for context on that issue.) Giving even broad coverage to the Theological viewpoints section is, to put it simply, a Herculean task -- it is a massively complex topic spanning centuries and dozens of particular schools and opinions, practically none of which can be given a single "pro" or "contra" summary; exactly why I find the lack of interest in expanding that section particularly telling. wound theology◈ 10:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't find anything "particularly telling": my view is that our job on Wikipedia in a top-level overview-of-a-major-topic article is to give a very brief summary of many large and complex issues in a small space. I'm happy to help you extend the history, as long as it doesn't overwhelm the article; any further detail would go into subsidiary articles on Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology (substantial articles, which we certainly can't and shouldn't try to duplicate here), etc.
With respect, we are very far from falling foul of either GACR Neutrality or Breadth criteria here: the article gives what many readers will find a surprising amount of detail on ancient matters. However, I'm very happy to accept your steer towards additional materials (possibly by asking you to email me a photocopy). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a brief statement about the ancient skeptics challenging everything: it's a bit of an iffy thing to do in an article as philosophers and others leap gleefully on anything with a "forall" in it, and it's close to being off-topic too, but it may help to answer your first concern (which I really don't see as misrepresentation at all: the article just says "A says x", which does not imply "A does not say y", specially as "y" is outside the article's scope). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence on Plotinus from Adamson, mentioning his interest and two key concerns identified by Adamson. If there are further points on other ancient figures you'd like added, please identify them and I'll add them to the article (unless you feel like doing so yourself). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for keeping

[edit]
  • Keep: 1) the article is studiously neutral, covering multiple points of view and giving equal weight to history, principles and practice, theology, science, and culture, and has been edited and debated by many editors; and 2) the article offers detailed and balanced coverage of a very large subject in the space of a single overview article (in "summary style" with "main" links to subsidiary articles). In particular, this one article cannot and must not attempt to cover every detail of everything that the more than 60 astrology articles on Wikipedia cover already: as sketched in the tree diagram below, this article is at the top of a substantial hierarchy of articles, and its job is to give new readers a compact overview of the field: which it does. Accordingly, it is a valid Good Article and should be kept as such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Astrology
over 60 subtopics
covered in subsidiary articles
and 3) the sources have been tidied up (moved inline) for simplicity and ease of maintenance, given the many new editors who visit here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: how shall I retract the reassessment? I don't think my original critique holds anymore. wound theology◈ 08:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just say so boldly here. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 21 April 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.

Mathematical economics

[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) 15:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. While some prose is used to explain the mathematical formulas, and thus citations might not be required, other uncited prose is not used for that purpose, and thus needs to be cited. Some sections have an overreliance on quotes, which cause copyright concerns and are not summaries of the information. This includes the "Adequacy of mathematics for qualitative and complicated economics" and "Mathematical economics as a form of pure mathematics" sections. Ref 128 and 129 seem to be blogs. Are these reliable sources, or should they be replaced? Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 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.

Przemysł II

[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) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@North8000: Content in good articles need to be cited. I am happy to add citation needed templates if requested, but there are some citation needed tags from 2018 that are unresolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not arguing either way, just for a clearly expressed-concern that uses the criteria as a guide. And so an uncited statement per se is not a violation. On another note, an unresolved CN tag is a whole different different thing than the general thoughts expressed here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do in terms of sourcing, but no promises. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found one source that partially supports the statement but I don't know about the rest. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Piotrus and @HełmPolski: Can either of you help? I'm sorry, I'm kind of grasping at straws here. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping folks more familiar with that history period active on en wiki: @Merangs @Volunteer Marek @Orczar Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: &@Grumpylawnchair: – I can try to fill the sections where the 'citations needed' notes are present in the text. Is there anything else that requires addressing? On a personal note, I think the footnotes/citations in the lead section make it very untidy and any referenced information there should already be in the body of the article. Merangs (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uncited statements are the entire basis of this GAR. I could help you tidy up the lead if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: On that note, the notes should probably be put in their own notelist instead of the reflist since it is unwieldy. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notes and refs should not be mixed, good point. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: & @Grumpylawnchair: – Just wanted to let you know that I was able to locate and place sources for the uncited passages in the article. Merangs (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: Thank you very much! I'll take care of separating the notes from the refs. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The article probably needs a good copyedit (maybe someone should place a request to the Guild of Copyeditors), especially the footnotes, and a lot of the info in the footnotes can be moved into the prose. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: @Merangs: @HełmPolski: Honestly, some of the sources need replacing. Polskie Radio, while usually reliable, is not a good source for a history article. The sources to news articles should ideally be replaced. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a copyedit, I would ping @Nihil novi, although I am not sure if they'd be interested in this topic. My skills are not a good match for this particular problem. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to take a look, but it seems you've resolved the issue :) HełmPolski (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs, Piotrus, Grumpylawnchair, and HełmPolski: there is still uncited material throughout the article, if any of you are up for referencing it inline? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 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.

Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin

[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: Concerns addressed and resolved. No other concerns with the article noted. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review Section

[edit]

(Taken from my points on the main talk page of the article)

This article hasn't been assessed for GA article status since 2008. Having expanded and the standards for GA having risen since then, I feel that the time is right for this article to be assessed to see if this article still meets the criteria. In the meantime, here are some things that I have noted so far.

  • The lead has no information on the game's development despite there being ample enough info to include.
  • The lead doesn't do a good job at illustrating the gameplay and plot.
  • Gameplay section is seemingly very messy -
    • It goes into seemingly too much detail about the game's enemies.
    • On top of that, it mentions the games endings in too much detail for something that should probably be reserved for the plot section.
    • The "Alternate Modes" and "Nintendo Wi-Fi" subsections aren't necessary as their contents can seemingly be shortened and added to the main section with no real issue.
    • Alternate Modes subsection has a majority of it in bullet points. Need I say more.
  • The plot section is too long and somewhat messy in writing in places.
  • The development section is decently well written, but there is a citation needed symbol and the Audio subsection feels sort of iffy to me.
  • Reception section might need to be rewritten. Definitely work in or remove the final line of the section though as it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the text in the section.
  • Some References, such as the Brady Games strategy guide, seem unfit for this article. Also, one of the sources isn't formatted properly.

Any additional points to be addressed are very much appreciated COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More points can be added here once a week of no commentary occurs on the main talk page.
@CooperCool23: I agree with most of your review. Here are some points that I have a different opinion about or questions for clarification:
  • The existence of the subsections seem appropriate based on what I remember of the coverage. Though I do conceded that if they are condensed, a smaller amount of prose wouldn't warrant a subsection. I guess wait and see until after changes are made.
  • Why is the Brady Game strategy guide unfit? It's an official guide made in collaboration with Konami, the developer, and is being used to source gameplay. Also, any other sources you feel are unfit?
  • I fixed the Nintendo Power source with the missing information.
I'll see how much I can help out with and start making edits as time allows. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@Guyinblack25 in regards to your comment about sources, I didn't know that official strategy guides could be used when citing gameplay so that is my fault. That, and I think I was just skimming through the list of references in the article and thought that I saw ones that were out of place (I think I also mistook that the "official" in the Brady Games source wasn't there...some how (don't ask)). I have now also done and double checked all the sources together with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and the article and can now say for certain that none of the sources seem to be unfit or unreliable for the article. Hope that clears some things up. COOPER COOL 23 user page 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👍 (Guyinblack25 talk 22:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Starting a discussion about the cover art caption to avoid back and forth reverts. I've seen that trend before and always change it because it is outside Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, image captions do not have to be short and should not be so short that they omit useful information to the reader. The term the MoS uses is "succinct", which means don't use ten words when five or six will do.

  • "Succinctness is using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as brevity, which is using a relatively small number of words. Succinct captions have more power than verbose ones."

Other points in the MoS that apply here are

  • "The caption should lead the reader into the article."
  • "While a short caption is often appropriate, if it might be seen as trivial (People playing Monopoly), consider extending it so that it adds value to the image and is related more logically to the surrounding text (A product of the Great Depression, Monopoly continues to be played today.)."
  • The special situation section of that MoS (MOS:CAPLENGTH) includes a video game cover as an example of a full-sentence caption in the infobox, citing Bioshock Infinite: "BioShock Infinite gives an example of an informative yet brief full-sentence caption describing the key element (the singular protagonist) depicted and its relationship to the article's subject."

While I agree the caption itself does not need to mention that the characters are new to the series, this is the only visual information in the article that depicts what the two characters (who are mentioned prominently) look like as the screenshot uses only tiny pixel sprites. Identifying them by name and connecting that to visual information helps most readers process and retain information. Basically, treating the caption as only a label is a missed opportunity to enrich the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Update - there are some places that could use some polish and there are probably a few more rabbit holes I could dive into for content, but I'm basically done with my improvements. If someone could review/copy edit the whole article, that would be helpful. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@CooperCool23: checking in to see if the improvements are sufficient to close the GAR. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@Guyinblack25: Most of what I majorly disliked about the article has been fixed and all the sources seem to be formatted properly. I'm willing to say that the GAR can be closed now. COOPER COOL 23 user page 02:01, 23 April 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.

Brian's Got a Brand New Bag

[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. charlotte 👸♥ 03:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an "Original research" banner at the top of the uncited "Cultural references" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed them as they were added in 2017 when the article was already a GA. @Kaliforniyka: Since you added them, would you like to add it back but with sources? Otherwise, I think it is best just keeping it out. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:21, 2 April 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.

David Archuleta

[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) 14:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been at GA status for over 16 years and hasn't been reassessed since. There are a some issues that should be looked at if this article is to remain at GA status.

I brought these up at the talk page a week ago but I don't think anyone is watching.

Some issues I noticed:

  • The latter section of the Career section is very poor. Most of the more recent stuff (last 10 years) reads as a WP:PROSELINE list of chronological events that has been assembled piecemeal instead of written as proper prose. (WP:GACR6 #1)
  • Some of the paragraphs are very short - some only two short sentences long. These should probably be restructured to be more substantial. (WP:GACR6 #1)
  • There are a few citation needed tags (and other tags) interspersed throughout the article, once again mostly in the latter part of the article. (WP:GACR6 #2)
  • Not particularly a GA issue, but in general the citations in the lead & in the infobox should be moved into the body of the article (MOS:INFOBOXCITE, MOS:LEADCITE)
  • It doesn't look like there are any citations at all for the Performances table (WP:GACR6 #2)
  • The Filmography section is also missing many citations. (WP:GACR6 #2)

RachelTensions (talk) 00:51, 20 March 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.

Honiara

[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) 14:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Administrative divisions" table should be updated with the latest population figures. Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was only thinking that yesterday! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 28 March 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.

Chrysler 180

[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: Concerns resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uncited statements, some tagged as such since March 2023. While some work has been done to rectify this, the work seems to have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I think I have resolved your concerns. Cos (X + Z) 21:06, 11 April 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.

Christine Hakim

[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) 14:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Awards" and "Filmography" sections have "unsourced" banners from 2022. The "Biography" section has numerous paragraphs, and should probably be broken up with level 3 headings. The lead does not have post-2011 information and events in it. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 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.

Weak interaction

[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) 14:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page had concerns about the article's quality posted 3 months ago, mainly about numerous uncited statements. This is still an issue three months later so I'm nominating it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Onegreatjoke I must strongly disagree with the statement "concerns about the article's quality posted 3 months ago" used here. What is in the talk page comment is mention of some paragraphs without sources, and the lead being an incomplete description. Similar to an AfD discussion, that is not the strongest argument. A topic such as Weak interaction is almost impossible to summarize in a simple lead, it is too large and complex. Also, looking quickly, many of the unsourced paragraphs are connective or introductory. Maybe someone will add some sources, I am not qualified to even though I have a physics background. I suspect that many potential editors will be put of by the abrupt nature of this nomination and a lack of detailed physics-based analysis of the issues. While it is easy to count sources/paragraph, I don't think that is high level analysis, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still some statements that seem to be uncited regardless of whether they're connective or introductory. Plus, the GA guidelines state "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)", so these will need to be cited regardless. I'm not sure if the lead is an issue but i feel that the citation of the article still requires work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I agree with Onegreatjoke that there are citation issues. I also think the lead needs to be expanded to cover all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 25 April 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.

Ontario Highway 33

[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) 14:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 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.

Blackdown Hills

[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) 14:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 29 March 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.

Jodrell Bank Observatory

[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) 14:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 30 March 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.

Steve Irwin

[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) 14:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is an orange "expansion needed" banner from December 2024 Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I updated the citations in the early life section and reworked it a bit.

I will do more soon as the article needs some work. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:59, 7 April 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 Hitchcock

[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) 14:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some uncited statements and verification needed tags. The article is not concise and is considered WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that some information be moved to other articles or removed if unencyclopedic. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 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.

Darian Durant

[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) 14:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's uncited parargaphs throughout the article. There is a lot of MOS:OVERSECTION, and I think some of these sections can be considered to be merged together. The lead is too short and does not mention all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 30 March 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 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[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) 14:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, this is better sourced than it was when it was originally promoted. There are a few non-controversial paragraphs near the start that have never had citations; if that’s the issue, we can work on it. Lastly, there are about a half dozen tags that have crept in over the last 3-4 years when someone has added something that’s either uncited, poorly cited, miscited, etc. I’ve been hesitant to strike those totally though because I don’t want to WP:OWN the article, but if those are the issue then I can certainly strike them, no big deal. Trevdna (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trevdna: If an editor couldn't find a reliable source to support a claim, I would removing the information. If you are still unsure, you can always remove the information and open a discussion on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ll go through and either remove or find citations for statements that are currently uncited or that have tags on them. Give me a couple of days. Trevdna (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I actually got some time to go through and handle these right now. (Decided to just do it and keep it off my to-do list.) How does the article look to you as it currently stands?
Note that per my understanding of MOS:LEADCITE, few if any citations are required in the lead section, as it summarizes content that is properly cited elsewhere in the article. But let me know what your thoughts on it are. Some citations are present for items that, in the original editor's judgement, may have been controversial or challenged, or I guess where they thought that having a citation specific to that statement was just a good idea. Trevdna (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations only need to be in the lead under specific circumstances (like quoting someone) but usually they are not needed and should be removed. The information in the lead should also be in the article body. I have added "citation needed" tags to various locations that need citations. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think that should do it. All the items you tagged have now been addressed. And all citations have been removed from the article lead, one way or another. Let me know what you think. Trevdna (talk) 19:26, 31 March 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.

Freemasonry

[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) 14:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article. There is an "unreliable sources" orange banner at the top of "Islam and Freemasonry" section. Is this still valid? Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s tricky… The sources cited in that section are reliable as primary sources for verifying what Islamic critics of Freemasonry claim about the fraternity… they are not reliable as secondary sources for saying that these claims are in any way accurate. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of secondary sources relaying what they say, they shouldn't be included at all, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 19 April 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.

29th 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: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot uncited statements, including several large paragraphs, in the article. There are unreliable sources in the article, such as GlobalSecurity, IMDB, and "Hobie" (a blogspot). Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 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.

24: The 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) 14:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are "citation needed" tags since 2016, as well as uncited statements that are not tagged. There is a yellow "encyclopedic tone" banner at the top of the review section. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 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.

Mes courants électriques

[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: Speedily delisted as an inadequate review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly evaluated article where there are multiple CS1 citation errors present, and several sources used—including Discogs—do not meet the reliability standards outlined at WP:RS. Additionally, there are formatting and MOS issues that suggest the article was not thoroughly reviewed during its GA nomination. The original review mostly describes the article as "good" or "well-written" without providing in-depth feedback or demonstrating engagement with the full GA criteria. I suspect that both accounts involved in the GA review are socking. Other GAs related to this include Gourmandises and "J'en ai marre!" for reassessment. Cattos💭 23:42, 19 April 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.

J'en ai marre!

[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: Inadequate review, speedily delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same issues as Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mes courants électriques/1. Cattos💭 23:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist: To start, I share your suspicions regarding sockpuppeting in this case given that the review given by 7n3 here seems eerily similar in format to the one given by Ieslie here, but I digress. In general, I like to check whether or not the song's genres are sourced as a baseline check, and in this case they are both attributed to Discogs, which both is not a reliable source and does not even reflect the genres presently listed in the article. In addition, the lyrical meaning in the lead is uncited, a variety of the references have errors, and the 'Live performances' section is entirely made up of YouTube links which violates both WP:RSPYT and WP:OR. The synopsis of the music video is also copied almost word-to-word from the IMDB page, though I am not sure whether or not this is a copyright violation since it is possible that someone copied it from Wikipedia to IMDB; in any case, such a citation violates WP:IMDB. In short: lots of issues, based decision to bring this to GAR. Leafy46 (talk) 03:29, 24 April 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.

Stan Marsh

[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. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could have violated WP:NPOV and has a lack of cites on some sentences. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 23:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give examples of how it violates NPOV as from a quick glance I have not noticed it? Also, can you please give examples of sentences needing cites to help people wanting to improve the article? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedoxm: saying "could have violated" makes you seem unsure of there actually being NPOV violations, and every single paragraph is sourced (not every sentence needs to be sourced), so i'm leaning towards a keep until there are actually problems pointed out. 750h+ 08:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All links fixed! LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:39, 24 April 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.

Vampire folklore by region

[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) 20:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article came about after being excised from the (large) parent article. Been ages since I looked at it - will do so at some point this week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A few bits and pieces (citing or removing the Cambodia section, also pondering about what to do with the Folktales section at bottom) and rejigging the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, follow up poke, just checking you're still interested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Will do over weekend. I have commented out unreferenced section as I suspect it will require more snooping than I am prepared to do currently - I'll make a note on the talk page for later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't seen any activity since December apart from one section being commented out, I'm inclined to close as delist unless someone intends to make improvements soon or there's a consensus to keep. Potentially this could be kept by excising the remaining unsourced material. @Casliber and AirshipJungleman29:, any thoughts? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had commented out the main chunk of material (I thought all of it...??? Oh, found and removed some more). The outstanding issue was rejigging the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not too sure what to do about the lead. Is a little small but as much of the article is quite listy in its content, it'd be making a mini-list in lead, which I don't think is that helpful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure how to evaluate the broadness of this article. The article states that "the entity known today as the vampire originates almost exclusively from early 18th-century Central Europe", but the article body seems to extend the article to... anything that drinks blood? If the focus is the 18th-century mythology, then the continental division doesn't feel like it makes much sense. If the focus is anything drinking blood, or similar, then the balance between the sections seems very off (even then continental division seems unlikely to be related to vampires, but taking it as a rough category is probably fine). CMD (talk) 05:52, 27 March 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.

Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic

[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) 20:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you be more specific - I see one overtly problematic paragraph (second paragraph of Sovietization), what other ones are of concern? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I have added citation needed tags where they are needed. Z1720 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making some progress with the uncited sections, will keep working on it, I'll need four or five days. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned with the broadness of this page. This is a polity of 70 years, but little is covered outside of History. I don't think a Geography section is needed given it would likely replicate current Armenia, but there should be coverage of the population and culture. Perhaps the article could have more on the raions and cities, and more on the economy and infrastructure. This was surely a time of huge change. Lastly, should there be an extended paragraph on the flag based only on the Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev? CMD (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is this is a page that will predominantly need to reflect a specific historical period and politics, population and culture will to a large extent be subsumed into that (for example, note the religious aspects discussed during the Thaw section). However, will try to address some of these issues. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Other aspects should not be subsumed under History on this article, that would only be the case for a dedicated History article (currently there is not one). As a comparison, consider East Germany. A much broader coverage of politics, administration, economics, demographics, and culture, as well as a Legacy section, possibly relevant here too. CMD (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW WP:SIZERULE; the DDR article is somewhat bloated. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we may need to quick fail/delist this. I'm seeing some sections which appear to be close paraphrasing of "A concise history of the Armenian people: (from ancient times to the present)" by George A Bournoutian. The text previously referenced was the 5th edition, however I accessed the 2nd edition at the archive.org library, and this shows sections which have been simply reordered. I'll need to do a full check. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The DDR article is long because of its 4,000 word History section, this has little bearing on the rest of the sections. That's also more GACR3b, not GACR3a, which is the issue here. Thanks for the copyvio note, that's a rough find. I don't seem to have access at archive.org. Looking at early revisions, the 2006 version was initially cited[1]. CMD (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, RL has delayed me on this, will be able to review the close paraphrasing within 48 hours. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Goldsztajn, did you ever get a chance to review the potential WP:CLOP? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29 Apologies, March turned out to be busier than expected both here and in RL. Give me another day, please. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any updates Goldsztajn? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @AirshipJungleman29 - apologies (again) for the delay. I've finally managed to go through the text more fully. As far as I can see, the first two paragraphs in the section "Khrushchev Thaw in Armenia" more or less paraphrase p.322 of George Bournoutian's A concise history of the Armenian people (2003). However, the I think the text in the body is sufficiently different. For example:
    • Bournoutian: "Stalin's death in 1953 opened a new era for Armenia and the rest of the Soviet Union. The first step towards this was to remove the pervasive control of the secret police."
    • Article: "Armenia underwent significant social and cultural changed in the aftermath of Stalin's death in 1953 ... During the subsequent Khrushchev Thaw Soviet leadership loosened the grip of the pervasive NKVD."
    • Bournoutian: "and rehabilitated dead communists executed during the Great Purge, such as Khanjian and Charents, as well as the releasing thousands political prisoners from the Siberian gulag. The works of Raffi and Raphael Patkanian were returned to print. In 1962, the massive statue of Stalin that towered over Yerevan was pulled down from its pedestal by troops and replaced in 1967 with that of Mother Armenia."
    • Article: "...enabled the rehabilitation of dead communists such as Khanjian and Charents, the release of thousands from the Siberian gulag, and the republication of Raffi and Patkanian. Stalin’s body was removed from Lenin’s tomb on Red Square; his large statue in Armenia was toppled and eventually replaced by one of Mother Armenia."
    • Bournoutian: "Khrushchev's changes in the economic sector were significant for Armenia as well. Large collective farms were divided into smaller ones. Armenia was permitted to plant other crops besides grain. Tobacco, vegetables, grapes and other fruits, more suitable to Armenia's soil and climate were planted."
    • Article: "Moreover, the Union-wide economic reforms affected Armenia, diversifying its grain production, farmers were permitted to cultivate small plots for their own personal use, and the newly-integrated production of livestock and various irrigation projects increased Armenia's agricultural output." (This is cited to Bournoutian).
    Goldsztajn (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a pass wielding the "Armenian concise history" book—added citation, expanded, shuffled info, etc. Only one citation-less paragraph remains, a list of Armenian people from 20th century who defined certain period of Soviet Armenia, but I have a feeling it's just a list of successful people from 20th century Armenia who have a wiki pages, and a wiki editor loosely connected them. Since they are popular and sucessful figures, it can be assumed that they are a part of Soviet Armenia zeitgeist, but the concise history and google didn't produce anything remotely useful to prove it. I would delete it. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:11, 5 March 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.

Feminism

[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) 21:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep: The article already makes abundant use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and I am impressed that such a general article comes in at only 10,425 words, which is perfectly in accord with WP:TOOBIG. I have reviewed the article and tagged every instance of a missing citation. Since none of the statements are controversial, I expect editors will fill them in now that they have been flagged. Demotion seems unwarranted and nonproductive. Patrick (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Patrick Welsh: I have added additional citation needed tags. The GA criteria states "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph". The numerous citation needed tags (including for entire paragraphs and quotes) and the "additional citations needed" orange banners will need to be resolved before I can recommend that this article keeps its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you would add those redundant tags, which make the article look messier that it is.
    As long as the unsupported content is uncontroversial, which it is, I will remain opposed.
    Placing an artificial deadline on editors to make these improvements seems counter-productive. Patrick (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TOOBIG isn't a hard rule; note that it says "> 9,000 words – Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." (emphasis mine) I think a general article about feminism should be on the larger side, and 10,000ish words isn't an exhausting length. The citation issues aren't major and can be remedied easily, eventually. Yue🌙 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earth, one of the biggest scopes on Wikipedia, is under 9,000 words, so spinning off prose can be done. In my opinion, an article should be concise and spin out material into daughter articles instead of long, hard to load on slow internet connections, and have too much detail that distracts from the most important information. None of this negates the citation concerns which still exist in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
80% of the feminist theory content of the page could be removed, and the page would lose nothing in terms of detailing what exactly feminism is. After a talk page discussion, I once removed an entire subsection on "architectural feminism" that was based on a single article from a feminist journal. If you Googled the subject, all that it returned was the Wikipedia page and the article itself. This is what I'm talking about: this article has chronic issues with detailed descriptions of incredibly minor topics, in this case one so minor it couldn't even warrant its own article. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article has had serious length and POV problems for years now. The article received GA status in 2011, just before the advent of "4th wave" feminism, when feminism itself was significantly narrower in scope. The anachronistic issues that once plagued this article have mostly been addressed, but length issues are still present.
Feminism today has become something personal for many people, which I think is the source of the POV and length issues. I honestly believe the only reason this article has maintained GA status for so long despite its glaring issues is that feminist editors see delisting it as an attack on feminism itself. Because of that, I doubt it will ever be delisted, even though it hasn't deserved GA status for nearly ten years. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the POV issues? Patrick (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it stands for Point Of View issues. Basically using too many pronouns like "I," or "you," or including opinions. 66.110.254.14 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Thanks! The policy is WP:NPOV.
My inquiry was intended to be about specific violations in this article, which should be addressed if they are based on high-quality sources, but disregarded if they are one editor's problem with the topic. Patrick (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, we generally use "keep" or "delist" at GAR. It can be confusing to say "support" or "oppose" because it isn't clear if that means you're supporting or opposing the delisting or the keeping of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:17, 18 March 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.

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

[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) 22:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, especially in the "Gameplay" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Zxcvbnm: It's sometimes not as simple as reverting the text: if an editor has added cited text to the article, reverting to an older edit might erase that additional information, so all of the text has to be checked to see if it should be in the article. There's still some uncited text: any interest in fixing this concern in the article? Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added most of the remaining cites (two are left). One for the health and shield bars, which can be cited to an guide, but heard somewhere that it's not the best source; couldn't find anything better. Regarding the online I only found articles that said the publisher (that re-released the game in 2019) hoped the online would increase, but no reporting on the results of the hopes. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:59, 6 May 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.

Alan Dale

[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) 22:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. The article doesn't have much post-2011 information in the prose. There is a "more sources needed" orange banner on top of the "Filmography" section. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the lead, which it appears someone deleted for some reason. Will try and have a look at the career section soon. Gran2 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still need to find a few more sources for the filmography, but I think overall the article is in much better shape now. Gran2 18:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing concerns seem to be resolved. Concerned that "What's Alan Watching?", "WhatCulture" and "BroadwayWorld.com" are used as sources: are these reliable source or should they be replaced? @Gran2: for their opinion. Z1720 (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced all three. Gran2 19:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gran2: Thanks Gran2. I found two more unreliable sources: Internet Movie Database (ref 64) and filmreference.com (ref 65). These should also be replaced. Once this is complete I think I can declare "keep" Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both replaced/removed. Gran2 18:36, 6 May 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.

Klamath River

[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 04:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Are you thinking of the lede? Or the "Indigenous people" section? Overall, the article seems very well-sourced to me. It would help if you could sprinkle {{cn}} where you think the article is lacking. — hike395 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hike395: I have added the cn tags. It was mostly in the "Indigenous people" section, although there was other prose that also needed citations. This is to fulfil the GA criteria requirement that "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". The lead usually does not require citations. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look and fix the missing citations. I agree that the "indigenous people" section isn't up to snuff. — hike395 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have fixed all of the missing citations, mostly by removing off-topic uncited material. I also tidied up the article by moving material into the "indigenous people" section, and also using {{harvnb}}. — hike395 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 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.

Mario Kart Wii

[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. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly reviewed article + Zero spot checks + The prose doesn't read good, especially the reception section. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:36, 5 May 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.

Ctenophora

[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 22:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, of which some uncited text includes references to publications that will need to be checked and cited within the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I hope this is the right place to comment) I have a list of features about the article that I don't think are appropriate for a Good Article:
  • Most importantly, there is a large amount of completely uncited paragraphs and paragraphs that end in uncited sentences, which is unacceptable for a GA.
  • The lead has many citations. I think the lead should have the least amount of citations, given that it's a summary of all the article.
  • There is no separate section for the etymology.
  • There is no explanation of the term Lagerstätten (mentioned at least 3 times), which I think the average reader would highly appreciate.
  • The distribution and length of the Description section is unappealing and probably difficult to read through for the average reader. Given the amount of text, perhaps diffusing the section into several ones would be nice, like this:
    • Body plan (focused on morphology rather than physiology)
      • General body plan
      • Cydippids
      • Lobates
      • Comparison with other animals
    • Physiology
      • Feeding, excretion, and respiration
      • Locomotion
      • Nervous system
      • Senses
      • Bioluminescence
  • Some paragraphs are needlessly profound considering the topic is more general, for example the paragraph at the distribution section that starts with In 2013 Mnemiopsis was recorded in lake Birket Qarun, [...]. I feel like this could be much more concise.
  • Some paragraphs are way too long for a GA and should be at least dispersed, such as in the Relationships within Ctenophora section.
That's all I can see right now. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the first section (Distinguishing features) is too technical to be first, so it probably should go somewhere below the Body plan or even inside it as a subsection (I'll edit my comment above to include it). — Snoteleks (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I slightly beg to differ here; the article is largely in good shape, and there are very few uncited statements. The proposed reorganisation is not really GAR material: the article is not badly organised, and is not unduly hard to read. We can reposition and cut down the 'Distinguishing characteristics' but that's quite a minor issue really. There's nothing here that looks show-stopping. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they asked for comments, and I delivered. Also, everything that I mentioned (and the 8 uncited statements alone) would have frozen any of my own GAs quite easily. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GAR is strictly limited to the GAN criteria. Obviously the uncited statements, already mentioned by nom, must be fixed. The rest may require limited attention but the criteria for clarity etc are quite general and subject to interpretation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never said they weren't. I'm perfectly aware I'm contributing by giving my (subjective) interpretation of the level of clarity and easiness of reading, as a reader that does not frequent this article. This is equally important, as it is the 1st of the WP:GACR6. — Snoteleks (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the entire article needs to be reorganised like Snoteleks suggests, but other comments are valid. It is unusual that there's no etymology section, so it should probably be added. MOS:CITELEAD doesn't ban nor require citations in most circumstances, so I think this topic is outside the scope of a GAR. I see that there's a short explanation of Lagerstaten in the lead (not sure if this was recently added) and I think this is sufficient. I agree with Snoteleks that the description section is too long: its length discourages me from reading it. I suggest that a subject-matter expert copyedit the section for excessive words and WP:DETAIL. Other sections are too long and should be trimmed and split into multiple paragraphs. I added some cn tags, and other have also added tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
🤦 I completely missed the small Lagerstatte explanation. But yeah. I don't think it needs reorganization, but I do feel obligated to comment on that because of my previous GAN experiences. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actions taken

[edit]
  • Etymology: added.
  • Lead: noted.
  • Lagerstätten: I added the description.
  • Description: removed subsections on orders (!) within the phylum. Trimmed and copy-edited. Total reduction 15,000 bytes.
  • Other sections: Trimmed and copy-edited.
  • Citations: all fixed: added refs, removed some materials.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiswick Chap (talk • contribs) 20:51, May 8, 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks, it's fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, why does the etymology section go a completely different direction than the etymology in the lead? Both refer to different languages with different references. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merged the entries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 9 May 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.

British Rail Class 455

[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 22:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article no longer meets the GA criteria. Its lead section of 2 sentences is laughably short, while several paragraphs in the body are uncited. Several sources appear to be unreliable, such as a self-published photography site [2] and whatever "Southern E-Group" was (the link is dead). The article seems more concerned with paint schemes than substantial encyclopedic information on the trains. The infobox is also excessive in length. I posted a warning on the article's talk page last month, and no improvements have occurred between then and now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 10 April 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.

Jim Moran

[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: Sourcing issues unaddressed. Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited prose in the article, including two direct quotes. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 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.

Cloud9 League of Legends

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old GA is having an issue per [3] with an active template at the top. Multiple dead links also 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:02, 15 April 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.

Magnus Carlsen

[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 and bloating remains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has become bloated, with many minor events added to the article and too much detail of games and events. This causes the article to be WP:TOOBIG and efforts to spin out text or remove unnecessary prose have stalled. The article also has some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bloat and article size are not among the GA criteria. An article can be WP:TOOBIG and still be a good article, and quite a number of articles meet this description. Bloat and article size are entirely irrelevant to GAR.
That leaves uncited text. I would be happy to work on this. As a courtesy, can you give us an idea of where you have found this, so that we don't overlook something? Bruce leverett (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added citation needed templates, per requested above. In regards to article size, good article criteria 1a states that "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct". I do not think the prose can be concise if the article is this large and bloated. I suggest as a starting point that "Notable games" be removed as, unless a source has declared these games to be notable, this section is original research as Wikipedia cannot make this declaration on its own. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing I have read in Wikipedia policy would lead me to your conclusion that the article must be smaller to conform to criterion 1a.
    Regarding Notable games, there was a lengthy discussion about that in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 34#'Notable games' inclusion criteria. I would ask you to read that discussion. I am not satisfied with the present Notable Games section of Magnus Carlsen, but again, this is separate from the GA criteria, and should be sddressed as a separate subproject.
    Thanks for adding the CN templates, I and perhaps other chess regulars can tackle those. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bruce leverett: The guideline WP:AS state "While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness." Earth, one of Wikipdia's featured articles, is a great example of summarising a large topic and spinning out notable prose. I also invite other editors to comment on if the Carlsen article, with the prose currently in the article, adheres to GA? 1a. Z1720 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue is more the WP:PROSELINE feel of the year by year sections. There we have a clear violation not so much of 1a, but of 3b, which tells us to use summary style and to avoid too much detail. For an example from a different type of competition, the Roger Federer article is much better at explaining what was important in a given year and relegates the excessive detail to appropriate subarticles. (I personally think it should be more concise, but it is a lot better than the Carlsen article). —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is splitting the year by year sections of Carlsen's career to separate articles like "2025 Magnus Carlsen chess season" what's being suggested here? As far as I can tell, the durations of the annual ATP Tours are used to define an official "season" in tennis. I suppose the chess equivalent to this would be the FIDE Circuit, but that has only existed since 2023, so it might not be clear how exactly to define chess seasons. 9ninety (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @9ninety: Splitting the prose out into new articles might be a solution, but the new articles have to meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements on their own. Another solution is to remove non-notable prose from the biography, as Carlsen's appearance at every tournament and his actions in each round of the tournament does not need to be described in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the sections (like 2017 which contains no less than 11 paragraphs) are quite long and go in depth into the details of each tournament he played. This could easily be trimmed down to 2 or 3 paragraphs going over the main results and other events or controversies he's involved in, and then the rest of the detail can be covered in a dedicated article.
    Another reason I'll be supportive of splitting is the results tables, which aren't very easy to navigate due to their length; it requires a decent amount of scrolling just to get to his most recent results in 2025. This table could benefit from being split into the respective sub articles. Splitting might also help avoid some proseline issues. 9ninety (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care whether the detailed results appear elsewhere, but they should not be in this article. So I do not have an opinion on "splitting" as such, but certainly cutting 80% of the year by year sections from this article would help. —Kusma (talk) 08:17, 6 May 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.

Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'

[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) 08:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements in the article, particularly in the "Live performances" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added all the missing citations I could find! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LastJabberwocky: Added some cn tags. User:Phlsph7/HighlightUnreferencedPassages.js is the script I use to find potential uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, also thank yo for the nice plugin recommendation! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:17, 6 May 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.

Fandi Ahmad

[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) 08:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the entire "Sri Pahang" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Z1720, I have removed some uncited statements and added references to the article, so please take a second look. I'm not too familiar with sport-related articles so please let me know if there are any mistakes. Also, do you know how the sourcing is for the "Managerial statistics" and "Career statistics" sections? actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Actuall7: Thanks for working on this. "Managerial statistics" needs citations. I think the reference noted in note a verifies the information in the chart, but I only took a quick look. That chart might be too much detail for a general encyclopedia, but the article is quite short so I think it is OK to keep in the article for now. The "Club career" and "Managerial career" sections suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION: can some of these sections be merged together? The article doesn't need a heading for every team Ahmad has played on, in my opinion. The other citation concerns I had seem to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reduced the number of headings in the career sections. As for the "Managerial statistics", I'm not sure how to reference the table. I don't really work on football articles so I'm not even sure where this information came from or how to reference it. Are websites like these [4] reliable for citing? actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Actuall7: It looks like transfermarkt is not a reliable source. However, there's a list of links curated by Wikiproject Football at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links. For how to cite it: if only one source is used for all the data in the table, then a footnote can be added after the title or at the end of the table. If multiple sources are used, the source should go after the data it is citing (replacing one of the current "citation needed" tags). I also do not know where this data came from. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright @Z1720, I think I've solved all the issues with the article. I used RSSSF to cite his managerial career, hopefully without making any mistakes. One thing I did notice about this article is the poorly-written prose, which I hope to solve by sending this to GOCE post-review if possible. Thanks for your help throughout this process. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 02:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citation concerns resolved. Copyediting concerns can be solved outside of the GAR process. I'll try to take a look when I have time. Z1720 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 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.

Golden Temple

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 15:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly reviewed by a blocked user and should return to GAN's queue. During the DYK process, a copyright violation and failed verification was already found immediately by Dclemens1971. The prose doesn't look good either. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can try to help address some of these issues. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eucalyptusmint Do you still plan on working on this? Tarlby (t) (c) 17:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did not go through it with a fine-toothed comb but I would agree this needs a close look and may warrant delisting. The GAR should have caught the copyvio. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 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.

Harold B. Lee Library

[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) 12:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improvements are ongoing at Talk:Harold B. Lee Library#Addressing "sources too closely associated with the subject". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call those improvements just yet... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: I see that you are working on the article and adding templates. What's your opinion on the status of this article? Should this GAR be kept open for additional improvements? Z1720 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist work seems to have stalled, and I think the article is underdeveloped with little information about the building's architecture. I also do not think the orange banners at the top of the page have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 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.

Matthew West

[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) 12:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am brand-new in this matter of good article reassesments. Nonetheless, I notice that the recent years of West career are being hugely neglected. Lack of completeness, citation needed templates, short unsourced paragraphs, some citations with cuestionable verifiability (including primary ones), damaged prose and outdated MoS addressing. It is kind of similar to Anuel AA. If you want to improve or comment, you are welcome, I am not in a hurry for this. Santi (talk) 23:25, 19 April 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.

Aristotle

[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: Withdrawing as nominator Psychastes (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3 - the article covers Aristotle's biology in quite a lot of detail compared to the other topics in his philosophy. Other sections, such as "Legacy" are not covered, with the strange justification being that there is too much material to include it at all. My concerns raised on the talk page have met with a significant amount of resistance, so I believe that this article should be delisted. Psychastes (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this reassessment is improper. @Psychastes has an ongoing content dispute in Talk:Aristotle. GAR should not be used to solve a content dispute. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the "content dispute" is solely an attempt to make improvements to the article to make it meet the Good Article criteria. i certainly could have simply nominated it for an assessment, but i was under the impression that it was appropriate to attempt to make improvements first? Psychastes (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely making improvements first is great. But fighting resistance with process is not great. In a content dispute the next step is to seek more inputs. One way is posting on Wikiprojects like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if engaging on the talk page has poisoned the well, I suppose next time I will simply perform an analysis and nominate for reassessment; that was my original intention, as I hope this early reply on the talk page makes clear. But this still seems very counter to the whole intent of the process to me. Psychastes (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "poisoning the well" is the sudden GAR, with no notice whatsoever. Since collaborative improvement work was already in progress, even notice of GAR would have seemed rather out of place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Keep: Would have nominated myself months ago, but don't have the patience to argue with the steward. Also, just in passing, with respect to WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION, I would rather see the treatment of natural philosophy cut back than the treatment of other areas extended. I don't always practice what I preach, but shorter is usually better on WP. Let's let WP:SUMMARYSTYLE do some of the lifting here. --Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The single cited reason is insufficient to delist.
Johnjbarton (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no good reason to delist. Both Psychastes and I have already made many agreed changes to the article, and had already agreed further changes before this over-hasty decision to apply for delisting. My understanding is that Psychastes had undertaken to rework and extend some of the philosophy sections. Earlier today I proposed that we use Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a bit more to support those changes, so as to provide both a secure basis for the sections, and to reduce the number of citations that we're relying on. In addition, I yesterday trimmed the whole biology chapter; today I fixed some citations. This strikes me as good collaborative work on a mature article, and indeed rapid and continuing progress, so I find the sudden GAR bizarre, uncollegiate, and ill-judged. Expecting everyone to agree to everything is simply unreasonable, and threatening anyone who disagrees with anything with delisting is straightforwardly inappropriate: discussion is just that, the sharing of opinions to reach consensus. I'll continue to work to improve the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the reactions so far, I have to wonder if the description of the process described at WP:GAR doesn't match the community's current values; i.e. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. My intention in nominating this was to get more eyes on it and work towards a consensus, which I only did after being told that having a "Legacy" section was "off-topic" for the article, which led me to believe that the getting the necessary improvements would prove intractable. Psychastes (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing that'd be off-topic was and is a protracted essay on Aristotelianism. Straight legacy is plainly relevant, and indeed the chapter already covers a broad span of that. If all you wanted was more eyes on it, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science is the obvious place. But as several pairs of eyes are already on the case, and progress is actively being made, you are completely free to withdraw the GAR nomination so we can get on with improving the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, I can't fully withdraw the nomination when there's another vote for delisting, but I've struckthrough my nomination since it seems like enough progress is being made. Legacy, biology, and Life sections are all fine as they are now, I believe the other philosophy sections can be improved more relatively speaking (in density of information more than length), but there's nothing unsalvageable. Psychastes (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see anything problematic about the Biology and Legacy sections. Probably someone can help to improve instead of heading to the GAR without saying any specific comments, like how one can search for problems and fix them on their own. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:41, 20 May 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.

Matt Cain

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs that can be formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 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.

Guardians of the Free Republics

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "confusing prose" banner at the top of the page from 2021, and I am unsure if it has been resolved. The lead is short and does not summarise all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 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.

University of Miami

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including entire sections. While some editors cut uncited statements in February, work seems to have stalled and there is still lots of text to find citations for. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, the first four references I checked on a quick spot check:
[29]: ☒N says nothing about "William E. Walsh"
[36]: ☒N doesn't support the 1968 date
[178]: ☒N doesn't support the paragraph, which also includes an arguably WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim
[184]: ☒N permanently dead link
It's clear this needs a full source-text integrity check, or there can be no confidence that this meets criterion 2b. That is a gigantic task for an article with 213 references. IAWW (talk) 21:33, 10 May 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 Paperboys

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 17:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Not much post-2009 information, and no indication that the band has gone inactive. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 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.

Bill Haywood

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 18:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. I also think some of the quotes can be removed and the information summarised instead. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 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.

Kingdom of Nri

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 18:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, some marked with "citation needed" since July 2024. Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 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.

Coral Springs, Florida

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 18:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There's also an orange "more sources needed" banner at the top of notable people. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 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.

Middlewich

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 18:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The lead is very short and does not summarise several major aspects of the article. The "Demography" section cites the 2001 census, and probably needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 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.

Skip Holtz

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 04:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's uncited text in the article, including entire pargraphs. There's lots of information about his earlier career, but not much about more recent career events. There are "whose" and "why" tags from December 2024 Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 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 the University of Santo Tomas

[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: An editor has expressed interest in improving this, but has since went inactive more than a month ago. No work has been done since March. Tarlby (t) (c) 15:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

thanks for reminding, will update in the coming days. I hope youll give me a sufficient time to overhaul the article. just a bit busy. KingTiger1611 (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some temporary references to that section; please read the edit summary. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen Douglas DC-3, KingTiger1611, and MultiJames95: do any of you intend to continue working on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm won't be able to provide any more time to it. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while you're here, University of Valle may need a GA reassessment too. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I will continue to rehash the whole article. I hope the editors would be able to provide me ample time to extensively overhaul the article. Many thanks! KingTiger1611 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KingTiger1611, how much time do you think you need? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Id be given a few months... but ill try to reorganize the article as soon as possible. Thank you! KingTiger1611 (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KingTiger1611: The last edit to the article was in March. Are you still working on this, or is this ready for another review? Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like @KingTiger1611 has been inactive since this comment. They meant it when they asked for "a few months". Tarlby (t) (c) 17:47, 21 May 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.

Beyoncé

[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 from 2008
Result: Consensus to keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After giving this some thought, I'm not convinced the article still meets GA standards. Starting a reassessment that probably should've been initiated earlier. Along with talk page complaints about it reading like a fan page (as of this diff), here are some issues I found from a glance:

  • "Early life" goes into excessive details about heritage. We could just stick to a general summary where her ancestors came from, and maybe mention some relatives outside of her sister and their parents who have articles.
  • The 2019 version of The Lion King doesn't need to be linked more than once within "Career" section (the 2018–2021 section is ideal when that's the first mention). It's also unnecessary to link things like Destiny Fulfilled and "Instagram" under "Fashion lines" after previous sections already do so.
  • I doubt there's any need for a whole quote box on Black Is King for "Videography and stage"
  • There's various redundancies when talking about Ms. Knowles' marriage with Jay-Z (who seems to be her only publicly known non-platonic relationship). When largely intertwined with both of their careers, it would probably be best to integrate details into the "Career" section and perhaps have a "Life and career" section (which I believe this article once did many years ago before getting restructured). Since she's also worked professionally with both daughters they have together (not sure about their son), such a rearrangement could also help avoid repetition of such endeavors.
  • Under "Activism", the tone of "our" from "persistent in our societies" is inappropriate
  • The whole "Interests" subsection seems trivial
  • "Music video" is a very commonly known term that doesn't need linking per WP:OVERLINK
  • Within "Legacy", it sounds like fan puffery to say "artistic innovations"
  • Lots of incorrect formatting (e.g. The Wall Street Journal is missing italics from the "Fashion lines" subsection while About.com, Box Office Mojo, Chime For Change, CNN, NPR, and Recording Industry Association of America shouldn't use them at all for citations, Elle is wrongfully written in all upper case)
  • I would try to find stronger sourcing than BuzzFeed, "Fashionlooks.com" Metro, and "quotefancy", also there's some dead links that need fixing/replacing

The above isn't an exhaustive list of the problems this article has, and others are free to list other qualms they have. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

icon, i think i'll have to take this on. 750h+ 13:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS i think i've addressed most your problems (not sure about the fourth problem), but if anyone has any issues feel free to list them but i'm leaning keep. 750h+ 01:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Things definitely look better than before overall, so kudos on that. In case it wasn't clear before, I meant that "Marriage and children" could easily be interspersed throughout "Career" given how much Beyoncé and Jay-Z have worked together both after and before getting married to each other. Doing this would make it less likely for any mentions of the pair's collaborations to be repeated throughout the body. To a lesser extent, their 3 kids have each also worked with both (and I have since found out that son Sir also appeared in the Black Is King movie along with both parents and his sisters). The rest of "personal life" could be rearranged without being subsections of that. Nevertheless, I do recommend waiting for others to leave comments before we close the reassessment, and on another note it's needlessly repetitive to use "Knowles" more than once in the opening sentence. Maybe later I'll dig deeper into the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I also just realised i haven't fixed the dead links, so I'll get to that. 750h+ 12:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some cn tags to uncited statements in the article. Per WP:FORBESCON, some of the Forbes references should be replaced if the author is identified as a "contributor". The article, at over 14,000 words, is quite long and I think there are some sections that can be spun out or written more concisely as it is too much detail for this article. "Production" (under "Artistry") is just two block quotes, and should use summary style instead. I'm not sure "Interests" is encyclopedic and I think it can be removed from the article (random hobbies are probably too much detail for this article). I'm also skeptical that "Wealth" is encyclopedic, and I think there can be a discussion on its inclusion in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I do believe details on net worth are good to have, even if not necessarily under a "Wealth" heading. Feel free to suggest other places it could be mentioned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: Is the wealth related to a significant milestone for Knowles? If so, it might be best to most the most notable aspects to the "Legacy" section. Another suggestion is to put the notable wealth milestones in the "Career" section when a wealth milestone happened. I do not think five paragraphs discussing her wealth is necessary in a Wikipedia article. Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It minimally led to her and Jay-Z topping a Forbes "World's Highest-Paid Celebrity Couples" list, making a Guinness World Record for "highest-earning power couple", and first billion-dollar couple in the music industry. Solo achievements include being the "world's best-paid music personality" in 2008 and topping the 2014 Forbes "Celebrity 100 list". These were no small feats. I do however see what you mean on five paragraphs being overkill and trimming that down wouldn't hurt. Outside of what I named here, we could just stick with high rankings on earnings/net worth lists. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Will be starting extended work today. Hope end of May is a good deadline 750h+ 14:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: i'll get to this soon, please ping me if i don't start on this soon. 750h+ 13:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: hmm i don't really see anything from "marriage and children" that should be moved into the "career" sect. what do you think? 750h+ 02:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ms. Knowles wed Jay-Z in 2008, I would recommend mentioning that along with giving birth to Blue in the 2008–2012 section (especially when giving birth in the end of that range) and maybe her miscarriage. Twins Rumi and Sir can first be introduced within 2015–2017 based on when they were born. There already is a mention within the latter section of how pregnancy concerns were why she dropped out of performing at Coachella in 2017. It also talks a bit about being married to Mr. Carter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that information is better in the Personal life section: if consensus is to mention it in the Career section, the information should be removed from the subsequent section. Z1720 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, I was hoping to avoid redundancies of collabs and relationship info with such a move. We currently have different places where Jay-Z is mentioned as her husband, and seeing that under 2015–2017 without a prior indication of when they got married would likely make readers unfamiliar with such details ask when that happened. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: i think i agree with SNUGGUMS. i think all of the other sections in the personal life section should be moved to the public image section.
also on that note, i've taken the article down to 12.5k words. 750h+ 10:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When politics and activism feel like separate matters from a public image, I boldly separated them into another heading. Hopefully this doesn't look bad. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for your fantastic work. I think separating them with headings is a good idea. Right now, the article has "philanthropy" as its own section. Should this be put under "other ventures"? I also think the philanthropy section has too much detail in some places: her specific dollar contributions might not be necessary considering the size of the article and I am more interested in the initiatives of the organisations she is supporting. I also looked at "Politics" and the article has details about what Beyonce and her back-up dancers wore when they performed at Clinton's celebrity rally: I think the article should include Beyonce's participation at the event but the outfits are too much detail. I think these are examples of some places where the article can remove or spin out extra details so that readers can find the most important information more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS and Z1720: article is now 12.1k words, a 2k+ word decrease. i'm moving towards a keep, but what do you both think of its state now? 750h+ 04:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has definitely been changed for the better overall. While not a make-or-break, her outfit for File:Beyoncé at Super Bowl XLVII halftime show (4).jpg blending into the background makes the image a subpar choice. I haven't yet decided on whether to keep as GA. On another note, is it known when she got engaged to Jay-Z? The details of their relationship pre-marriage are murky compared to 2008 onwards, and I'm not certain when the two first began dating, especially when they often appear to remain private on such matters. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: i've replaced the image. seems that they got engaged in June 2007 and started dating around 2000/2001, so i'll add that in. 750h+ 11:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; File:The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour London (1).jpg fortunately avoids a blending issue. When unable to find any other glaring omissions with the Jay-Z details being added (all I knew for certain about their relationship pre-engagement was being friends for at least a year beforehand), I'll say keep as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: ? 750h+ 12:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: The article is still too long for me to recommend a "keep". After a quick skim, I noticed lots of places with too much detail that could be cut. An example is the fourth paragraph in "Fashion lines" about her partnership with Adidas: there are sentences about the announcement about when she is releasing the fashion line which are not necessary, and instead the release date is more important. Also, the paragraph talks about the stock price of the company going up, which is not significant to her biography. How I would phrase the paragraph is: "In April 2019, Beyoncé became a creative partner with Adidas to continue developing her athletic brand Ivy Park and to create a new clothing and footwear line. It launched on January 18, 2020, and the collection was previewed on the Elle January 2020 issue. By February 2023 the line was struggling financially and the partnership ended the following month." This is one example of how information can be trimmed to the most important information, and is not exhaustive to that one paragraph or section. I suggest subject-matter experts go through the article and consider other text that can be cut or moved for being too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i think now the length is fine, 11.2k words (given this article was once (14k). it's now similar in size to Lady Gaga and Mariah Carey 750h+ 23:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm interested in this article so I've done a few things for now: I've removed the "Atomic Habits" sentence since it is totally irrelevant and is cited to the book itself, which is a self-helping book not a music book. The "Wealth" section was extremely bloated so I've adjusted it to include the most important information. I've also adjusted the "Legacy" section and the "Activism" subsection. Medxvo (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've also adjusted the "Artistry" section. Medxvo (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've now adjusted the "Public image" section, which also had several uncited statements. After taking a look at the other sections left in the article, I'm not seeing outstanding issues, so I'm also saying keep. Medxvo (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a casual editor of this article, I agree that some of the sections and especially the lead is a bit too bloated and the word count is too high. I'll be broadly going over the article starting with the lead to trim down and make it more reader friendly. However, I'm still voting Keep as I feel that the writing quality as is is still better than a lot of other music BLPs; references are pretty consistent and the prose is generally not too peacocky. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think the lead is of fine size, maybe the last paragraph could be trimmed but i think most of the lead is fine. 750h+ 03:55, 20 May 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.

Meredith Grey

[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) 21:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of text on the storylines section, which is not concise. There is also uncited text outside of what is covered under MOS:PLOT. Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Films or episodes don't need to cite the plot section because the plot is the the film or episode. This isn't the case for character articles. They need to cite what episode is each statement from. That's a basic feature of WP:V. Gonnym (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning citing the character's story arc: Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, like MOS:FICTIONPLOT and WP:PLOTREF, seem to only talk about works of fiction, not characters. I think that if the character's plot summary references when things happen on the show (for example, "In the sixth season finale...") then a citation is not required. However, in my opinion, the plot as currently structured is too long and needs to be written with more references to which season/point of time out-of-universe that events happen. Z1720 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 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.

Antonio Paoli

[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) 21:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page: the article is based primarily on two sources, one being an application for his house to be declared a national historic site, and the other being a book that, according to an opera scholar of note (see talk page), is full of disinformation and should not be considered a reliable source on the life and career of Paoli. Lopez also, according to the review, unfortunately did not properly cite his sources, making it difficult to determine what portion of his biography is backed up by primary sources.

Referring also to my comment on the talk page, several assertions in the body of the article are contradicted by existing scholarly literature. A full rewrite of the article based on sources other than the Lopez book and the cursory summary in the NHS application would be necessary if this were to remain a GA, as the Lopez book is unreliable and as it is, the article contains much that is readily contradicted by other scholarly literature. A starting point for improving the article would be to examine period opera publications for information about Paoli. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 19:54, 24 April 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.

Yaropolk Iziaslavich

[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) 21:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited paragraph in the "Death and legacy" section and two orange "more sources needed" banners in "Ancestry" and "Family". Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, added all the missing references. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:33, 24 May 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.

Y Gododdin

[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) 10:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, especially in the "Editions and translations" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 25 April 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 9 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) 10:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. An "update needed" banner at the top of "Right to die" since 2021. Z1720 (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, paragraphs like the one starting It was held in the Malaysian Court of Appeal case of Sugumar Balakrishnan v. Pengarah Imigresen Negeri Sabah (1998) are cited solely to court cases and thus WP:OR. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:31, 25 April 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.

Production–possibility frontier

[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) 11:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited text. I also do not think the lead summarises all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 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.

Honest services fraud

[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) 11:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too much use of block quotes and citations to legal decisions. I think this article needs more analysis from secondary sources and use of summary-style prose to be a good article. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. The block quotes are fine. However the referencing is not up to GA standard - there are entire paragraphs sourced solely to raw legal opinions. It's okay to have primary sources mentioned in addition to secondary sources, but they can't be used without such a secondary source, and should be second banana to the secondary source's take even when used given the extreme ease in misrepresenting them and their implications. SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 7 May 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.

Patrick Bissell

[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) 11:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, some which have been marked with "citation needed" templates since May 2015. Z1720 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 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.

Carbon

[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: Keep, all concerns has been addressed. Keres🌕Luna edits! 13:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow the previous GAN had some serious issues. For example, the section about '... Although thermodynamically prone to oxidation, carbon resists oxidation more effectively than elements such as iron and copper, which are weaker reducing agents at room temperature.' got put in the review as uncited, but it never got resolved and passed anyways. Keres🌕Luna edits! 01:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the most egregious examples of missing references are in the Compounds and Applications sections. The "Precautions" section also seriously needs a hazard infobox and should be renamed to something else to reduce "how-to guide" implications. One more thing: there's no good reason for the levels of WP:SANDWICH going on under Applications. Though I can't dedicate much time to this until I finish other tasks (as Keresluna is probably well aware; sorry!!) -- Reconrabbit 18:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still work being done, please hold. Keres🌕Luna edits! 22:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: All statements are referenced and all the concerns above are addressed. Keres🌕Luna edits! 02:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna: I added some citation needed tags in places where I think citaions are also required. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One addressed. One removed as WP:CALC. Not sure how to reference the claim In German, Dutch and Danish, the names for carbon are Kohlenstoff, koolstof, and kulstof respectively, all literally meaning coal-substance. as Kohlen-stoff literally means Coal-substance in german and others similarly. Would this qualify has WP:OBV? Keres🌕Luna edits! 15:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Keresluna: WP:OBV is an essay, just like WP:NOTBLUE is an essay: neither is Wikipedia policy and guidelines (they might "represent widespread norms" while "others only represent minority viewpoints") so instead WP:V needs to be used to decide if it needs to be verified. I do not speak German, Dutch, or Danish, so I would not be able to verify that the information in this sentence is correct: since this statement can be challenged, it should be cited in my opinion. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement removed. Keres🌕Luna edits! 21:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Added statement back with references. Keres🌕Luna edits! 21:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 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.

Human uses of reptiles

[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 20:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements in the "Food and other products" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I've removed those as undue, unnecessary and badly-written, not to mention uncited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep uncited statements have been resolved. While I would prefer the prose to not be so choppy (lots of one-sentence paragraphs) I don't think this by itself is a reason to delist. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 25 May 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.

Divine Heresy

[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. Hog Farm Talk 14:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more citations and better sources. —LastJabberwocky (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. Not that close to modern GA standards. The lede including quotes of random reviews that don't appear particularly notable-as-reviews is not a good sign, and the referencing does not appear very strong. SnowFire (talk) 02:08, 7 May 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.

Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties

[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. Hog Farm Talk 14:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Gameplay" section is missing citations, which Wikipedia:VG/LEAD states is necessary. Z1720 (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 The reception section is also quite lacking, given that there are reviews from reliable sources such as Eurogamer and Game Informer that aren't acknowledged in the prose or infobox. Sourcing the gameplay section would be a straightforward fix, but the problems with Reception show that there may be some GA Criteria #3 issues issues that need to be worked on. Just wanted to let you know! Fathoms Below (talk) 15:00, 28 April 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.

Mariah Carey (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: Kept. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, especially in "Recording and composition". Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720: I improved citation; turns out the source was already in the section but cited only the last paragraph (this is the source [5]). Is it a good source; seems to be self-published? —LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:06, 1 May 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.

Saskatchewan Highway 5

[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. Tarlby (t) (c) 03:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist: Limited edits to the article since GAR was opened, citation concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist In addition to the uncited sections, the article in general doesn't meet modern GA standards. There's an external link smack dab in the middle of the prose and it goes way off topic with entire paragraphs about topics that are not the highway in question. It reads as much like a travel guide as it does an encyclopedia article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 28 May 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.

Objections to evolution

[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) 11:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 05:47, 3 May 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.

Squall line

[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) 11:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including a section that has had a "This section has no sources" orange banner since February 2024. Z1720 (talk) 05:50, 3 May 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.

I Take Thee Quagmire

[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) 11:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist given the nomination, it’s a pretty old episode and I doubt all of the cultural references and such will have reliable sources to support them. Also used IMDB as a source, the articles in pretty rough shape. In fact, most Family Guy good articles outside of a select few are in rough shape. Crystal Drawers (talk) 02:34, 13 May 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.

Friday Night Lights (TV 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 • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements. While some text does not need to be cited, other sections such as the show's development and release on various media do need citations. Z1720 (talk) 05:59, 3 May 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.

Disaster Transport

[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) 11:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Story" section is far too detailed. MOS:PLOTLENGTH recommends 700 words maximum for films and video games: I do not think this rollar coaster needs the 795 that it currently has. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article, like its closure. The "Incident" section is uncited, and the last sentence of "Closure" is uncited. Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the story length needs significantly trimmed. For an amusement ride, it is rare to need more than 300-400 words to describe that aspect. Since the ride no longer exists, it may also need proper sourcing, which it currently lacks. I may not have the time needed to do this, but if it jeopardizes the article's GA status, I would move that entire section to the Talk page for now until someone has time to fix it. The lead can be updated with little effort, and I've resolved the incident sourcing concern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60 and @Z1720, I agree regarding the Story section. I condensed it to one paragraph, since half of the section was basically a super-detailed description of the queue line and not the actual ride. I also added a few references and removed the last sentences of "Closure". I think the only one of Zed's points that I haven't yet addressed is the lead. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the story is a little long still, at under 500 words I think its OK now. Citation concerns are resolved, and the lead has been expanded, so no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 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.

Ian Kinsler

[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) 11:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. "Front office career" section needs to be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally doubt that there's much that could be substantially used to expand the front office career section; these special assistant roles are usually non-public and internally focused. I'll see what I can do about filling in the citations. Hog Farm Talk 20:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - so I've sourced everthing that lacked citations unless I'm just overlooking something (although there was one minor passage I removed). I've also removed a few unreliable sources (team SB Nation blog, a blogspot article, and the Jewish Virtual Library). I have not conducted a thorough review of what currently exists in the article for weighting, nor have I checked already-sourced stuff for source-text integrity. While I am a baseball fan, Kinsler never played for the team I follow so I do not have in-depth familiarity with his career. Hog Farm Talk 21:58, 26 May 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.

Non-constituency Member of Parliament

[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) 11:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple paragraphs without citations. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added citations and hid the uncited chunks. They might be from the books cited, but I will need time to check them through. But as for now, where it stands, the article remains in good shape.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I re-wrote the article, I worked with the citations that were already there, which made things a lot easier. I didn’t have to start from scratch since most of the sources were already in place. Nevertheless, big thanks to ZKang123 for adding new citations to specific parts of the text. MordukhovichAleakin (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to !vote delist over this, but there seems a heavy reliance on primary sourcing for parts of this article which could be improved going forward. CMD (talk) 02:58, 26 May 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.

Han Sai Por

[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) 11:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since its promotion, the article has not been updated very much. I did an Internet search and found lots of recent sources, indicating that this artist is still active and creating new, notable works. There is also an "update needed" orange banner from 2017 at the top of the "Major exhibitions" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Z1720, will work on this, but please give me some time. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Actuall7: Sounds great! This GAR will remain open as long as improvements are being made to the article. Feel free to ping me when the article is ready to be re-reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright @Z1720, I think I've sufficiently expanded the article, particularly her career and exhibition sections. I've also added more refs. Please let me know whether it passes now. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Actuall7: The article looks a lot better now. I think the last step is to summarise the very long block quote in the "Art" section (second paragraph) per WP:SS. I think the article has WP:UNDUE focus on this critic's opinion, and summarising the information would be better for the reader. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Done, have shortened it significantly. actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:22, 29 May 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.

Ancient Greek literature

[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: Uncontroversial early SNOW close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I have reviewed only a few portions of this article so far and found significant problems, so I am submitting it for GAR. I have not found a section of this article so far that did not have significant problems, so if I don't mention it below, it has probably not been reviewed yet in detail. From what I have examined, the problems do seem to largely be the same across the entire article, however.

I believe the article currently does not meet the following criteria:

2b: Citations to reliable sources: numerous citations for verifiable claims are missing, or were cited to news articles, which are generally inappropriate for claims about ancient history. I have added a large number of citation tags to material I believe to be accurate but which is insufficiently cited. However, this lack of citation also lead to numerous other problems, detailed below:

2bc: Factual errors: I have focused mostly on subjects I have enough familiarity with. none of these claims were cited to reliable sources, and I believe that all of them are incorrect and often reflect common misconceptions among the general public:

  • Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes of Miletus were stated to have lived in the 5th or 4th centuries. it can be seen from their own pages that this is not correct.
  • Empedocles was stated to have been a student of Pythagoras, who, as can be seen from comparing their pages, died a year before Empedocles was born. Most modern scholars also do not believe Empedocles was a Pythagorean, though this is often stated in ancient sources.
  • Plato's dialogues were presented as direct reports of conversations Socrates actually had, a misconception often held by those unfamiliar with his works, but one that virtually no scholar either in antiquity or the modern era would ever defend. The description of the Symposium was also incorrect.
  • Euclid's elements was not mostly drawn from Eudoxus, *some* parts of two or three books out of were taken from it.
  • Euclid's elements is not exclusively about geometry, but also contains work on number theory and irrational numbers.
  • Polybius was listed under "Roman" period, probably because he lived in rome, even though he lived in the hellenistic period

I believe that the rest of the article should probably be examined closely for more issues relating to this problem.

2c: Original research: Very few scholarly sources dealing with the broad overall topic of the article, Ancient Greek literature, seem to have been cited, with most sources verifying claims about individual works. The selection of what works and topics were included or not seems to have been mostly arbitrary, and there are numerous omissions, mostly detailed below in part 3.

  • One particularly salient example: Diogenes Laertius was presented as an enough of an important contribution to Ancient Greek Literature to merit significant inclusion in this page, with no secondary sources cited whatsoever that supported this inclusion. Given the lack of any literary merit in his works (not insulting his prose, it's just not that kind of book!) I can't find a reason why it ought to have been included.

3: Addresses the main aspects/Stays on topic without going into detail: Overall, the article focuses almost exclusively on listing off a grab-bag of extant writings that are well known, with absolutely no mention of any of the context around them, and rarely even anything about the content of the works themselves. While these most well known works certainly deserve mention, this is not a broad treatment of the subject, and any history of ancient greek literature written in the past few decades will discuss the context, such as other writers who were well-known at the time whose works no longer survive.

  • There is no mention of rhetoric or oratory. Demosthenes is only mentioned in a discussion of lost literature, the Second sophistic is not mentioned at all.
  • The section on Herodotus and Thucydides says nothing about the contents of their writings, you wouldn't even know that Herodotus wrote about the Persian wars!
  • A large portion of the Classical philosophy section was devoted to the Socratic problem, which, while notable, has very little to do with literature, given that Socrates wrote nothing.
  • Other than the inclusion of Diogenes Laertius mentioned above, now removed, the roman philosophers are again a grab-bag.
  • Hellenistic poetry fails to mention Philitas of Cos, the founder of Hellenistic poetry, and spends almost the entire section talking about a single poet, Callimachus, and the rediscovery of a single poem he wrote.
  • The section on Bucolic poetry mentions only Theocritus, not Moschus or Bion of Smyrna, and says nothing whatsoever about their work except that it influenced Virgil
  • The Roman poetry section manages to jump immediately from where the hellenistic left off in the 3rd century BCE to the 4th century CE, skipping over the entirety of Greek poetry between for approximately 600 years
  • Science and mathematics is, again, a list of works that survive with no descriptions. No mention of Apollonius, Hero of Alexandria, or anything other than Euclid or Archimedes. I'm also not even sure we should include mathematics in "literature" at all though.
  • Quite a lot of page time is spent on prose fiction, but the Ancient Greek novels are, in my experience, a very minor portion of ancient greek literary culture compared to poetry, drama, oratory, history, and philosophy. I barely think they need to be mentioned at all.
  • There's also nothing on oral literature or the gradual transition to writing over the 8th through 4th centuries BCE. "Orality and literacy" is a fairly major topic in the history of literature overall, and most of it is focused on Ancient Greece, and yet this article provides no mention of it.

4: Neutral: Many of the sections spend more time talking about how great and influential the works discussed were rather than anything about the work. This also related to the criterion 3a problems because this content is entirely in place of any discussion of the contents of the work.

I would really like to know what the Good Article reviewer saw in this article, but unfortunately they left almost no comments whatsoever on the review! Both the nominator and the reviewer are inactive, so I don't believe that we'll get much clarification on this, but it seems to me that there was a significant failure of process here.

Next steps for improving the article are probably to continue examining the remaining sections of the article for factual errors, tagging sentences that are uncited, finding more appropriate secondary sources for the broader topic, determining the proper scope of the article, and adding the missing sections such as oratory that have been omitted. Psychastes (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Wikiprojects Literature, Classical Greece and Rome, and Greece Psychastes (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per OP. Ifly6 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Psychastes makes a detailed and convincing case. (May I suggest, however that section maintenance tags be used in cases where practically every other clause needs a citation? While I generally support maximally targeted tags, there are a few places where there are so many superscript tags that they interfere with readability.) Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
good point about readability, i've now replaced many of the inline tags with an overall page tag Psychastes (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Psychastes' comment. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:21, 1 June 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.

Tiberius

[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: Clear consensus to delist. Issues include uncited material and overreliance on primary sources. There are also concerns about OR and coverage, and I see further issues with the popular culture section. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, especially in the sections "Popular culture" and "Marriages and issue". Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the missing citations on Marriages and issue. I would be more concerned about the overreliance on primary sources. We have biographies of this man; but instead the text is doing wildly inappropriate WP:OR with things like Had he died before AD 23, he might have been hailed as an exemplary ruler and citing this to Tacitus' discussion starting It is however, I think, a convenient opportunity for me to review [how that year] brought with it the beginning of a change for the worse in Tiberius's policy. Either way, delist. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've put up a notice for some of the issues I identified in this edit. Ifly6 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist numerous paragraphs do not cite any modern secondary sources, paragraphs that cite one are the exception. Psychastes (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking briefly at the Germanicus section, I see selective adoption of the narrative of primary sources with a touch of I, Claudius, with a secondary source cited at one point. There's no mention of his insubordination towards our subject, in command in Germany (with consequent disasters), in resisting recall, and in touring Egypt - contrast, say, the OCD on Germanicus. NebY (talk) 22:00, 24 May 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.

Tim Bozon

[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 edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails criteria 3a "addresses the main aspects of the topic"; The "Professional" sub-section of the "Playing career" section has not been updated with any information since September 2020, meaning more 50% of Bozon's professional appearances to date came after the dates covered in the article, and the "International play" section only covers information through the 2019 World Championships, no mention of the 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025 World Championships that Bozon represented France, again meaning more than 50% of Bozon's international career is not represented in the article. This missing information is important since Bozon's ice hockey career at professional/club and international level is the reason he is notable. Joeykai (talk) 21:25, 9 May 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.

Ebbw Valley Railway

[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) 17:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Update needed" orange banner at the top of the page since April 2022. Uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to make some improvements this week. Cremastra (u — c) 02:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still have plans on improving this @Cremastra? Tarlby (t) (c) 15:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, no. I was busy last week and knew I would not be able to work on it but as I am now sick I don't think I'll be able to take this on. Sorry. Cremastra (u — c) 15:54, 3 June 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.

26th 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: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "World War II Memoirs" section seems to be an indiscriminate list of external links. Perhaps this should be prose and moved to "Legacy"? Globalsecurity (ref 12) is considered an unreliable source (WP:GLOBALSECURITY) and should be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 14:23, 10 May 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 Waterloo

[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) 17:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 13,000 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG and too WP:DETAIL. This includes too many quotes and block quotes (which should be summarised instead) and an excessively long lead. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Agree that the article should be shortened and more info moved into child articles. That said do not agree with comment on quotes - this is a stylistic preference, not a GA criterion. There are good articles with no quotes, there are good articles with lots of quotes. It's not so quote-heavy as to be a quote / react farm, for sure. SnowFire (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • With an article that is already so large, I think there are many quotes whose inclusion should be reconsidered. I do not think the article needs two different accounts of Hougoumont, an un-introduced quote at the top of "Charge of the British heavy cavalry" and a block quote for "The blows of the sabres on the cuirasses sounded like braziers at work." Instead, I think it's more effective to paraphrase the information. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist while some editors have made edits to fix up the article, there are still a significant amount of uncited text, too many quotes, and excessive detail that it would be better if it was delisted and brought back to GAN when ready. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 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.

Spanish American wars of independence

[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) 17:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, some information should probably be moved to other articles or trimmed if too detailed. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what another opinion might be worth at this stage nearly a month after this reassessment was posted: I agree. The size of the article has doubled since the GA assessment. As a summary article covering quite a few topics and separate events over a long period of time, the information in this article should be movable to other articles and/or copy edited and trimmed. After a quick glance I think this would likely be a big task. Unfortunately, I do not have the time or enough sources in my library to undertake online searches or to make such editing improvements as appear to be necessary to retain GA. If other editors want to undertake the necessary improvements, I hope they will come forward and start to work on it but nearly a month has passed without further comment. Donner60 (talk) 04:32, 9 June 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.

Presidio of Santa Barbara

[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) 17:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. If anyone wants me to add citation needed templates to the article, please ping me. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this briefly, the article seems to be missing an architecture section, even though it's about a building. The structure's architecture is briefly touched upon in the "History" section, but otherwise this may not meet WP:GACR's broadness criterion. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 11 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_85&oldid=1295094429"