Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 66

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 65) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 67) →

Insect[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not been reviewed since it was promoted in 2009. In my view the evolution section is completely outdated and inadequate, particularly in regards to Pancrustacea. Other sections seem ok, but several uncited passages and maybe not GA worthy prose. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Act 1832[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was last assessed in 2007, since then a large amount of unsourced text has been added to the article. It needs either cleanup or reassessment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist The biggest problem with the article is its massive overreliance on nineteenth century sources, even though plenty of excellent, up-to-date scholarship exists on this topic. Sources that are hundreds of years old should never be used in cases like this where the best sources of all were written within the last few decades. The unsourced text is also a problem of course, but even the sourced text is extremely poor. Tikisim (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Penfold[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep. CMD (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails multiple GA criteria. Firstly, there are many uncited claims and sentences in the article, and some paragraphs only have 2 or 3 citations. Secondly, there is literally no media on the page, not even a picture of the main subject, and while not technically failing criteria #6, there should be media on this page. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the entire article is cited, except the lead which does not need to be per MOS:CITELEAD. Perhaps there is no media extant, otherwise you could add it. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: There may simply be no public domain images we can find of this living individual. That lack of media does not seem a reason to delist. SecretName101 (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kennedy III[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems extremely under-detailed for a good article. Secondly, article has a topline maintenance tag, which raises immediate red flags. If this tag is warranted, the article needs to be delisted as a good article.

It's been seven or so years after this was assessed as a good article. In my opinion, either it was in much better shape at that time, our standards have been elevated, or it was incorrect to have been assessed as a good article in the first place. SecretName101 (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - There seems to be a lot missing about his House tenure and political positions. The article seems to be more of a motley assortment of incidents than a coherent summary of his career and views. So many of the basic questions (Does he support Medicare for All? What are his views on abortion? What are his foreign policy positions? et cetera) are left unanswered. I would say it at least fails the broadness criterion. The use of primary sources is not irremediable, but it certainly doesn't help. (By the way, have "major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator and the reviewer" been notified? See WP:GAR.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable biofuel[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Consensus to delist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A week ago, I posted on talk that "The lead is too short and the article was previously tagged for OR, although without a proper explanation." In addition the article doesn't seem to have been updated much since its 2008 promotion. It currently does not mention any developments after 2015. I really do not know much about the topic, is the article salvageable or not? (t · c) buidhe 08:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would require a ton of work, and the perspectives on biofuels have shifted pretty radically in the last 10 years: both the viability of biofuel economically and environmentally. Most research I have seen recommends shifting away from using cropland for animal feed and these kinds of mass industrial uses, in order to promote reforestation and carbon sequestration. Also, the oil price crash this year, and the increased viability of renewables for primary energy production, reduces the need for biofuel economically -- and most of the use of these materials for other kinds of energy is for direct biomass energy. Just doing a brief scan of the article, I only think someone could bring it back up to that quality with some significant expertise and research time. @Clayoquot and Femkemilene: who have more contextual knowledge on energy, Sadads (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the article salvageable in a reasonable amount of time. I've updated quite a few of these articles and almost always they needed a complete rewrite. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a very tough subject - not volunteering - @Genetics4good: - perhaps you have expertise - any thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I share the sentiments of Femke and Chidgk1 above. It's a very difficult topic to cover globally and neutrally and to keep up to date. The main thing that needs work is to use up-to-date secondary or tertiary sources that critically assess the maturity and scalability of proposed solutions to problems. It is very easy to get a journalist or researcher to write an article saying that such and such an idea or plant is "promising" or "being researched". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I hope you are well. Are you able to complete this reassessment? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chidgk1 Hi, thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, community good article reassessments can't be closed by their initiator, we need to wait for an uninvolved editor to come along. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to close this thing according to the instructions at the bottom of "community reassessment" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment but presumably I should have used some kind of bot because it still says "result pending" above. Sorry for confusion as I have only ever closed individual reassessments and that was a long time ago. Could someone who knows this process close it properly? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed it now, albeit a bit late. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post Oak Mall[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, the article has no photos of the mall. It should be trivially easy to get a picture of a mall that is still in operation, but the Free Image Search Tool yielded none. This alone should almost be an instant failure.
  • "Stores" section has an "As of 2009" statement which reads incredibly outdated and goes into trivial detail.
  • "As of 2008" in "economic impact" section needs updating.
  • Anchors section needs a cleanup; far too many "In X, Y happened" sentences and overlinking of store names (Macy's is linked three times in the same sentence)
  • "The Sonic closed in 2012" unsourced
  • References 16 and 29-32 are all bare URLs
  • Lots of dubious sources, including:
  1. Texas A&M's website which has little to no relevance to the mall (source 9)
  2. a water table with questionable relevance (source 10)
  3. an uncredited press release (source 12)
  4. The mall's directory of shops; malls constantly update their directories as stores come and go, so this seems like an inefficient way to document the shops present (source 17)
  5. A book on movie theater chains, which seems to have no relevance to the mall proper (source 18)
  6. A number of press releases from CBL Properties (sources 15, 17, 22, 23)
  7. A newspaper advertisement (source 21)

I also think the article would benefit from a restructuring. Compare Colonial Plaza, Castleton Square, Forest Fair Village, and other GA-class shopping mall articles where the information is presented in a purely chronological fashion from development to present-day. I think that this kind of linear approach reads better than the way the current article covers development first, and then goes back and forth on which stores were where.

ETA: It looks like the entire GA review from 2009 was only a single sentence long, and was being contested even then. Images were added to the article in 2009, but inexplicably G7'd in 2010.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I am so used to community GARs that I forgot to file this one as an individual reassessment instead. Because of this, I am delisting and possibly invoking WP:IAR in the process. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winston tastes good like a cigarette should[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delist —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the talk page, "The article contains unsourced information and original research tag." These issues must be resolved for the article to remain GA. (t · c) buidhe 08:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, this GAR has been open since October and gotten no attention. The article is extremely short for such an iconic campaign, and has way too many maintenance tags to be salvageable without anyone jumping to the cause. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support delist as per TPH above.--Smerus (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this meets the GA criteria. The 2013 review was very brief and shallow, and I think there are significant issues here. Zap2it.com, DVD Talk, TVShowsOnDVD.com, blogcritic, KidzWorld, and the Facebook ref all look a bit dubious as sources. A few claims in the article (plot summary actually doesn't need inline citations, as it's presumed to be sourced to the episode itself), such as the statement that it was the 116th article, need cited. A lot of the refs are dead. The plot summary is disproportionatly wrong. There is are outstanding tags. I'm just not seeing how this is a GA under modern standards. Hog Farm Bacon 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: if the three reviewers in Reception are reliable then I think everything is fixable, and I don't know enough to say whether they are. Deadrefs are solvable, 116 shouldn't have a {{citation needed}} tag because it's routine calculation, it's not clear at a glance that either of the "multiple issues" tags are actionable. I believe Zap2it is reliable and many of the dubious sources are just there to support simple factual claims about DVD releases where primary sources can be acceptably cited instead. I'm not sure what makes the plot summary "disproportionately wrong"—could you expand? But overall, I'd say the test of this is whether it's notable; to that end, I'd recommend nominating it for deletion instead. It's either non-notable or can be made as comprehensive as is possible without inordinately much further work. I notice that most of the SpongeBob episode articles will likely suffer with the same problems so perhaps a wider discussion or bulk AfD would be appropriate at some point. — Bilorv (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hog Farm-- any update? Eddie891 Talk Work 18:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eddie891 and Hog Farm: a relevant development is talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Spongebob episode articles, which could use more attention. — Bilorv (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Eddie891 and Bilorv: - "disproportionally wrong" was a typo for "disproportionally long". I'm not convinced that a plot summary that appears to me to be longer than the rest of the article body combined is really appropriate for a GA (if it does turn out to be a problem, its fixable). I'm also not familiar enough with the sources to make a definitive call on reliability, although based on [1] I'd say the earliest blogcritics stuff is probably non-RS, but without a working link to the specific article in question, it's hard to judge the merits of that single article. Hog Farm Bacon 20:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Hog Farm: your thoughts would be appreciated at the WPTV discussion I linked above, because presumably these issues raised will apply to all GA Spongebob episode articles, at the least. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delisting, because this isn't a GA-quality article, but really I support deletion and a wider treatment of the issue. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delisting per nom. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delisting per nom. Too bad, too early for a GA, with unreliable sources and many issues. Chompy Ace 21:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delisting per the terrible sourcing alone, and perhaps to establish a precedent for other articles like it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas (bishop of Finland)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors, this article has been tagged with three different yellow maintenance tag. Contains heaps of unsourced claims and probably original research. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delist - I sincerely think almost this entire article is original research. About 95% of this article is either unsourced or sourced to only primary source ancient letters and such. This does not meet the good article criteria by a mile. Hog Farm Talk 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist the version that was awarded GA in 2007 has too much original research to meet GA now, and over the last 13 years, the article has just got worse with OR. It is nowhere near current GA standards. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Black[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article (listed in 2008) has been sitting on the "articles needing possible reassessment" list for over a year, and I think there's a good case to be made that it no longer meets the criteria. The primary issue is criterion 2B, which requires inline cites for all statements likely to be challenged. This article has a full two dozen "citation needed" templates, and it appears that most of them are indeed valid. For instance, clear statements of opinion like "Black's most prominent ideological opponent on the Warren Court was John Marshall Harlan II" are completely unsourced, and there are no citations for the paragraph on Brown v. Board of Education. These are just a few examples; there are a number of additional places where sourcing is required by the good article criteria. In sum, this article does not meet the modern GA criteria. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Mahal[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has multiple 'citation needed' tags. A few citations are lacking some parameters. Further, the article does not adequately describe (Hindutva) hatred towards the monument. Historical detailing related to its construction fails to provide enough context. DTM (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the 'Gallery' section of the article should be removed at least, per WP:GALLERY. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool World[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 18:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Box Office Mojo citation (#1), Metacritic (#24), CinemaScore (#25) are incomplete references.
  • I removed a sentence from the lede which referenced a not elaborated-on acronym (WGWA) and had a [citation needed]. It seemed irrelevant since this fact was not in the body of the article.
  • DVD Verdict (#6), Dies Irae (#9), Soundtrack Collector (#10), Music from the Movies (#12), Lambiek.net (#21) do not appear to be RSes
  • "Reception" section is a trainwreck. Each review is on its own line, making it read like a list, and the whole section is structured as "X said Y, Z said A, B said C." I think it also suffers from overquoting. Also many of the reviews are dead links.
  • The claim of a Razzie Award is vague (what year? what was the award for?) and is unsourced.

GA was in 2007, last GAR was in 2009. I think it's clear that maintenance has slipped here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reception section clearly needs clean-up, but that could be done in a handful of edits. The rest of the article is a surprisingly good standard for a 2007 GA. It looks fine. Just FIX the reception, it shouldn't be much harder than opening a GAR was. Kingsif (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issues with broken citations, unreliable sources, over-quoting, and unsourced content still remain though. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cerro Tuzgle[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept, one support and no issues raised for multiple months. CMD (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was listed as a good article a little over four years ago, but I've done a major rewrite this last week that has a different structure. Consequently, I'd like to see the article re-reviewed to check whether it still meets the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edits are a substantial improvement imo, I see no reason why the article doesn't meet the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swabian War[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Consensus to delist CMD (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am fulfilling a request to open a GAR for this article. The main issue is verifiability: there are large swathes of uncited text with citation needed flags. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strike it down. I would be the person to take up the task of keeping the article a GA, but I'm presently working on other projects. –Vami♜_IV♠ 13:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, loads of [citation needed] tags and no interest seems to exist for improving it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - uncited text, and there doesn't seem to be any improvements forthcoming. Hog Farm Talk 00:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Chicago[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is serious verifiability issues; there are more than 20 citation needed tags in the article. (t · c) buidhe 23:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article is in need of verification. Until all uncited claims are either provided citation or removed, it should not be a good article. SecretName101 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death Cab for Cutie[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 20:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion has a very large amount of uncited text, which is problematic with WP:GACR #2. It needs either improvement or delisting. Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idi Amin[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. Editors have identified some issues that need fixing before the article will meet the GA criteria. Please work on improving the article and bring it back to GAN! (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle wrote: I see many deficencies with this article compared to GA criteria, but I'm not experienced enough with the clerking required for a GAR, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could start one.

 

Starts GA Reassessment; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Observations[edit]

  • Lede tells being appointed Commander of the Uganda Army in 1965. Other sources suggest his rank was Colonel, then he was made a general by Obote, then appointed Chief of Staff. Consider
  • a Pan-Africanist group --> Pan-African group. (Africanist is one who studies African culture.)
  • Links in the Lede go to archived versions. As this is such an old article, it is recommended that links that are not archived be resourced on Archive.org
  • referenece 9 is available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210310080859/https://www.theguardian.com/news/2003/aug/18/guardianobituaries
  • reference 10 is available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210309152213/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3155925.stm
  • with regard to a traditional herbalist who treated members reference 14 (by Amin's son) confirms this.
  • reference 14 contains observations of the Amnesty International report of 1978
  • In Early life reference 12 indicates that Amin attended school in Bombo and won prizes for recital of the Koran. There should be some reference to this in the article.

In 1941 Amin joined Garaya Islamic school at Bombo, and again excelled in reciting the Koran under Mohammed Al Rajab from 1941 –1944.
Amin and Abdul Kadir Aliga won honours in reciting the Koran in 1943.

 

This is a reassessment in progress; it is not completed. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Guweddeko is somewhat discredited by other writers. Guweddeko's claim that Amin was made Deputy Army Commander in 1964 conflicts with the Lede, and other sources. His rank at that time was Major.
  • The British Council confirms with other sources that in 1966, his rank was that of Colonel.
  • Reference 39 is a dead link. Consider https://www.loc.gov/item/92000513/
  • Reference 40 requires subscription
  • Reference 52 requires subscription
  • Reference 48 page 288 gives a much lower number of Asians emigrating from Uganda, and indicates that around 4,000 remained in the country.
  • Reference 59 contains considerable evaluation of Amin's leadership and governance and the threats posed to many nations by his erratic policies. There is (objective) material here which would enhance the article by way of reception of GOU as led by Idi Amin.

his is a reassessment in progress; it is not completed. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

This is a reassessment in progress; it is not completed. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Evaluation is needed[edit]

  • There are significant challenges to an objective reception and evaluation of Idi Amin and his time as President. These challenges are somewhat exacerbated by the resumption of Obote as President and his bloody time as leader of this nation. There was no culture of peace in Uganda after Amin's exile to Saudi Arabia.
  • A Reception or Evaluation section is needed. Cartoons and reports of buffoonery are not an encyclopaedic evaluation of Amin nor his Presidency. It behooves editors to reconsider the section on Erratic behaviour, self-bestowed titles and media portrayal despite what other sources might have said at the time or during Amin's lifetime.
  • Another part of evaluation is Post Colonialism. As the British cut off all relations in 1977, post colonialism has to be part of any evaluation of Amin as President. Just as any any evaluation has to include subversive operations designed to destabilise (and prop up a corrupt regime) by several nations, including the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, Syria, Libya, Israel, East Germany.

This is a reassessment in progress; it is not completed. -- --Whiteguru (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Commentary by Indy beetle[edit]

  • Overall comments on the Presidency section:
    • Amin ruled through the army via a large patronage network, among other things. This is not mentioned. See Uganda Army (1971–1980).
    • Many sources talk about how professional administration, police, and courts collapsed under Amin's rule. This is not mentioned.
    • His actual day-today governance methods and relationship with his cabinet are not adequately discussed.
    • Some of his domestic initiatives like "Keep Uganda Clean" should probably be included. Right now most of the portion of the article about his presidency is how he marginalized certain groups.
    • The 1972 action by exiles to overthrow Amin was not a "coup attempt", but an invasion.
  • The International relations section seems to be missing some key material as well as missing citations or misrepresenting sources.
    • His relationship with Organisation of African Unity is absent, despite his hosting of the OAU conference in 1975 and his serving as chairman of the meeting (mentioned in the lede but not supported anywhere in the body of the text).
    • Also sorely missing is his relationship with Mobutu of neighboring Zaire, the PLO, and Arab states other than Libya (which is only barely mentioned).
    • Amin's relationship with Tanzania was also very sour long before the 1978/1979 war, but this is not discussed.
    • The citing of a telegram by the US Ambassador on his opinion of Amin seems to be an improper use of primary material.
    • The opening paragraph about his initial support from Western powers mentions both West Germany and the Soviet Union, despite the New African article cited to support that info not mentioning either of those countries. This also seems an inappropriate place to discuss what role if any the UK had in his 1971 coup (should go above).
  • Legacy section
    • A leader of Amin's stature and impact on his country requires such a section. I added it several months ago. It is far from "broad" enough per GA standards to be considered reasonably complete.
  • Other overall comments
    • The sources are a mess of formats and styles. Many documents and books are not cited with page numbers.
    • Some sources are of dubious reliability, such as biography.com (reference 94 for Kay Amin).

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Responses to Commentary[edit]

  • Reference 55 has considerable information about various regimes and their support and manipulation of Idi Amin and the seizure of power in the Ugandan coup d'état.
  • There is insufficient information about the arms and ammunition supplied by the Soviet Union and the support of East Germany. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Amnesty International[edit]

Perhaps the definitive view is that of Amnesty International, as set out in a report in June 1978.

“Amnesty International’s main concerns are as follows:

1) the overthrow of the rule of law;

2) the extensive practice of murder by government security officers, which often reaches massacre proportions;

3) the institutionalised use of torture;

4) the denial of fundamental human rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

5) the regime’s constant disregard for the extreme concern expressed by international opinion and international organisations such as the United Nations, which results in the impression that gross human rights violations may be committed with impunity.”

Final comments:[edit]

I'm done here.

  • It is reasonably well written.
no, it needs objectivity, as mentioned above
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
no, there are many different estimates of mass killings, murders and how many Asians and Indians were exiled
  • It is broad in its coverage.
It needs significant updating with perspective, evaluation, inclusion of a new section on either Evaluatoin or Post Colonialism;
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Yes
  • It is stable.
Artice has been vandalised repeatedly and should remain under semi-protection
  • It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Yes
  • References:
This is an old page. Where possible, references should be from archive.org --Whiteguru (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State Spartans[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 20:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not well written: Article contains many choppy, one-sentence paragraphs. Baseball section has no content, just a link to its main page. Awards and Academic All-Americans are just "See footnote" with a reference.
  • Not verifiable: Many unreferenced claims: many missing in Men's basketball, Football, and Other varsity sports, while none exist in Women's basketball.
  • Media not are relevant to topic: Questionable placement of old/alternative logos, e.g. the "Michigan State's classic 'S' logo" is in the football section with no reference to it. Not sure about the Big Ten logo below the infobox.

Overall, article is in a rough state and would need a significant amount of effort to bring it back up to GA standards. Pbrks (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She Has a Name[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 20:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an overdue GAR for this article six years after Neelixgate and after two separate articles, quite overstuffed themselves, were merged into it. This is a 5000-word piece on a minor community theatre play created by someone with...quite the penchant for 5000-word pieces on minor parts of the anti-sex-work movement. I think this deserves a fair shake nonetheless, and I don't enjoy reviewing at the best of times, so I'm putting it to the community. Vaticidalprophet 05:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. I'll grant that the play has some legitimate notability for the purposes of having an article (although due to the Neelix of it all, I wouldn't be opposed to somebody deleting it and restarting from scratch either), but the article is indeed very overdone for the notability level that's actually on the table — which means it's not the kind of thing we should be highlighting as a model to aspire to. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Bend, Indiana[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has a valid maintenance "citations needed" tag, which is an immediate red flag. May have been a "good article" in 2008, when it was listed, but I feel its current form would need some work in order for it to be validly called a "good article". SecretName101 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - In addition to the cleanup tag, there is also stuff that is quite dated. For instance "There are currently plans to extend the data center into a fully operating high tech data hub in the old Studebaker "Ivy Tower" assembly plant next door, creating what will be called the Renaissance District" from 2015. Sections such as Redevelopment are not current, and I don't think we need to have a complete list of places of worship in the article. This just doesn't meet the GA criteria at all. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Algonquin Hotel[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article meets several of the modern good article criteria. Entire paragraphs are unsourced, failing WP:GACR #2 "Verifiable with no original research". For example, most of the "Algonquin Round Table" section is completely unsourced, with only one reference to a paragraph at the beginning. Other unsourced paragraphs exist in the "Cats" and "Lunch discounts for struggling writers" sections.

There is scant mention of the hotel's history, failing criterion #3 "Broad in its coverage". For instance, there is no mention of the circumstances under which the hotel was developed, other than in the lead, where the opening date is unsourced. There is no mention of architecture at all, which is surprising considering the hotel is a New York City landmark with significant architectural features. The lead fails to mention most of these details, either, per MOS:LEAD.

Furthermore, the article may fail criterion #1 "Well written", as several paragraphs are one sentence long, while other sentences contain unencyclopedic and dated writing, such as More recently, a newer drink has hit the Algonquin's menu.... While some of these issues are fixable, I believe this would have to be significantly rewritten to be a good article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cherry[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: The original editor now supports that the GA status be kept, so as such the article remains a GA. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies too heavily on an autobiography and is not in compliance with policy at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV as a result.4meter4 (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me where in Wikipedia:Reliable sources it states that autobiographies are not considered reliable?--EchetusXe 15:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure WP:RSPRIMARY, points to caution when using primary sources. The issue here is not so much using the source, but the extent to which the article is relying on primary source material. While I understand that this is a Ghost written autobiography through a reputable publisher, these types of publications don't go through the peer review process that a biography would and are not held to the same level of editorial scrutiny that a named biographer would have to go through. Ghost writers are essentially at will employees and have little power over content; not to mention the financial motive of those involved to promote the subject. In other words, it's not really the best source, and its ok to use it somewhat, just not to this level. My suggestion would be to trim back.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind checking through the article and flagging any lines that you believe the autobiography is not an adequate source to support? I have spent many hours on this now, searching for and adding more sources, and trimming a bit of unnecessary detail. I really can't see anything that would be an obvious thing to trim down. The early life section is down to four lines now. There are 73 citations to the autobiography and 65 citations from other sources. In your opinion, how many autobiography referenced facts should we remove from the article to leave it as a source used only somewhat, as opposed to the level when you started the reassessment process? Thanks. EchetusXe 10:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I brought this to community reassessment, is I wanted some more input from other experienced editors as to what’s appropriate. I don’t want to be too stringent or too lenient. I think you are making some good progress finding independent sources for some content. I’d like input from Kosack, who is more supportive of using the autobiography, and from Valereee who placed the tags. We need a meeting of the minds, and not just one editor (I.e. me) dictating how to handle this.4meter4 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a case in point, John Wark is currently listed as an FA with around 40 uses of his own autobiography. Cherry currently has 73 by EchetusXe's count above, but also uses a single page reference format rather than ranges as Wark does (for example, refs 7 and 8 could realistically be combined into pp=9-10 as a single ref). If Cherry used that format, I would imagine we would be down to around 55-60 uses. Furthermore, Cherry currently has 138 refs so, even taking the potential to cut the autobiography refs down to that number, this article realistically has more references than a listed FA? There also appears to be nothing particularly sensational or controversial here sourced to the autobiography that falls foul of the primary source guidelines, in fact it's all pretty run-of-the-mill stuff. Kosack (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that's a good point. I could group book references together more in the future. Thanks.EchetusXe 13:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to go through and group some citations to cut back on the number from the autobiography. I know that’s in some ways a purely cosmetic change, but it does visually balance the citation comparison between primary and secondary sources.4meter4 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have grouped them together now. Thanks. EchetusXe 16:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I left a note for Valereee to comment here. Valereee Has not edited for a few days, and hopefully we will hear back soon. I’d like to specifically hear about what content may need to be addressed to get the tags off the page that were placed by Valereee. I would like Kosack’s take on that too once we hear back. As soon as that get’s ironed out we can close this off and go back for DYK approval.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, I haven't time to go through the article again and tag stuff sourced to the autobiography as better source needed, but my main concern is anything but noncontroversial facts should not be sourced to the autobiography. We can't source things like the saving his family from a fire because he cried, saving a teammate from "swallowing his tongue", that some coach or scout thought XYZ about him, etc. to an autobiography. If that stuff can't be sourced to a non-affiliated source, it's probably not even noteworthy anyway and should just be removed as trivia. And the fact some color announcer said he'd saved someone from "swallowing his tongue" doesn't make it true, either. WP should not be saying swallowing one's tongue is possible just because lots of people believe it's possible. Honestly I think the whole incident just needs to be removed as dubious. It's trivia at best. If we're going to mention it, it needs attribution and probably scare quotes, which I really don't like to see.
The autobiography is fine for stuff like what high school he graduated from, his parents' names and occupations, his dob, etc., but we shouldn't be sourcing anything to it that we can source to something better. We certainly shouldn't be sourcing a DYK hook to his autobiography; if the hook facts can't be sourced somewhere else, it's not good enough for DYK and IMO not good enough for the article. I am happy to have the tags removed once any extraordinary claim is either removed or is supported by something other than his autobiography. —valereee (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I removed the little quote about him being overweight and I changed the tongue choking incident from "credited to saving the life" to "came to the aid of".--EchetusXe 11:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the FA-listed articles such as Iwan Roberts, Bryan Gunn and John Wark all feature quotes from others attributed to their respective autobiographies, Roberts in particular has things way more incendiary sourced to it. I'm not sure why things like that should be an issue here or why this article seems to be held to standards not required of our highest review accolades. I can't speak for the tongue swallowing incident, but if there is a scientific basis for it being impossible then it could be toned down or better explained if possible. Kosack (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the controversy over the tongue swallowing thing. Here is how it stands now: "On 25 February, he came to the aid of Wimbledon striker John Fashanu after Fashanu was knocked unconscious following a collision with Craig Short.[9] Fashanu said that "I could feel my tongue slipping down my throat as I was lying on the ground... I owe Steve Cherry an awfully big debt".[39]" Please speak up if anyone objects to that.EchetusXe 12:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support GA as passing. Personally, I think the article has been improved enough to pass GA at this point. References have been swapped where possible, and Kosack makes a good argument over how we use autobiographical material. Additionally the reference reformating has been good. I am not disturbed by the tongue swallowing content, simply because it's in a peronsonal quote, and isn't an assertion being made by a medical expert or making an authoratitve medical claim. It's essentially a verifiable human interest story, which is fine in a biographical article.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2021 (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.

Alexander Lukashenko[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Consensus to delist, following the identification of specific issues that remain unresolved. CMD (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been flagged as needing GAR for over a year. There are outstanding cleanup tags and banners on the article. It may also need updating in light of 2020 Belarusian protests. (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Going by the Wikipedia:Good article criteria this article fails on more than one point:

  1. Well written: It is not well written. A caption with a photograph reads "Demonstration in Warsaw, reminding about the disappearances of opposition activists in Belarus". This is partly because there is not enough oversight and broad coverage of his life and career.
  2. Verifiable: For the most part at least, it seems verifiable. I am going through the article chronologically and having encountered some minor issues with the pre-presidential part of Lukashenko's life, coverage of the first term of his presidency seems woefully bad. For example, a source on the 2004 presidential election was referenced under coverage about the 1995 referendum. see here
  3. Broad in its coverage: I have not evaluated more than up to the first presidential term but from casual reading I feel that a balanced view of his policies is missing. Under Policy the subsections veer into a jumble of; Domestic policy, Accusation of forced disappearances, Economic policies and Coronavirus with little coherence. A more focused approach is needed. Basic facts were wrong such as date of birth, which changed from being August 30 to 31 sometime around 2009.
  4. Neutrality: Unsure about neutrality. Coverage of first presidential term is very forgiving to say the least. It is easy to find critical secondary sources that describe how Lukashenko consolidated power by forcing through the referendum in November 1996 using what were widely described as undemocratic methods by various Western institutions. There is not even mention of Viktar Hanchar there although he was Lukashenko's main adversery in the Supreme Soviet (if I understand correctly) who was the head of the Central Election Commission of Belarus. Who Lukashenko replaced with Lidia Yermoshina.
  5. Stable: Stable from disinterest it seems.
  6. Illustrated: Illustrated, yes.

In short, serious issues with regards to quality of article. Should be delisted. --Jabbi (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, can we remove the good article sign then? --Kimjongundprk4life

How do I do that for instance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimjongundprk4life (talk • contribs) 11:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This re-assessment seems to be quite stale. I would like to raise a couple of points in addition to the points made by buidhe and me above in the hope that this process can be expedited.

  • Originally it was given GA back in 2013, a lot has happened since then and one of the current problems of the page is lack of overview of the subject
  • when I started editing this page there were about four Citation needed tags, I have commented them out along with their respective statements as it does not impact their context but this just shows that the page needs more editing
  • analysis is very light, as I have talked about in his first term, I am about to research his second term further but note that I have just finished covering the turbulent events of 1995 and am about to look into 1996, currently the coverage just starts with "In the summer of 1996, deputies of the 199-member Belarusian parliament signed a petition to impeach Lukashenko on charges of violating the Constitution" - no context.
  • there is an undue weight tag and a stray from the topic tag

It seems to me rather obvious that it should be stripped of a GA.

--Jabbi (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree completely but as stated above, we need to wait for an uninvolved editor to close it according to the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Aircorn often does closes at GAR but IDK if they're currently active. (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging subject experts, if you could kindly participate: @Zscout370:, @Reidgreg:, @Nice4What:. --Jabbi (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say delist. There is an undue weight tag, and several issues. SecretName101 (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McKinsey & Company[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. Concerns were raised about writing quality, article structure, and source quality. These concerns have remained unaddressed in the months since this GAR was opened. CMD (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on Talk:McKinsey_&_Company#Lead_should_obviously_mention_some_of_the_controversies, there are concerns that the article does not meet the GA criteria. Although I disagree that the article should be cut down (it's 43 kb of readable prose which is about the recommended article size), I agree with other editors that it's poorly written and disorganized. (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment right off the bat that the decision to nest almost all of the controversies underneath "Influence" rather than a standard "Controversies" or "Criticisms" section seems very questionable to me. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote against this retaining GA status. At the very least the lede needs reorganization/rewriting and it needs to drop shoddy references (there aren't many, but there are some, BizNews.com, for instance). Agree with Buidhe that the whole article also needs reorganization, and some trimming where there's fluff. — Mainly 16:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beside questionable sources, the lead also needs to be rid of most or not all of its citations per WP:LEADCITE.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Moon[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Procedurally closed CMD (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous assessment and delisting of this article, I have seemingly noticed that the community has made great strides in performing whatever cleanup and corrections needed to meet the criteria for GA. At the time of this article's delisting in 2013, I had noticed the article had been subjected to much fancruft in text and citations, such as referencing only blogs and/or fansites, which contained zero encyclopedia-appropriate material and original research. In today's observation, the fancruft all but does not exist (if not, at a miniscule level), and the references are only news sources without linking to fansites and/or original research. I might not fully understand if this was the reason for the 2013 delisting, but I would like to leave this reevaluation to the community to decide.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you are looking to re-promote the article, shouldn't this be done via a good article nomination? Link20XX (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, Loyalmoonie, if you are trying to bring this back to GA, it's not super far off. There is some unsourced statements and maintenance tags in media but other than that, you could probably nominate it. Link20XX (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close - This is a process for discussing if GAs should be delisted. WP:GAN is the process for getting an article listed as a GA. This is not the correct process. Hog Farm Talk 06:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I was unaware.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Triple H[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisting following no action taken over several months. CMD (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More than a year ago, this article was suggested to need Good Article reassessment. I notice that it still has some tags flagging issues with non-cited content and potentially unreliable sources, so I've brought it here. (t · c) buidhe 05:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there are some CN templates (a few titles, a few quotes and the filmography). Also, I have seen Bleacher report, which is unreliable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe and HHH Pedrigree: This is quite old now, any comments on the current state of the article? I am transcluding this review onto the talk page, to see if it generates further input. CMD (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Tropical Cyclone Forecasting System[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I reviewed this article under an old username five years ago, and I rubber stamped it as I thought there were no issues. The me five years ago was also not aware of the whole section describing each deck used close paraphrasing in its entirety. Personally, I am not sure this article still passes the GA criteria with a large part of the material gone, so this is why I'm starting a community reassessment. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add on which criteria the article doesn't meet anymore is 3a, which is "address the main aspects of the topic". Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was shown what was removed and replaced it with information from one of the existing references. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Main problem of the article has been resolved, will wait for one week to see if anyone else has found an issue with the article. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Chlod for input. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Thegreatdr was able to properly replace the given section and there seems to be no copyright issues left. However, I'm still new to the required amounts of content in good articles, so whether or not the added content is enough to replace the old one (which had three paragraphs) is what I'm unsure of. I'll probably leave that decision to someone with better reviewing skills than me. Chlod (say hi!) 09:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back when this article was submitted for GA, there was no specific size requirement for such. If there is nowadays, it would be good to know what that value is. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't; the content just has to be good. And since everything here seems to be resolved... –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as keep. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margery Wolf[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Clear consensus to delist (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed substantial amounts of copyrighted text from this article today and requested revision deletion. As such, I do not believe it meets GA criterion 3 in its current state. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this does not meet the broadness criteria in its current state. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerated delist - now that the copyvios have been excised, the article is miles away from meeting the broadness criterion. Since the nominator has just been indeffed, the chance of improvement is essentially nil. Being an unequivocal case, this GAR can probably be closed promptly, per WP:IAR if necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist can't meet the broadness criterion. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, speedy if appropriate, per above. Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, I didn't realize this was going on; I yanked the GA sign already. But yes, delist, of course. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept, following issues being addressed. CMD (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be several major problems with this article. There are section tags expressing concerns over sourcing, missing citations, failed verifications, and claims cited to blogs and other unreliable sites. This is an extremely complex and contentious subject and the article has changed almost beyond recognition compared to 2008, when it was awarded GA status. I think we need a high degree of confidence in it before we can say it's still GA. Popcornfud (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you just take your concerns to the talk page and be more specific about the parts of the article that needs improvement? A quick scan over doesn’t show the article in desperate need of revision. And certainly doesn’t appear to be in need of a GA reassessment which seems to be a bit extreme for minor issues. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All items in question have been fixed, updated, and removed. If anything remains, Talk Page is available. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serranus Clinton Hastings[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist following no action. CMD (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this biographical article meets the criteria for a good article, given the relative lack of coverage of the subject's being a significant participant in the California genocide. The article covers Hastings' career as a judge, and founding his namesake institution, one of the major US law schools. However, apart from a minor mention I just added as a placeholder,[2] the article does not cover his personal participation in the murder of dozens and perhaps hundreds of innocent Native American men, women, and children, on an ongoing basis during a span of years of his life on a forced labor camp he ran, as well as "Indian hunts" he organized. This is covered by major mainstream media articles and a commission created by his law school, so the verifiability and significance is not reasonably in dispute. This mostly unmentioned aspect of his life would appear to be one of the primary, if not the primary, biographically significant pieces of his life.

  • The criterion it fails is 3a, failing a requirement that it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Although I added a brief mention, it would take considerable effort to rewrite the article to reflect this history – not a quick or easy fix.

- Wikidemon (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hopefully someone will take this up in future making sure to cite only reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 19:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations not up to standard for a GA. FlalfTalk 17:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to add on to this: all of the references to the wikipedia signpost violate WP:PRIMARY and WP:USERG. Good Articles should not be breaking policy or official guidelines. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I hate to say it, I must agree with the above. Sources to primary sources and Wikipedia too much. I say Delist. Link20XX (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Link20XX, definitively not. There are 21 Wikipedia references out of 58, plus. So there are 37 independent sources. That's more than enough for a GA. GeraldWL 02:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Mountaineers football[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 04:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 2012 GA about an ongoing subject has fallen into a bit of disrepair. There's some weighting issues with the 80s, 90, and early 2000s being given much more weight than post-2011 material, there is some uncited text, and an outstanding length tag from 2019 that needs resolved. One of the principal sources (Casazza) is published by a self-publishing company with a reputation for publishing almost anything that's not illegal or pure advertising. The table of future non-conference opponents still includes the 2020 season. This just needs a good bit of work to get to GA again. Hog Farm Talk 06:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in The Lord of the Rings[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep. There's a clear consensus that the article meets the GA criteria. However, some editors did make suggestions for improvement (see in particular CMD's comments below) which could be taken into account when improving the article. (t · c) buidhe 11:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, it appears to constitute original research, in that most of it was written by one person. Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for idolizing authors and the article appears to be strongly biased toward a defense of J.R.R. Tolkien's fiction against criticisms.

I have elected to use the community reassessment path as the purpose of reassessment is to help improve articles. If the failure to create and maintain a neutral point of view can be resolved, then that will meet community standards (in my opinion). Michael Martinez (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article; it has been contributed to, quite substantially, by Haleth, and was reviewed, thoroughly and systematically, by Amitchell125. To reply to Michael Martinez's points briefly but I hope clearly:
  • Neutrality, including "idolizing authors" and bias towards a defense of J.R.R. Tolkien's fiction against criticisms: I'd be curious to know what in the article constituted "idolization", as the text presents and attributes by name many scholars' and other people's points of view, some of them definitely hostile to Tolkien. Further, the text makes clear that Tolkien did have "conservative views about women", as seen both in his own cited statements and in the opinions of both femininist and non-feminist scholars. By the same token, the article is strenuously anti-bias; it presents and attributes views for, against, and in-between, and none of them are editorial. The article groups different opinions into subsections, but does not favour any of them. Far from defending Tolkien, it presents him warts and all as scholars and others have seen him. Some of that is certainly unflattering.
  • "Original research" because "most of it was written by one person": this is not the definition of Original Research (OR) in Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter how many editors are involved; the key is that OR is characterised by an editor's invention rather than the accurate use of cited sources. Colleagues will note that a) the article is fully cited, i.e. every statement is cited to a Reliable Source; b) there are 59 citations from a wide variety of sources; authors include journalists and scholars of different disciplines, while primary (Tolkien-dependent) material is carefully separated; c) the statements made in the article are all attributed to named scholars, so there is no editorial opinion in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is essentially a personal essay expressing unsubstantiated opinions. That violates the Original Research principle (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research ). It's true you've added a few citations, but Wikipedia is not a community for shared research and essays. The Tolkien and Middle-earth articles have been egregious victims of misguided editing in the past. They were once part of a featured series of articles that the broader editor community eventually deleted because it was inappropriate fan material. Your contributions constitute a pattern of Disruptive Editing (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing ) because you're using these articles to advocate your own point of view (thus also violating the Neutral Point of View principle - Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ). This isn't something where one argues and wins in the Talk pages. It's something where the editorial community has come together and agreed on a set of policies that are used to decide which articles remain, how they are to be maintained, and what they should and should not cover. Please review the guidelines and amend your contributions as required. And don't propose your own contributions for Good Article status. Let others make that determination without any input or incentivization from you.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, an essay has a goal, and an essayist selects materials and speaks in his or her own voice to persuade readers of that one thing. I have not just added "a few citations"; I've read, paraphrased, and cited about 50 books and journal articles for the Wikipedia article, not counting Tolkien's books and letters. It presents many points of view neutrally, whether they favour Tolkien or not. It is wholly inappropriate of you to suggest that creating and citing one or more articles on a topic is disruptive; indeed, it's the opposite, it's the purpose of Wikipedia. It is entirely in line with the Good Article instructions to nominate articles one has worked on, indeed it's the usual approach. Finally, it is inappropriate and uncivil to accuse me of "incentivization" of any other editor - I've never offered anybody any sort of inducement, and you should not be casting aspersions of that or any other kind. I've no idea why you are speaking in that way, but it is not collegiate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I've read, paraphrased, and cited about 50 books and journal articles for the Wikipedia article, not counting Tolkien's books and letters." Yes. You used this Wikipedia page to write an essay. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal essays and POV. "The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, 'just-the-facts style'. Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing." (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ) Now, that's not a policy page, but good Wikipedia articles follow that guidance. A good article doesn't document every detail that is important to 1 author. A good article provides a framework of information that is useful to the broader community.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking up sources and using them is the normal way to expand an article. The article does not present an editorial opinion (I didn't, and don't, have one on the matter), but presents and summarizes published opinion fairly, clearly, and accurately, with full attribution. The article does not promote anything, nor does it favour any particular scholar or opinion, but presents all of them plainly and concisely. Both of us seem to have stated our positions repeatedly now, so it may be best to wait see what others think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. The article as written does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for Good Article status. Nor should it remain in its current state as it doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedic article. It needs revision. At the very least, you have the option of scaling back some of your contributions to make the article more general and informative to the broader reading audience.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't agree with that, but since each sentence in the article expresses the opinion of some or other scholar or commentator, scaling some of them back would risk unbalancing the article and introducing accidental bias towards whatever is left, so any such move would have to be made very carefully; but anything is possible if there's consensus for it. The purpose of an encyclopedia article on a literary subject is to present the range of opinions that are held on it, as clearly and plainly as possible, which is what the article does. The "more general" articles are those further up the tree, starting with the article on Tolkien himself; by the time the reader has reached an article on XYZ in book ABC, the reader will be aware that the subject has become a bit more specialised; that is the nature of a large topic with subtopics.
I'm completely willing to fix anything that's misleading, difficult to read, or whatever, if you'll tell me what exactly needs doing. As it stands, it presents the facts clearly and neutrally. Since most of what has been written on the subject is by scholars, we can't avoid expressing scholarly opinion; but I've been careful to be as simple and clear as possible, and am happy to adjust anything you find difficult. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start with the article title. Instead of "Women in The Lord of the Rings", I suggest "Literary Criticism of Women in the Lord of the Rings". The original article title would be better used to list female characters in The Lord of the Rings (but I don't think such articles are permitted on Wikipedia). There is already a category page listing characters in the story (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_characters ). A secondary category for female characters might be accepted - especially as there is a large category of female characters in literature.

For literary criticism of the characters, the "Tolkien's Background" section is inappropriate. This is the element that constitutes the strongest defense of Tolkien and original research. Keeping in mind that the article should appeal to the broader community, if the article is revised to address literary criticism then this section should include references to literary criticism that address his background (and how it may have influenced women in the story). Citing Tolkien's own works doesn't contribute toward such a discussion. On the other hand, if the article is revised to only describe the women in the story then this entire section should be removed.

The section about "A Role for Women" is suitable for an article about literary criticism of women in the story. It's not suitable for an article describing the female characters (which as I stated above, I don't believe would be accepted by the Wikipedia community).Michael Martinez (talk)

Happy to rename if people think that's best. However "Literary criticism of" implies this is purely literary, which isn't the case; for a start it's in newspapers and Tolkien journals too, and debated by feminists and by Christian authors as well as by literary scholars. So we'd need to be sure we had a better title; the current title has the merit of simplicity and neutrality.
The background of Tolkien in an all-male environment is plainly relevant, not least because multiple commentators and scholars have mentioned it as a major factor. Since (per the paragraph above) I doubt that reframing the article to be purely literary would be a good idea, I similarly doubt that trying to exclude all non-literary matters would make sense. We could repeat citations in the background section, but frankly it's fine for a background/context to give the background of the rest of the discussion; this is actually part of what you were asking for, namely to make the context of the article clear so that more general readers could find their way in. Making the article context-free, more technical and more specialised would make the article much less readable for general readers.
The article doesn't just describe the female characters (that would be a list article, and we already have List of Middle-earth characters). Since it's not a list article, discussing what roles women play in the book, as understood by commentators, is certainly relevant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this GAR is nonsense. Just from skimming the article it appears especially neutral and uses a wide variety of opinions from different scholars. I'm not left feeling particularly inclined to agree with one side or the other and whatever "in that most of it was written by one person" means, is completely irrelevant. If anything, the proposals by the nominator would ruin the neutrality; the title "Literary Criticism of Women in the Lord of the Rings" suggests a bias and would also change the scope of the article. I guess the article could include Tolkien's all-male background (if commentators do actually use it in the context of this article's subject) but such an issue is by no means reason for a full out GAR. Aza24 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The page adheres to all of the GA criteria. The re-assessment opener makes some serious allegations of disruptive editing that are left entirely unsupported. Furthermore, statements like "don't propose your own contributions for Good Article status" display a lack of knowledge regarding the Good article process. Quoting from the first instruction: "Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources" (my emphasis). This reassessment should be closed before Chiswick's time is wasted one minute longer. Tkbrett (✉) 02:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through I had a few moments where I didn't feel the tone was that encyclopaedic (eg. A question as a header), and the split between "powerful" and "ordinary" does not feel like the right wording, but I'm not seeing any original research. A lot of outside commentators are explicitly referenced within the text. If there are a significant number of prominent yet absent opinions, or if any of the existing opinions are being misinterpreted here, that would be a cause for concern, but no evidence of such has been provided. If such evidence does emerge, I would suggest first initiating a discussion on the matter on the talkpage, so it can be added, rather than jumping to GAR. CMD (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This presents as a frivolous, possibly mischievous proposal (and that is the generous interpretation). If the OP is to be taken at face value, then they clearly do not grasp how an article can be assessed for balance or whether it is based on original research. The OP has not offered one concrete demonstration of where or how the article exhibits lack of balance or original research. They are wasting other editors time with wild, unsubstantiated accusations, and the thread should be closed. — Epipelagic (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harper[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Tags and major concerns appear to be resolved Aircorn (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has several citation needed tags, a lead that doesn't meet MOS:LEAD, and a four-year old neutrality tag on one section. These issues need to be resolved for the article to remain a GA according to GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I'm a bit unsure as to whether the {{POV}} tag matters anymore. It was from a dispute that ended four years ago. The section has since changed, though I would like consensus before removal. Username6892 (Peer Review) 21:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Username6892: If the dispute has been resolved, it's OK to remove the POV tag—better than leaving it in place indefinitely. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, quite a few tags and unsourced statements, no action for a few months. CMD (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would seem that User:Randusk recently did some very good work to fill in requested citations. I no longer see any cleanup tags. As for the lead, it seems okay to me, other than being a smidge too long. But I wouldn't flunk this for GA because of that. (@Buidhe: perhaps you could elaborate on the MOS:LEAD issues you see, assuming they still apply?) Colin M (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see the cleanup tags have been dealt with, but there remains further clearly unsourced text throughout the article, a series of single paragraph sections, and various sections that read as wp:proseline. CMD (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting looking at older revisions of this page to see how the infobox pics have changed over the months (not years) ...

* The 8 citation needed tags mentioned by User:buidhe have all disappeared ...

  • Agree with other comments, the lead is far too long. The third paragraph needs considerable trimming.
  • I am not enamoured of having three photographs in the Foreign Policy section. Looks a bit WP:CRUFT to me.
  • Why is the reassessment on the talk page twice? I cannot see why this is necessary. It duplicates the earlier assessment by User:buidhe ... I don't know what this particular editor's point is in creating a so-called (→GA Reassessment: new section). Is there a direction to this effect that is to be done? I'd like to know.
  • 72 bots on page with Internet Archive bot visiting on 1 February 2020
  • Page created on 7 June 2003 with 8,031 edits by 2,708 editors. 3,873 edits in the year 2006.
  • 31 protection events for this page. Sensitive.
  • Justin might be Prime Minister but this fellow is still getting a lot of page views: 116,578 in the last 90 days with daily average = 1,281
  • There is a statement on Electoral history of Stephen Harper the to the effect that Harper led the Conservative Party in five general elections. He won three (2006, 2008 and 2011) and lost two (2004 and 2015). He won minority governments in the 2006 and 2008 elections, and a majority in the 2011 election. He lost the 2015 election to Justin Trudeau. This might be an appropriate inclusion at the end of the lede.
  • I am not comfortable with the relevance of this particular citation: In 1994, he opposed plans by federal Justice Minister Allan Rock to introduce spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Citing the recent failure of a similar initiative in Ontario, he was quoted as saying, "What I hope they learn is not to get into it. There are more important social and economic issues, not to mention the unity question. Given the current mileau of rights for same-sex couples, this is a bit of an anachronism if not a particular POV inclusion.
  • The sections Reform MP, Out of Parliament and Canadian Alliance leadership all suffer from WP:Proseline, he did this, he did that, he aligned with this fellow, he aligned with that fellow, he made this statement, he made that statement. A bit of cleanup could be done in these sections. Are the MP's he aligned with or won support of really relevant?
  • There is a bit of proseline or waffling around Zytaruk in the Leader of the Opposition section; this and the following paragraph might be surplus to needs. (This accusation, that investigation, that accusation, this investigation ... see earlier paragraphs about seizing power)
  • The paragraph In his first address to Parliament as Prime Minister, is not necessary; the section is about the election and throws off to a main article.
  • Reading Reference 153, it is not made clear - there, or in this article, why the government lost the motion of no confidence. Is this able to be rectified?
  • Official Opposition → Is "Official" really needed with regard to an opposition?
Yup. That's the term used in the House of Commons for the second largest party. The Leader of the Official Opposition has privileges that leaders of the third parties don't have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Constitutional issues section does not appear on the main article Domestic policy of the Harper government. Why is it here? Why is it not mentioned on that page?
  • Ditto 2011 Census, not mentioned on that page.
  • Israeli and Jewish affairs is too long and needs to be reduced as this matter is covered on the Foreign Policy main page.
  • Keep after attending to issues raised. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you're talking about wrt the cn tags, currently there are eleven in the article. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a search yesterday on a revision of this article, and no tags popped up. Checking today, yes, they are there. Dunno how that happened. I have struck that out. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scouts BSA[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist Uncited text and concerns on broadness Aircorn (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little detail about how girls became a part of what used to be called "Boy Scouts". There is a history section with one unsourced sentence. If one or more editors could improve the article, that would be great. I just want to see what others say.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that there are serious issues with this article. Large swathes lack verifiable sources so it's impossible to know if they're accurate. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the editors involved with the creation of this article no longer edit. @North8000: thoughts? --evrik (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to do some work on it. IMO it hasn't slipped below GA level. I'm not sure that there is a lot of sourced material available about adding girls to this specific program. Speaking from experience, it got decided without a lot of fanfare and implemented and quickly became the norm. Since the change involved multiple programs (e.g. including Cub Scouts) most of the news etc. about the transition is not unique to this program and so coverage in sources is more at the BSA level and so the BSA article is where more sourcing/coverage would be available regarding the transition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see significant issues here. There's large quantities of uncited material, as well as an incredibly lacking history section. One section for the history of this organization is not enough. Membership figures are extremely outdated (2013). What makes ScoutXing a reliable source? A lot of this content is sourced to sources with 2007-2009 accessdates; there's no guarantee that some of the various procedures haven't changed in the last 10+ years. What makes Boy Scout Trail an RS? Ref 12 is dead. Most of the sourcing is either primary or to sites of dubious reliability. Needs significant work, so delist unless significant work is done soon. GAR is not a holding cell. Hog Farm Bacon 01:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not overly concerned about GA status of this article and so am just giving my opinion on that. I've done I think about a hundred GA reviews. My general opinion is that it hasn't slipped below the bar of GA. This isn't FA and doesn't demand that level of flawlessness. On another note, just to be clear, this isn't an /the article about the Boy Scouts of America this is an article about a mere program within the BSA. Since it started out as the sole program of the BSA, early history would be a duplication of that of the BSA. And the "changes" to that status are not changes to the topic of this article, they were creation of other programs within the BSA while this / the original program continued. Of course membership numbers need updating, but I think that generally the article has been kept updated in the important areas. The very recent addition of girls to this program and the structures related to that have been covered. Again, regarding plans of what to put in and expectations on what to see here, remember that this isn't an article about the Boy Scouts of America, it is an article about a mere program within the BSA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • North8000 makes a valid point. There are separate articles for Boy Scouts of America and History of the Boy Scouts of America, as indicted by the History section hatnote. This article is about the one specific program and the History section just needs to be beefed up to cover the inclusion of girls in this previously boys-only program. There are numerous independent RS available on this wide-publicized change, such as NPR, CNN, CBS, etc. —  JGHowes  talk 19:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no comment on broadness (3) either way, but per Buidhe there remain swathes of unsourced text, months after this nomination. CMD (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't de-list (above I just made comments) This isn't FA, it's GA and IMO it meets that threshold.North8000 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Laying aside the broadness issue entirely, there is a very significant amount of uncited text. Multiple sources (Scout Xing, The Scouting Pages) do not appear to be RS. Fails WP:GACR 2b. This seems to have met the 2008 GA criteria, but more is expected, and has been expected for years. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - a lot of sources that are just...not reliable at all, not to mention the broadness issue. versacespaceleave a message! 15:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist far too much unsourced information. Link20XX (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: I had to read the Lead of the Boy Scouts of America to grasp that there are programs for age groups in Scouting. Saying flagship membership level does not get the drift of an age-limited program group in Scouting.
  • I wonder if the Other sections part of this article is relevant to Scouts BSA? Is it?
  • Youth Leadership Section is a bit WP:PROSELINE with he does this, this scout calls the roll, that scout collects money, like this.
  • The first paragraph of Development reads like it has been lifted from some other document.
  • Development (n the main) seems to rely on a single reference and there is no reference to Girls in this nor the previous leadership sections, Youth Leadership and Adult Leadership. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted There is consensus that the original GA pass should be overturned and there are some suggestions below for improving the article for another GA nomination. (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am opening a community GAR on this article as I believe it does not pass these Good Article criteria:

  • Verifiable with no original research: From a quick glance, I see two small parts of uncited prose. They are located at Trump counsel ("Both Jordan and Stefanik had voted to reject electoral votes") and Question-and-answer session: ("Marco Rubio asked both sides (Q26)").
    • There are also two tags of [non-primary source needed]. These are at the Reactions - Senate ("Mitch McConnell, who voted for acquittal") and Reactions - President Biden ("He referred to his inauguration speech")
  • Broadness: This article is currently tagged with [needs expansion] at the House's brief and Trump's brief sections, both of which has been there since February 2021. As neither the House's Replication or Reply Memorandum in February 2021 has been throughly discussed, I believe this is missing information to pass the broadness criteria.
  • Neutrality: I see instances where there are sentences that are not neutral. Examples include:
    • Argument preparation - Prosecution: "In a notable departure on strategy, the managers declined to discuss the logistics of their case"
    • Argument preparation - Defense: "Castor and Schoen also plan to deny that Trump incited the violence or intended to interfere with Congress’s formalizing of Biden’s victory" and "They further plan to argue that Democrats glorified violence by showing film of the January 6 riot" for example
    • Reactions - Senate: "Schumer blasted the Senate's decision to acquit Trump in a floor speech"

Based on the review, it doesn't look like an in-depth check of this article was performed. I believe a community reassessment is needed for this article. Based on a quick check, I see at least 3 of the criteria not currently being passed. There could be more issues (such as prose not being verified with the given citations) but that requires a much more in-depth review. If you have any comments/questions please let me know. Thank you! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never participated at GAR before, so please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong.
The first set of concerns seems pretty trivial and easily fixable, to me. The Jordan/Stefanik claim can be cited to the Law & Crime ref two sentences back (currently ref 51), and I'm sure to any number of other sources, since it concerns the results of a public vote. The Rubio claim is citable to the source for the preceding sentence, although I don't blame you for missing that, since it's a poorly done cite, linking to a long-scrolling webpage requiring multiple "load more"s. It should probably be broken up into separate permalinks to posts on that page, such as this one, which confirms the Rubio claim. Re McConnell, I'm not sure why a non-primary source is needed for a paraphrase of someone's well-sourced remarks. That's classic primary source territory. The Biden section could definitely benefit from secondary sources, but there's nothing wrong with the primary source there, which is again supporting a paraphrase of his remarks. The exception there is the bit about the inauguration speech, which is inappropriate since there's no source cited saying that it was about the vote.
The "needs expansion" tags are valid, although about a pretty specific issue: In both sections, a lack of commentary on the reply to the brief being discussed. But still, I agree, not great for that to be in a GA for four months.
As to neutrality, the "departure on strategy" claim comes from the cited Times article, and I don't see how it's non-neutral to repeat that assertion. Aside from the need for a tense update and MOS:CURLY issue in the Castor/Schoen sentences, that's even-handed reporting of an opinionated statement. It's impossible to write an article on a trial without doing that. Finally, "blasted" is unencyclopedic language, but again, the rest of that sentence is factually presenting someone's opinions.
I don't know if this should remain a GA, but if it's not going to, the only reason I can see is the needs-expansion tags and the poor coverage of Biden's response see below. Everything else is either fine or can be fixed in a matter of minutes. Which I'm about to go do. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes. In the course of doing so, I noticed something I consider significantly more of an issue than anything cited above, which is the accumulation of "X might happen in the future" content that was never removed when X actually did or didn't happen. I removed much of that, but in the process noted that, while the Trump–Raffensperger phone call was one of the reasons for his impeachment, the article does not mention it once in its description of the trial. That, to me, is a pretty glaring omission. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this further, I think this GAR is a case of missing the problematic forest for the not-that-concerning trees. MrLinkinPark has looked for quite minute objections while overlooking the much more significant inssues with completeness and up-to-dateness, but thereby, I think, arrived at the right conclusion for the entirely wrong set of reasons. So, with the strongest possible disagreement with the stated rationale, I strongly concur that this shouldn't be a GA. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I agree I went a different route and focussed on the criteria that I can determine passed/failed quickly. With a neutrality example ""Castor and Schoen also plan to deny" and the two [needs expansion] tags for broadness, I think they can be connected to your findings of up to date inaccuracies. Thank you for finding the out of date issues :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After all this... Be advised of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Godsstone, which will likely moot this whole thing. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this discussion and {{GAR}} may well be moot by the day's end. However, the initial review was grossly inadequate and should be archived with a note in article history. Ditto this review and the article should go back in the queue with a new GAN with the date of the original nomination. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. I created the article and nominated it for GA status. The initial GAN was reviewed by Vesper, passed and subsequently made a GA. I have just been made aware that Vesper a suspected vandal under a sockpuppet investigation and thus the initial GAR is likely illegitimate. I concur with the above statements in that the intial GAR was likely rushed, and I appreciate the new feedback given for this reassessment. Users have given suggestions to resolve those concerns, so I will follow those suggestions to improve the article and keep its GA status. Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on WP:RSP I'm not sure that history.com and Business Insider are good sources for this subject. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note: Philip Samuel was temporarily blocked today for some copyvio issues so I hope that anyone who reviews the article in future will carefully evaluate for any close paraphrasing or copyvio. (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Texas[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: I'm going close this discussion as delist. The issues that I pointed out still exist, and would most certainly result in an automatic fail if an article like this were nominated for GA. Aside from the obvious, I would recommend condensing the lead to four paragraphs, and condensing the history section (especially the Pre-European era and Colonization subsections) the Demographics section, and the politics sections, as well as minor condenses throughout the entire article where necessary. This does not, however, mean that a large amount of information needs to be cut. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue is the article's length. It is currently 15,630 words, and the recommended length is no more than 10,000 words. In addition, there is some content that is missing citations, and information that needs to be updated. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The length here is not inherently a problem; huge sweeping topics often permit larger articles. Having said that, this article passed GAN in 2008 at less than half its current length, meaning most of the text is unassessed. This is a good example of the need for GA sweeps -- there are more than a few articles in this position. It might require delisting, but could also just require a simple tune-up to see what of the added text is useful and polish it up. I've no sufficient grasp of the subject matter to lead such a job. Vami IV? Vaticidalprophet 02:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel qualified to lead a reassessment either; however if this no longer meets GA, I don't think its far from it. I do agree that extensive topics such as this can exceed 10,000 words and still pass GA; some other users would disagree with me on this. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am no expert, but I do happen to live in Texas. I'll have a look at this later in the week, ping me if need be. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for adding a huge amount of information. It's entirely my fault. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look over this article soon. Stedil (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McGill University[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Verifiability issues still remain. Aircorn (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the talk page, "Lead does not meet MOS:LEAD, article has a lot of unsourced information and cleanup tags." Information needs to be verifiable according to the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • To the extent that there are issues with this page, they look very fixable to me, especially since it looks like basically every piece of information that's not sourced to featured standard has been tagged as such. If this were an FA there'd be cause for serious concern, but I've seen many GAs that are a lot worse. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, plenty of unsourced areas (2c), many tiny paragraphs and sections (1b), quite a few tags scattered about. Issues have remained for a few months. CMD (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I navigated to this page for reading, but my preferences indicated this was a GA undergoing GAR. I will not make a comment on whether to keep or delist personally; however, it should be noted that the above comment from December which said that "there's worse GAs" is irrelevant. If there are worse and they do indeed have lots of problems, as this review insinuates, they should too be addressed and discussed or even reviewed like this article. dannymusiceditor oops 03:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, here's a permalink to the article around the time of the GAR nom: Special:Permalink/986087104 (diff with current version at time of writing - god bless those editors who save us from the horror of unhyphenated "accessdate" parameters, rendering diffs unreadable :/). A lot of the cleanup tags have been removed, though a lot of that is because the October version had cleanup tags duplicated for the same facts in the intro and the "Notable people" section. The verifiability issues in the "Notable people" section are mostly venial sins, and it's a small portion of a large article, so it seems a shame to delist for that alone. (I'm not too troubled by the issues raised on the talk page about the lead, since a lot of them are about violations of WP:UNIGUIDE, which is just an essay.) But still, the verifiability issues are WP:GACR failures, and they haven't been remedied in the ~half-year this GAR has been open, so I don't see any choice but to delist. Colin M (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, I randomly checked a few other GA articles for major universities, and it is very common to have unsourced claims like "alumni/faculty include X recipients of award Y". e.g. University_of_Toronto#Notable_people: Twelve Nobel laureates studied or taught at the University of Toronto.; University_of_California,_Santa_Cruz#Notable_alumni_and_faculty: and several Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists; New York University is especially bad about this. Take that for what you will. Colin M (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'm updating my !vote to don't delist. It only took me about 30 minutes to mostly clean up the verifiability issues with the notable alumni accounting. In my view, it is not original research to say something like "McGill alumni include 15 justices of the Supreme Court" and support that with en efn that lists those 15 people with wikilinks. If someone really wants to challenge whether one of those people is indeed a Supreme Court justice or a McGill alum, then those facts can be supported with an RS citation, but it's such a basic piece of information that it would seem unlikely to be challenged. That said, I'm just basing this on my impression that the issues raised in the nom have been resolved. It's a very long article, and I have not tried to carefully review it in its entirety for adherence to GACR. Colin M (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's try pinging the McGill alums on Wikipedia, most of whom probably aren't active, but this article only really needs one editor to step up and save it from delisting.
McGill alums

User:Lrunge User:Adjusting User:Agrophobe User:Basser g User:Blairall User:Blehfu User:Bob bobato User:Challisrussia User:Coffeeflower User:Cpoupart User:Cranberry Products User:Cristo39 User:DarkFireTaker User:Darthsco User:DenyerG User:Dr d12 User:Dravick User:Edisk User:EMoore01 User:Flongpre User:Garzfoth User:Ghvboehm User:Haslam1992 User:Hschin User:Huadpe User:Icalouse User:Jason.Schwartz User:JeanJPoirier User:Jelly Bean MD User:Jidiculous User:Jonahrapp User:Justin Joven User:Kyle.dionneclark User:Love of literature User:Mcgillionaire User:Megaforcemedia User:Moyogo User:Mspencer1 User:Mullet User:OSSYULYYZ User:Parodie User:Pascal.Tesson User:PhilSC User:Pkellyspurles User:Poonwil1 User:PushaWasha User:Rashed User:RobHar User:Sapienyia User:Sbacle User:Sebcartwright User:Siliconred User:Skittleys User:SkorponokX User:Slocking User:Sociable Song User:StevenBirnam User:Strideranne User:Switchintoglide User:TCashion User:The High Fin Sperm Whale User:Thegeographer User:Timkmak User:Timocrates User:Transego User:Trapper User:TsherryUSA User:Upapilot User:WayneBu User:Worrypower User:YUL89YYZ User:Zen-ben

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist
  • The previous GA Review is something that is totally woeful. It is not comprehensive and basically amounts to an opinion. Nothing in the article is substantiated in that particular review. Nothing.
  • The (Reassessment) (let's say this was an informal reassessment) done one day later to the above review indicates outstanding matters. Suggesting the review should never have been passed.
  • Why is the reassessment on the talk page twice? This edit has no business being on the page. It duplicates the earlier assessment by User:buidhe ... I don't know what this editor's issue is creating a so-called (→‎GA Reassessment: new section) but it should be rolled back and removed.
  • The Lead is woeful. Simple as that. User:buidhe is right, the Lead needs to adhere to the guidance in MOS:LEAD
  • I don't like the copyright on the second image. It says, Possible Copyright Status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT ... ... ...
  • I see that the Second University Company Image = This image might not be in the public domain outside of the United States;
  • This article has far too many images than what is warranted for a University article. University in the snow. I needed to see that. Five times.
  • Comparing with 8 university GA's (selected at random) I find headings are, inter-alia, (McGill is in red)
  • History * * * * * * * * *
  • Campuses * * * * * * *
  • (Organisation and Administration) * * *
  • (Colleges and Schools)
  • (Research)
  • Ideology)
  • (Extracurricular activities)
  • Academics and rankings * * * * * * *
  • Athletics * * *
  • Student life * * * * * *
  • (Songs)
  • (Insignias and Representations)
  • Notable Alumni * * * * * * *
  • (See also) *
  • (Notes) *
  • References * * * * * * * *
  • External links * * * * * * *

(Trump University had a very erratic listing)

  • So we can conclude the article is structured with eight major sections as per broad coverage with the addition of (See also) and (Notes).
  • 6,058 edits by 2,058 editors. Page creator has not participated since 2009.
  • 90 day page views = 120,417 views with a daily average of 1,323 views.
  • No citation for para 2
  • The McGill College section has very short paragraphs
  • Campus extensions has 4 paragraphs with no citations
  • McGill in the Great War needs more references - even though there is a validated stained glass window.
  • Quotas on Jewish students today might best be regarded as racism if not outright anti semitism. I would drop this particlar facet of history.
  • Campus sections might best be reduced to a single paragraph and link to the main article for the relevant campus.
  • Lot of links in this article. I would use a bot to ensure compliance with MOS:REPEATLINK
  • Prima facie, delist. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Whiteguru: I'm confused by a few of these points. e.g. Why does it matter that the article creator hasn't participated since 2009? This point is especially hard to square: Quotas on Jewish students today might best be regarded as racism if not outright anti semitism. I would drop this particlar facet of history. Are you suggesting we should omit some historical facts because they reflect poorly on the article's subject? That seems totally contrary to WP:NPOV. Colin M (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a reassessment is completed, involved editors are notified; this gives some the opportunity to repair or improve the article as suggested.
  • The other issue (antisemitism) ... goes something like this: time rolls on and humanity looks back at its misdemeanours and with hindsight, realises things could have been done better. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist also issues with dated material such as an old student residency statistic, an old figure for classes count offered, and a reference to something being "in recent years" with a source from 1999. Does not meet the criteria. Hog Farm Talk 18:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Home Army[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist With apologies to Piotrus. First because it has taken so long for someone to close this and second because it unfortunately ends in a delist. The article currently has 9 better source needed tags. I understand that the sourcing requirements changed after you wrote this article, but they were changed at ARBCOM level and there was no grandfather clause. Many of the other comments go beyond the GA criteria or have been addressed. I hope you can address the sourcing issues and renominate it in the future Aircorn (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)}[reply]
@Aircorn I mostly agree with you, but I could point to a technicality that IIRC nobody has brought that section/source here, and so it slipped everyone's mind. If it was brought up, someone, perhaps me, might have taken a stab at improving this. That said, I agree that this needs to be referenced better, a single newspaper article is not "good" enough, ArbCom is not relevant - we simply need more scholarly sources for that section, it's common sense. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe[edit]

The article needs a reassessment due to longstanding issues with sources that do not meet the subject-specific sourcing requirements, a lead that does not meet MOS:LEAD, and various other cleanup tags. These prevent it from reaching the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing requirement you list is much newer than the article, through updating the few newpspaer sources to more academic one is a good practice. Can you be more clear about the problems with the lead? And it had no tags until you added a few, mostly about low quality sources. This should not be hard to fix. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before I added a few additional tags earlier today[3], there was already a "vague" tag in the lead, and at least 18 tags for sourcing issues (cn or better source needed). The lead is six paragraphs; per MOS:LEAD it should be four or less. The sections on Ukrainians, already tagged as a POV issue by another editor, primarily cite Polish historians, raising WP:NPOV concerns, and rely heavily on Grzegorz Motyka, who adheres to the theory (not universally accepted) that Ukrainians killings of Poles constituted a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 02:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to fix, although I don't see a problem with the Ukrainian section. Are there some key works in the field we are missing? Is there some criticism of Motyka that is missing from his article? As far as I know, he is considered to be an expert in the field and reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to present Home Army actions in a favorable light compared to Ukrainian actions, even though HA was also responsible for (smaller scale) killings of Ukrainian civilians. Home Army commanders apparently criticized such killings, and "forbade the killing of Ukrainian women and children". Is this accepted, disputed, due or not due weight? I don't know because only one side of the story is being told here. The article also uses the vague term "Banderites" when it should specify which organization or faction was responsible. The "Relations with the Soviets" section also cites almost entirely right-wing Polish historians. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the bias here is according to whom? You need to start by showing that other reliable sources exist and have a different narrative. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources certainly exist:

In their memoranda on the ‘solution of the Ukrainian question’, the staff of the Home Army of Lviv mirrored the mood of the population. In July 1942 it recommended deporting between one and one and a half million Ukrainians to the Soviet Union and settling the remainder in other parts of Poland. In the eastern areas of Poland not more than 10 per cent of the population should consist of national minorities. Any suggestions regarding a limited autonomy for Ukrainians, as was being discussed in Warsaw and London, would find no support among the local population

— Mick, Christoph (2011). "Incompatible Experiences: Poles, Ukrainians and Jews in Lviv under Soviet and German Occupation, 1939-44". Journal of Contemporary History. 46 (2): 336–363. doi:10.1177/0022009410392409.

Snyder writes that AK sided with Red Army against Ukrainian forces:

Thousands of Polish men and women escaped to the Volhynian marshes and forests in 1943, joining Soviet partisan armies fighting the UPA and the Wehrmacht.34 At the same time, some Poles took revenge on Ukrainians who had been serving as German policemen... Polish partisans of all political stripes attacked the UPA, assassinated prominent Ukrainian civilians, and burned Ukrainian villages.... Throughout the spring of 1944, the AK and UPA battled intermittently for control of Eastern Galicia and its crown jewel, Lviv. The UPA attacked Polish civilians, but Polish preparations and Ukrainian warnings limited the deaths to perhaps ten thousand.37 In July 1944, the Red Army (aided by the AK) drove the Germans from Lviv.

— Snyder, Timothy (1999). ""To Resolve the Ukrainian Problem Once and for All": The Ethnic Cleansing of Ukrainians in Poland, 1943–1947". Journal of Cold War Studies. 1 (2): 86–120. doi:10.1162/15203979952559531.

See also this book around page 233: Liber, George (2016). Total Wars and the Making of Modern Ukraine, 1914-1954. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-2144-2. (t · c) buidhe 07:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem if you want to add something from this to the article, but I think all the important facts are already mentioned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, what I see here is a POV issue not a coverage issue. (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't see a POV issue here. Neiter does Molobo below. We can of coruse wait and see what others say. I have no problem with addressing the POV, once sources are found that show that this section is biased. Just criticizing it for using Polish sources is not helpful. Foreign language sources are permitted, and we don't have a quota system where an article or section is considered non-neutral if it uses primaralily sources from one country. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You stated, You need to start by showing that other reliable sources exist and have a different narrative. Once I do that, you still insist that there is no issue? Parts of this read like apologia rather than an encyclopedia article: our article on the Wehrmacht doesn't say, "one Wehrmacht commander objected to war crimes and ordered his soldiers not to commit any". Again, I wasn't the one who tagged this section for POV issues and the issue needs to be resolved to stay a GA article. (t · c) buidhe 18:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to demonstrate that there is anything substantial missing or that there is bias. Once agian, the fact that the article uses Polish sources does not mean it is biased. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sections on Ukrainians, already tagged as a POV issue by another editor, primarily cite Polish historians, raising WP:NPOV

Sorry, what is the ground on which you allege NPOV? Only thing you mentioned in the sentence is Polish nationality, which by itself upon no circumstances can be seen as ground to doubt a historian. We do not judge historians based on their ethnicity or nationality.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this case, there are substantial differences in how Ukrainians and Poles view this conflict. The Polish government—and the main historian who is supplying many of the citations in this section—calls it a genocide, but this is not much accepted outside of Poland as far as I can tell. In order to provide NPOV, it is essential to ensure that all perspectives are represented according to their due weight. Similarly, I doubt you could write a NPOV article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based exclusively on sources created by one side. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been fixed, including a rewrite to the Ukrainian section using at least one of the sources linked above. The only remaining issue is to add better sources than the newspaper article for the cursed soldiers section, although since nobody pointed out any errors, and the newspaper is considered mainstream and reliable, I don't think it is a major issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brigade Piron[edit]

In addition to the concerns cited above, I would also suggest that this article needs a cleanup to meet GA standards. In particular:

  1. Images (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). There are quite a few images used in this article but most appear to serve a decorative function and do not seem particularly relevant to their surrounding text. In fact, the inevitable preponderance of photos of the 1944-45 period gives a rather distorting feel to the article. I think this is the most important issue with the article as it stands - it is better to have fewer, more appropriate images if necessary.
  2. Prestige-based claims (WP:PUFFERY) I sympathise with the difficulty in avoiding the temptation of showcasing particular plaudits but I think the article goes too far as it is. Home Army#Intelligence has several examples of this but actually tells us relatively little about what intelligence gathering actually consisted of, how it was organised, whether it changed over time, how it was communicated to the Allies, etc. which are clearly more important to the reader. Although certainly defensible, the showcasing of medals and memorials in the images arguably contributes to this sense. It may also touch on the NPOV issue highlighted above.
  3. Omission. Underground media in German-occupied Europe had huge symbolic importance but Polish underground press does not even seem to be linked. I find it very surprising that this aspect receives such minimal coverage. Equally, Home Army#Assassinations of Nazi leaders seems oddly incomplete. I do not know much about the Polish case, but I'd imagine that these operations were fairly rare because of large-scale German reprisal killings but there is no mention of this. I was also surprised by the lack of discussion of the nature of the relationship between the government in London and the AK.
  4. Tone (WP:TONE and WP:EMPHATIC). Again, this may touch on the NPOV issue identified above. There are plenty of instances of word-choices which, although small, contribute to the sense of particular sympathy with one side rather than the other. For example, in Home Army#Postwar there is "the Soviet threat", "a number of such broken promises", "increasing persecution", "a major victory", "locked up in communist prisons", etc. These could easily be rephrase in more neutral language. If the problem is linguistic, it might be worth getting the WP:GUILD involved? There are also a few places in which the language seems rather stilted.

Please accept these comments in the spirit in which they are intended. They are, of course, only a personal opinion and I admit to having little grounding in the Polish literature on the subject. I would urge that a copy-edit is requested as a particular priority, however. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to ping Piotrus. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: Thank you for the comments. Would you mind suggesting images for removal? For the intelligence section, I think it is pretty well written, and if you could be more specific which sentences you think are redundant, I'd appreciate it. Regarding the underground press, the article currently states 'The Home Army published a weekly Biuletyn Informacyjny (Information Bulletin), with a top circulation (in November 1943) of 50,000'. I agree this could be expanded with more content and links - I will try to do it in the near future. For assassination, that section was longer in the past but I shortened it as I couldn't verify some claims. Operation Heads is longer but poorly referenced. I can see if I can find something more to add here in the future. As for non-neutral tone, I will ping User:Nihil novi and see if he feels like anything can be improved, I read your examples above but I am not sure I see how they can be made more neutral. Soviets were a threat to AK, they broke some promises, and increasingly persecuted, locked AK members in prisons (and often, much worse - summary or staged trials and executions were a norm), etc. I think those are neutral facts, and I don't think the wording cited is biased, but I am open to discuss this further, as I certainly agree less involved editors are better at detecting bias in such cases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit disappointed you do not see any real basis for any of my comments. For example, I note that at least half of all the non-biographic images in the article unambiguously depict the Warsaw Uprising and associated operations. The inclusion of "Soldiers of Kedyw Kolegium A" (all conspicuously male!) in the section on Home Army#Women in the Home Army is probably the most blatant example of disconnection between the article and its images. It cultivates the false impression that the uniformed and armed partisan-style warfare in 1944 was typical of the earlier period too. As to the others, I really don't see how I can clarify them further without simply repeating my points. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you do not agree with?
After a certain amount of reflection, I think the problems above really stem from the abandoning of a more chronology-based structure in Home Army#History and operations in favour of the current thematic approach. As I see it, there are really four "phases" of the AK's history which are really entirely different - (i) the emergence of resistance and its consolidation between 1939 and 1943/44, (ii) its increasingly ambitious operations in 1944 and 1945 and their ultimate defeat, (iii) its early relationship with the Soviets and the post-war repression and (iv) its subsequent legacy and rehabilitation etc. This seems more natural if the article was reworked around this structure. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: I'm a bit disappointed you see my friendly requests for clarification as some disagreement. I never said I see "no real basis" for your comments, on the contrary, I said above they are welcome and valuable, I just asked you to provide more examples. Since - see comment by NN below - here's a copyeditor, whom I believe to be a native speaker, who also has trouble seeing the neutrality problems in tone. Let's try to work together here (since I value your input), and for that, sometimes you need to explain what seems obvious to you, as it is not always obvious to others. So let's backtrack and resume, shall we? I appreciate your volunteering to help, and I hope you don't mind if I or others say we don't fully understand some things.
Now, I have removed two images and moved another one (good comment about the women section, I never noticed this but it clearly wasn't the best placement for that image; I have replaced it with another image which I think shows a female AK soldier). Feel free to be bold and remove any other excess images, or replace them with better ones. You are also correct about the chronology/sections. I have separated history and operations, which indeed do not warrant merging. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Piotrus, I am sorry if my previous comment sounded sarcastic. As you say, let's backtrack and deal with one issue at a time. I think the restructuring so far is already a big improvement, although a discrete section is really needed between the current Home Army#World War II and Home Army#Postwar sections dealing with the Warsaw Uprising and 1944-45 period.
As regards the pictures, I do think that the over-representation of Warsaw Uprising pictures is quite noticeable at the moment in view of how little prose is currently devoted to the subject. At the moment, the following pictures with a direct connection to the Warsaw Uprising are included:
  • File:Band of Polish Home Army (Armia Krajowa).PNG - the current caption is really too vague to be useful, but my understanding of this kind of insignia in Western Europe would be that it was worn in the Liberation period only if not long after the war. Note too that the AK's icon is already shown in the infobox anyway.
  • File:26PPAK relief Warsaw Uprising.jpg - this is a non-free file and, by virtue of its size and subject, not a particularly helpful one although I do see the logic of the subject within the article as a whole.
  • File:Warsaw Uprising poster 345.jpg - why is this poster significant, since this what our attention is currently drawn to in the caption? what points does it make or corroborate?
  • File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.jpg - another non-free file and not one I think we could justify using on the basis of the currently stated justification. Even if it was, I am not convinced it adds anything to the article.
  • File:MWP Kubus 3.JPG - I see the logic of including this as a picture but its significance is not really addressed either in the text or caption
  • File:Błyskawica and other insurgent weapons.jpg - this is really another Warsaw Uprising picture although not currently attested as such. Is the important thing in it the Błyskawica sub-machine gun, as per the caption? If so, we need to know why this is important and more specific pictures are probably available.
  • File:Filipinka sidolówka.jpg - the grenades in question are mentioned in the article, but what does this picture add? Is the fact that the AK developed its own rudimentary hand-grenades important enough to showcase this prominently in the article, especially given the two other pictures of improvised weapons above?
I have ignored the new picture of the female AK members which seems reasonable. I would also add to the list:
The foregoing list is really set out to encourage some reflection on why the images should be included and I offer no judgments on this, other than to say that 2-3 images of the Warsaw Uprising would seem a normal proportion for an article of this size even considering the historical importance of the subject. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: Thank you for taking care to point to specific pictures. I removed several, leaving for now File:Warsaw Uprising poster 345.jpg (since it shows both a poster and a female soldier, two interesting things in one image - here my logic is the same as NN's below, as he commented on that one pic already). For Kubus/Blyskawica/grenades, I commented the grenade one out. They do illustrate concepts discussed in the text, but the grenades one doesn't really add anything, but the two others do illustrate mentioned concepts and I don't think they clutter the section too much otherwise. As for the plaque, I am tempted to replace it with a zoomed-out picture at commons:Category:„Gęsiówka” commemorative plaque at Anielewicza Street in Warsaw. I think it is in a section of the article that is not cluttered with other pics, and it shows an example of post-war commemoration and is relevant to the Polish-Jewish section (added bonus that it is in three languages). (Perhaps the image should be moved a bit down to the 'The Warsaw ghetto uprising' section that mentions it, but it would put it closer to another image...?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:, I do think it's an improvement. To clarify my broader point about the pictures, there are really two entirely different issues. The first is that the visual over-emphasis on the Warsaw Uprising tacitly implies that it was typical of the other activities conducted by the AK during the war which is clearly wrong, but certainly not unique to this (or Polish) articles (cf the obvious focus on the summer of 1944 in the images at French Resistance!). I am happy that this has been pretty much addressed. The second issue, more pressingly, is that the pictures do not engage with the text. Any of the images I mentioned (and many others) could be justified in principle as long as the prose engaged with their significance. For example, the Kubuś is an excellent illustration of the degree of planning made ahead of the Warsaw Uprising and the degree of co-ordination achieved by the AK itself - but this is not apparent from the current explanation that "the difficult conditions meant that only infantry forces armed with light weapons could be fielded. Any use of artillery, armor or aircraft was impossible (except for a few instances during the Warsaw Uprising, such as the Kubuś armored car)". Do you see what I mean? This aspect still needs some work. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.jpg really does need to be removed for copyright reasons. There is no way that the current stated "purpose of use" is sufficient to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia at all. Feel free to replace it with another image if you think it helpful. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: and Nihil novi, I realise that this discussion has lapsed which is a shame. I have taken the liberty of nominating it for a copy edit myself at WP:GOCE/REQ which may take some time to produce results. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am not opposed to the removal of the image, although let's face it, any copyright concerns here are pure meta:copyright paranoia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to this kind of argument in general, but the cited rationale is probably the worst I have ever seen. It currently states that its rationale for inclusion is: "Shows Armia Krajowa soldiers training wearing captured German helmets. Shows that the organization was sufficiently well organize to capture equipment, and use the captured equipment in organized training exercises that were photographed" and states that it is "irreplaceable". Even if this was legit, it seems a bit rich since there are already two other pictures in the same article which also clearly do the same thing! I feel this issue has been addressed now, but this still leaves the others I originally raised. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the tone? I hope the request the GoCE will help, as NN (below) already looked at this and doesn't see a problem, and neither do I. Sometimes tone is a very subjective issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a subjective issue, it's a basic wikipedia policy requirement to be WP:IMPARTIAL. (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion, which I think User:Nihil novi shares, it already is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: the tone is absolutely fine - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that really is your opinion, I do not think you have read the article properly. There are dozens of examples of non-neutral and/or non-encyclopedic phrasing. As well as the various cases mentioned above and many others like them, I missed our current award to Witold Pilecki of the epithet "the hero of Auschwitz". I also note that the Lede currently offers "[t]he Home Army also defended Polish civilians against atrocities by Germany's Ukrainian and Lithuanian collaborators" as the only summary of the lengthy and rather more ambiguous sections on "Relations with other factions"... —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I’ve read the article carefully (if your above comment is directed at me), but I got your points, and I'm afraid I still have to disagree. Pilecki is described as a hero by RS...[4] however, if you want to work on more comprehensive/encyclopedic wording, I'm for it..give it a try but keep RS is mind, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment betrays an incomplete understanding of WP:NPOV—read it again. Wikipedia avoids value-judgement terms like "hero", "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" in our own voice, regardless of whether sources use them. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quote - ...regardless of whether sources use them --> where do you see that Buidhe?? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella, "[t]he tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view" (WP:IMPARTIAL). This must include whether he has been described as a hero. This is really fundamental to Wikipedia. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the cited source doesn't use the word hero, at least I don't see it, I removed it. If some other reliable source uses it, it could be restored with an attribution ("described as hero by ..."). Thanks for catching this. Anything else? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Could you deal with the lede summary issue I mentioned too? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: Ah. "The Home Army also defended Polish civilians against atrocities by Germany's Ukrainian and Lithuanian collaborators." Just to be clear, your concern here is not tone, but you think this sentence should be expanded? I am mildly concerned about making the lead too long. Any suggestions which facts/aspects to put in the lead for the requested expansion would be appreciated too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:, I wouldn't worry about length at this stage. WP:LEAD states that "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." There is already a good first paragraph and the coverage of the post-war period seems reasonable to me, but I think it is important that the lead does indeed engage with the long and difficult relations sections. It also might be worth re-working the current second/third paragraphs to present a better picture of the AK's actual activities - my understanding is that the "weapons" and "membership" sections point towards the complexity of the AK's organisation which is not really addressed at this stage. Do you have any thoughts, Buidhe? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, Tenryuu has kindly begun a Guild copy-edit.—Brigade Piron (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through my first pass and started a discussion on the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished my copyedit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have read up through the "Assassinations of Nazi leaders" section of this long article, doing some copyediting along the way.
What I have read seems to maintain a "neutral tone".
The article could, however, benefit from more copyediting for clarity and English-language style.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron, Could you clarify what you are asking for here: [5]. Are you asking for a reference, or do you think the language used is not neutral? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The issue is the one I raised above about it being a poor summary of the content in the lengthy "relations with" sections. It does edge on POV, but I added the tag as a visual reminder. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

As this GAR appears to still be live, I'd like to offer the following comments to help with improving the article and ensuring that it meets the GA criteria:

  • The second para of the lead discusses the Home Army's successes, but not its failures. Many historians regard the decision to fight semi-conventional battles with the Germans as being a mistake, with the Warsaw Uprising being a disaster (this is a common mistake guerrilla forces make globally, with the French Resistance making similar mistakes in 1944)
  • Ditto the 'Major operations' sub-section
  • The first and last sentences in the first para of the 'women' section are contradictory: "a number of women operatives" suggests that there were only a few, but it's then stated that women made up a big chunk of the force
  • "After the end of the uprising, over 2,000 women soldiers were taken captive (and about 5,000 perished)" - read literally, this states that the Germans killed 5000 women after the end of the uprising. Is this correct, or were 5000 women fighter killed during the uprising?
  • The women section would benefit from a broader description of the role of women in the force (was it the same as men?)
  • The 'structure' section would benefit from specifying the dates the organisations provided are as at
  • " even described as "the only [A]llied intelligence assets on the Continent" following the French capitulation" - this seems like puffery given that the only reason for this is that the Allied Western European countries on the continent had suddenly collapsed. Intelligence networks were fairly quickly developed in the occupied countries. Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: Thank you for your feedback. I think you are right this article needs to address the criticism of the AK's operations in 1944. Would you happen to have any sources handy? Regarding the numbers of women, I am not sure I see a contradiction. They might have formed a majority of medical personnel (nurses), but were clearly a minority in other departments (certainly they were few in the combat department). I'd like to expand this section, but I didn't see that much more in the sources found. I'll add a clarification to the intelligence assets, but I think it is well referenced. I have no problem rewriting this further is someone finds some more relevant context in the sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • From memory, The Eagle Unbowed includes critical assessments of the AK's operations including the Warsaw Uprising. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nick-D: Do you think we need a new section titled 'assessment', or do you see a good place to add a few sentences about the pros and cons of Warsaw Uprising to the article? I note there is some relevant content at Warsaw_Uprising#After_the_war in the paragraph that begins "At present, Poland largely lacks..." and later. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd try to integrate the material in the existing structure in the first instance, but I'm not familiar with the scope and detail in the overall literature on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silver center cent[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept Brought up issues have been addressed Aircorn (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Another Believer has mentioned on this article's talk page in March 2019, there are several errors in the references section. There is also a section on the coin's design which is totally unsourced. Additionally, a group of Turkish users who were attempting to translate the article and expand the Turkish version noticed that the references listed in the article are broken. If any of these arguments is true, then the article cannot be kept as a good article. That's why I am asking the community to reassess the page. Keivan.fTalk 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keivan.f, As much as I don't want to see a numismatics article demoted, the current article is not up to standards, IMO. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Tsange has improved the article significantly. Does it meet the criteria now? (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? Nycticebus linglom[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Notability is not a GA criteria, that is for AFD to decide. As to the sourcing, unless other sources are presented that can be used then the article meets the broadness criteria. Aircorn (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article might have a bit of a notability issue—during the initial assessment it was kind of implied that there was only the one real source discussing this specimen (the one in use), and not much else. Google Scholar, for instance, has just four results. I don't have the expertise to judge the worthiness of the other three articles, but my major problem with the article is more that there's just one source represented. Usually three would be required for basic notability, but for a good article I would at least expect more than one.

Briefly, I think this article could have issues with verifiability and/or neutrality. –LogStar100 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LogStar100: WP:Treeoflife rules are that all species re considered inherently notable. The single source is considered fine for meeting those notability guidelines.--Kevmin § 23:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: Notable, sure, but is it enough to merit "good" status? In particular, the article is based off just a single primary source, meaning that it's difficult to call it entirely verifiable/reliable/neutral. –LogStar100 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, am unconvinced it merits GA status. I don't have worries about verifiability or neutrality, as the source validly writes about a new taxon of dubious/uncertain nomenclature which it tentatively ascribes to the genus Nycticebus. In a sense, the whole source is original research, and yet a validly published new species account is acceptable per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. On the one hand this very short article seems to present all that is known about this putative taxon, but therein lies the dilemma. Is that short source sufficient for a GA article? Personally, I'm not comfortable with that - and would prefer it to have an A rating, and await until further taxonomic research and publications ascribes this with greater certainty to one genus or another. It's the combination of taxonomic uncertainty and overall brevity that concerns me here. But if others feel it does merit remaining as a GA, I won't be wailing or gnashing my teeth! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All an article in an encyclopedia can hope to do is to adequately represent the state of current published knowledge, and if there is only one main source on a notable topic, then the best possible version of the article on that topic is going to rely on only one main source. Assuming breadth of coverage (in the good-article context), or comprehensiveness (in the featured-article context) measures the current state of the article against a theoretical best possible version of that article, I don't see why an article should be held back just because few people have written about it. That would, in effect, create tiers of notability, where only the most notable (and thus most written about) subjects could ever see their articles become good articles. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mara Carfagna[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist No real interest in fixing this article Aircorn (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article promoted to GA in 2008, looking like this, shortly after the subject made global news for topping a list of attractive female politicians. Updates since then have been bit-part since the subject has been out of government since 2011, but now back in government so the article should be immaculate if it is a GA. 2013 to 2016 is covered by three lines, and then it jumps to a new paragraph about a campaign in 2018, then another one in 2019. I would also question the six uses of Il Giornale as references in this article, as this is a right-wing newspaper owned by the Berlusconis. Additionally, I question the due weight of this fascination with a list made by a magazine in 2008. I am opening this to the community as I am not confident in my own ability to upgrade this page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mon Calamari cruiser[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted Article merged into List of Star Wars spacecraft Aircorn (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to not be up to standards, especially seeing as it passed back in 2007. There are unsourced statements, room for more images, and many citations are not formatted correctly. I could be completely wrong though, hence why I have brought it here. JediMasterMacaroni (Talk) 00:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure there was consensus to merge this article. It looks like it never got completed. That might solve the issue. Aircorn (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK merged it. If it holds this can then be closed as delist. Aircorn (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah didn't realize that, nice work. One question though: how do I close it? :P JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 17:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can close it. Just want to give it a day or two to make sure there are no objections to the merge first. Aircorn (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gardein[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist While there is no such thing as a speedy delist, either practically or in theory, the concerns over neutrality have not been addressed Aircorn (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came upon this article and noticed numerous issues; I was surprised to see a GA tag. Most significantly, it was (and may still be) overtly promotional. I have removed some of the most glaring errors (such as listing the Rabbinical association which found that most of the products are parve), but right now (and at the time it was assessed) it's little more than a list of awards (notable and otherwise) this company has been recognized with. While I'm not saying these awards should all be removed, this bare list of award is not a good example of what a Wikipedia article should be. The 2017 assessment seems very lax to me, and while acknowledging issues, it refuses to ask that the issues be addressed. In any case, I think this is and was a pretty average article. I do not think that it meets the GA requirements and request another look. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ouch. Yes, this is a pretty weak article to have the badge -- I'd be inclined to quickfail it were I the reviewer, or at least go for a very "we're going to do significant work here" review. Delist barring substantial improvement; I'd put this around the low end of C-class as it stands. Vaticidalprophet 15:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist - the rather perfunctory review in 2017 probably didn't improve the article much. At 523 words, this article is far to short for a company like that. The statistics provided are largely out of date, the controversies and criticism is just one isolated legal incident, restaurant menu inclusion is just isolated things, publicity is also isolated things. This is simply a long long way from being GA-quality. I'd be tempted to rate it as start-class instead of C. Hog Farm Talk 05:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – per Hog Farm. – zmbro (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Sichuan earthquake[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Significant work is needed to get this 2008 promotion to the modern criteria. There's uncited text throughout, some (but not all) of which is marked with CN tags. We also have a [failed verification] in here, and I'm not sure if the unsourced section about the first anniversary is due weight at this point. This needs substantial work from editors familiar with the topic and fluent in Chinese (of which I am neither). Hog Farm Talk 04:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A vast number of scientific papers have been published about this earthquake since 2010 when this article became a GA. The "Geology" section is in serious need of updating. Mikenorton (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist minimal engagement, nothing happening, large issues. Hog Farm Talk 20:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – Thanks for taking the time to nominate this HF. I was considering doing the same just recently. I'm totally fine delisting this article now and I'm certain that major improvements can be made considering Mikenorton's comments. Dawnseeker2000 09:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – per above. – zmbro (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denver[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This GA has not been formally assessed since 2007. And frankly, it hasn't held up in the years since. The most significant issues are some dated statistics, not fully reflecting recent events, and large quantities of uncited text. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist a lot needs to happen, and not much has happened. Hog Farm Talk 20:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted Issues with verifiability that have not been resolved Aircorn (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main issue here is that the "evacuation efforts" and "health effects" sections are loaded with [citation needed] templates. This is a 2006 GA last reviewed in 2008, and it's long overdue for some TLC. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a quick look at those sections, I have to wonder if the main issue is dead links. There's one graf with three CNs, but based on the title of the article cited at the end of the graf, it looks like all the statements could be covered with that one source (which would be appropriate) ... but it's unfortunately a dead link and not archived. Doesn't mean there aren't alternative sources out there that could/should be added, but it may be that some of the CNs thrown in there are unnecessary. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer:: Unfortunately, I've only looked at it a little. I do think someone went overboard with CN tags on it, but I haven't had time to clean it up. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tigranocerta[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted Consensus here is that the sourcing is not strong enough for this to remain a Good Article Aircorn (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently contains numerous sections which are tagged with Wikipedia:Citation needed. In fact even the archived GA from 2008 contains several unreferenced sections which means that the reviewer was less than thorough in his review.
  • The article also heavily relies on primary sources such as Plutarch's Life of Lucullus and Appian's The Mithrdatic Wars. Such sources are not necessarily reliable when they are not contextualized and/or evaluated by modern scholarship.
  • "Tigranes refused Appius Claudius' demands, stating that he would prepare for war against the Republic."

"Tigranes, who was residing at Tigranocerta in the summer of 69, was not only astonished by the speed of Lucullus' rapid advance into Armenia but by the fact that he had even launched such an operation in the first place."

These two sentences clearly contradict each other.

  • Refs 26 and 28 should probably be converted into a notes.
  • "Many scholars, however", "Some historians, most notably Plutarch" - I don't know if this qualifies as MOS:WEASEL, but it can certainly be worded better. In the second case only Plutarch's opinion is mentioned.
  • The article is written in British Engvar but there is some American English here and there.
  • A lot of the information in the infobox is neither referenced, nor found elsewhere in the article. E.g. Roman Legates, Adiabenians, Corduenians, Iberians, Medians.
  • The lede is also referenced while it is supposed to simply summarize the content of the article.--Catlemur (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I did a GA Reassessment on this article on 18 May 2021 and completed this the following day. It is the only (of many) reassessments that I passed.
  • I spent quite some time reading Plutarch Life of Lucillius which is one of the references.
  • I also spent time reading Appian. The Mithrdatic Wars, another reference.
  • I also spent time reading all of Tigranocerta: 69 BC, another reference.
  • By the time I finished checking references during the review, I had a reasonable grasp of this battle, as well as a grasp of the spurious assessments by various authors of the number of participants on each side, who yelled what during the battle and the mistakes Tigranes made in his estimation of the opposing forces and his inadequate response to the threats posed.
  • Although there were citation needed tags on the article, I was satisfied that it merited Good Article status.
  • {{Subst:GAR}} reads that any editor may remove the reassessment tag if they are satisfied.
  • At the end of the GA Reassessment I was satisfied that this article was still meritorious of the GA status.
  • The review was passed on my reading of the purpose of the {{Subst:GAR}} tag.
  • Thereafter, Catlemur (who nominated the article for review) passed comments when the review was closed. The comments are the same as those posted above here. I was challenged on the result, and decided to stand by the review.
  • Catlemur challenges Plutarch's Life of Lucullus and Appian's The Mithrdatic Wars as reliable sources. He may do so, but given that this battle occurred in 69BC and there has been no criticism nor reception of these sources cited in the article, I regarded these sources as reliable.
  • The remainder of the comments do not raise any show-stopping issues and I wonder why Catlemur has not addressed those issues as this editor is editing numerous historical articles. I regard the final comments as those of a disgruntled editor.
  • My sense is that this call for community reassessment should be given a procedural close.
  • I am happy to receive any criticism of actions given above and the reassessment. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Whiteguru: I think you ought to be honest about what really happened. I posted my comments on the article the very moment you did, creating an edit conflict. Minutes after you posted your comments, I reposted mine and tagged you so you could address the issues I raised. I then went to your talkpage, where I received a vague reply about "giving some thought to my suggestion". Over 10 days later, none of the issues I raised were addressed while you continued to actively review other articles. To call me a disgruntled editor is a borderline personal attack. As for my supposed obligation to fix numerous issues on an article about a topic I neither care or know anything about; I will consider doing so for the sum of 3,000 euros transferred to my personal bank account.

Having written several GAs on the Roman–Seleucid War, I can assure you that Plutarch's and Appian's works have been scrutinized in academic literature, using other sources such as inscriptions, coinage etc and believe it or not there are circumstances when they are not 100% reliable. Once again the article fails WP:BCLASS due to criterion B1 as it did upon promotion in 2008, it also currently fails criterion B2.--Catlemur (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that ancient primary sources should not be cited directly unless they're backed up by recent modern sources. Delist due to sourcing issues. (t · c) buidhe 15:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with limited use of ancient sources in GAs, but stuff like However, since Tigranes had forcibly removed many of its inhabitants from their native lands and brought them to Tigranocerta, their allegiance to the king was cast into doubt. They soon proved their unreliability: when Tigranes and his army appeared on a hill overlooking the city, the inhabitants "greeted his [Lucullus] appearance with shouts and din, and standing on the walls, threateningly pointed out the Armenians to the Romans." should ideally be sourced to secondary sources. And anyway, that direct quote should be attributed inline. Also have some issues with Tigranes also possessed several thousand cataphracts, formidable heavily armoured cavalry that were clad in mail armour and armed with lances, spears or bows, which doesn't make much sense to be where it is, as it is already stated that some sources suggested many cataphracts (and are the cataphracts distinct from the cavalry mentioned elsewhere?). This needs work. Hog Farm Talk 16:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess to make it clearer, I'm at delist too. Overreliance on ancient texts has not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 16:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well first than all do stop the infight, i hope who both of you stop from fighting each other. Then over the article, ancient sources are probably one sided, but that also could be for modern schoolars, so far the main sources of the battle were ancient ones, and are not unreliable, (maybe some statements are, like the political ones), the citations should probably be "acording to x, what x says", and move on. But in an ancient battle the better works probably will be from the people of that age, any new historian would need to use some of them as references on the first place. (we know who some modifications must be done to not make it a pro Roman propaganda piece in some places, but the structure of the battle is right), so altought i support modifications, i do not believe necessary to put the article into question.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mir[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: DelistThe issues raised have not been addressed Aircorn (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has hatnotes listed at the top of the page. If it uses unreliable sources, then it does not meet the Good Article criteria. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist – per nom. – zmbro (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - nothing happening. Urve (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been unnecessarily tag bombed. I am unsure about Encyclopedia Astronautica. It is used on thousands of articles here, but is clearly self published. I would be surprised if there were not better sources as they seem to essentially do what we do and collect other sourced information. As to the page numbers that does need to be addressed. Aircorn (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Transatracurium: as the original nominator Aircorn (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at current level since this cites some sources that are crowd sourced and the site sites other sources. Rather, those site should be replaced with the relevant refernces on them.

Perl[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Sourcing and prose issues still remain Aircorn (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has 44 citation needed templates. This does not meet the WP:GA requirements. There might be more issues, but this alone is enough to delist it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looks like one user added 50 citation needed templates in 3 minutes on December 16th, 2020, taking the count from 4 to 54. That is a serious bit of tag bombing and 50 in 3 minutes does not suggest a lot of thought was put into these tags. Yet some of these tags are warranted, so a review is reasonable. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The prose needs some work too. Pinging Feezo who got it to GA status. Aircorn (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Dread[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Procedural Keep as per summary by CMD. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has met an issue putting its status into question. Originally a presumed-cancelled title, Metroid Dread has recently been re-announced for the Nintendo Switch for a release date this year (link). I originally reviewed this article and passed it in 2016, when there was no indication of the title being revived in any form. This article can no longer be static, since it will receive media attention of different types in the near future, and the subject matter will undergo a definite change from unfinished project to finished game. Revised (Final) Opinion: Considering what it is and dev comments so far, I'm swaying towards this article being delisted and expanded to reflect the changed status, so it may be renominated post-release and reception. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgesurreal777, Abryn, Popcornfud, HumanBodyPiloter5, and Alexandra IDV: This video interview with producer Yoshio Sakamoto covers the title's origins and how it's started again. Hope this clarifies things for everyone here, and those yet to comment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I agree. We should delist it for the time being. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is clearly about a cancelled title which received enough attention to be notable in the early-2000s and not about the new title which shares the same name. The article on the cancelled title should keep its GA status and be moved to Metroid Dread (cancelled video game) while the newly announced game should get its own article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I disagree with HumanBodyPiloter5. We should only have one Metroid Dread article. When the game is released and we have a fully mature article covering it (development, gameplay, reception etc) then the existing information on the DS development and cancellation can be covered in the same article. It's not a huge amount of information as is, so it's not going to bloat anything. Popcornfud (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: As far as I'm concerned, the article in its current state is already radically different - both in terms of its content, and in terms of what the article subject actually is - from the version that passed GA that we might as well start again and treat it as a different article. Popcornfud (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, and cover everything in the same article - from how they talked about it at E3, it's clear that the Switch incarnation of Dread is not just an unrelated game reusing the same title.--AlexandraIDV 20:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GA - This is a very unique circumstance, and we shouldn’t rush to make this not a GA. Very little info is out yet about the game so the article isn’t yet unstable or incomplete. Also better to have one strong GA than two small ones. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and keep it as a single article. A renomination can be called for when it gets to be more stable. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist And keep a single article, similar to Duke Nukem Forever.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist — While i agree on removing the GA tag on Dread's article for the time being, i highly disagree with making another article based on the same subject. As explained by Sakamoto, Dread entered development two times before each iteration was canned until MercutySteam was brought on board to finally make Dread a reality. Keep it as a single article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, and move nothing. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect the upcoming game. Although development was restarted, I don't think there's a strong argument for having two articles, one covering a video game of the same name that does not (and will never exist). They're the same subject. This article just needs to be restructured. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The video interview with Sakamoto linked above confirms that this new Dread is a resurrection of the old Dread project. One article should be kept. Renomination should not be considered until the game has released. TarkusABtalk/contrib 22:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and keep the current article where it is. It no longer qualifies as a GA since it's an incomplete article about a game that's being released in about four months; it fails the "broad in its coverage" criterion quite spectacularly, as does any pre-release game or movie or album. Once the new game has been released and there has been time after that for reviews and sales numbers and the like, the article can be updated with the new information and nominated afresh. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per my previous questiong as to how, per WP:GA? #3A it passed in the first place. ——Serial 04:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of the review, the game wasn't going to come out. So, it did indeed meet the main aspects like any other unreleased media. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It did not, no. ——Serial 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GA - how is this different from any other article being a GA, and then having more information added. Is there anything that the article can do right now to make it better? No. It requires the game and reviews and such to come out. There really should be some sort of grace period after an event to fix up an article before we demote it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point the article is liable to undergo such massive changes that keeping it as a GA would probably not reflect the current content of the article and lead to people getting the wrong idea about the authoritativeness of the content. And it's unlikely to be stable enough to be re-approved as a GA until post-release. I'm actually a bit surprised that a vaporware would be able to become a GA in the first place given the major lack of concrete info.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the others. I'm also going to say that I oppose a split as well, as the Sakamoto interview confirms that the new Dread is the same game. JOEBRO64 15:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per imminent failing of WP:GACR #3 and #5. Also oppose any split, as this is presumably the same game. --MuZemike 15:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and do not split. Agree that as an upcoming game, it immediately fails GACR 3 & 5. When the article passed review, it was effectively vaporware/a cancelled project similar to the Pirates game that never materialised. — CR4ZE (T • C) 06:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and do not split: it's not a criticism of the article that it should be delisted. The subject is undergoing a dramatic shift in facts, and in time, this article could be ready for GA again. In the meantime this article shouldn't be misrepresented as "good" quality, until things stabilize. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GA. The GA criterion for stability specifically says that it refers to an "ongoing edit war or content dispute" and that "good faith improvements to the page...do not apply to the 'stable' criterion." As long as the article maintains its quality, isn't subject to edit wars, and is updated with new information as necessary, it should remain a GA. —tktktk 15:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're speaking purely in hypothetical. "As long as x doesn't happen" is a moot point if there is any likelihood that x may happen. The content of the article will undergo significant change, but that's besides the point. With the game moving from cancelled to upcoming, the article now fails criterion 3a. Evaluation of a game's post-release reception is essential content according to WP:VG/GL. Without that, the article falls short and should only be renominated once the game has been released and a substantial reception section is written. — CR4ZE (T • C) 12:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is people using the possibility of instability who are using a hypothetical to argue for delisting—and again, only the specific types of instability I mentioned would cause the article to fail that criterion. As for reception being "essential content", I think it's implied that such a criterion would only apply to released games—otherwise, this article would never have been a GA in the first place. —tktktk 13:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GA. I get the above argument but it's a tad overzealous. This is no different than an existing GA needing significant expansion. We should afford the authors time to expand the article as new sources become available. When the article significantly lags behind the sourcing, sure, delist away. We don't delist articles for missing content that has yet to be published. As for whether it should be split as a separate article, independent notability has no bearing on the GA criteria and belongs for discussion on the article's talk page, not in a GA reassessment. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GA. The reviews for the games release are not out yet so let's wait a few months after they release before assessing criteria #3.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I procedurally closed this with the following This is not actually a unique case. Many Good articles need updating all the time and it has been decided that this is not a reason to delist. Anyway it can’t fail 3A until reviews have actually been released. Also there is some debate on a split, something that needs to be decided at the talk page, which means that it is possible that the article might not need to be updated either. The instructions above say that the “aim is not to delist the article but to fix it”. That aim cannot be met with preemtive reassessments.
This was reverted as a supervote and no further explanation has been received. It is not a supervote as consensus is not decided on head count and to delist an article referencing the failing criteria is not enough, it also needs to be demonstrated how it fails the criteria. That means it is not just about saying it fails the broadness criteria, you need to show information exists that is not in the article. This has not been done by any of the delist !votes above, in fact most make no mention of the criteria at all.
Furthermore the premise behind this reassessment is so flawed that I felt a procedural close was in order. We are not looking at a unique case. In fact articles needing to be updated is more the norm. Think every BLP, every current sports team or tv series. Even scientific and cultural topics are consistently being advanced. The concept that articles likely to undergo future changes should be delisted has been rejected [Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs]. The correct process in this situation is to discuss the makeup of the article on the talk page and then wait for the release. If it has not been updated after a reasonable time then it can be brought here. This gives interested editors a chance to get the article up to standard. The aim is always to fix an article not delist it.
Anyway I have no real interest in the article beyond it getting a fair showing here, so won’t close it again. I will just leave this as a !vote. Aircorn (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. Certainly, with the votes split as they are now, closing would be premature. I agree that many of the other !delists have not made much mention of GA?, but it's a bit steep and auspicious to your own argument to say that none of them have. This is not the same as "articles needing to be updated" (OTHERSTUFF?). My view, simply, is that the article fails 3a: 4 & 5 certainly have potential to be issues as well, although we could say the same for almost any other current GA. The crux of the issue that !keep voters are ignoring is that the article is incomplete. I bring attention again to WP:VG/GL#Essential content. It is vital (especially to establish N) that articles for entertainment products evaluate impact/reception respective to the industry field. We can't do that for upcoming games. I've quick-failed GANs for upcoming games before, and when it was questioned at WT:VG, consensus was in my favour. To be clear, we handle cancelled/vapourware games (a category this article used to belong to) differently. Duke Nukem Forever could have been a GA at any point prior to 3 September 2010 (when it was reannounced); in fact, its (now) GA-Class Development child article was split off a couple months later. I cited the Pirates game (FA) as an example. This article was fair game for GA/FA status until it was reannounced, which is what sparked this GAR in the first place. Much of the literature discussing the gameplay and development reference a previous version of the game that was scrapped, so we have no idea if any of this remains accurate. The sole cited gameplay source is a good start, but not enough verifiability to hang an entire GA on. I don't see the application of pressure on editors to keep this article to GA standard when its content will undergo substantative change as fair, and frankly, advocating for !keep is diminishing the standards expected by criterion 3 & 5. TLDR: No reception = incomplete article. There's no reason this can't be renominated after release, when the game can be evaluated fairly. (ping czar; assume the others are watching/can respond unprompted if desired.) — CR4ZE (T • C) 07:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a formal consensus on this point that unreleased games without Reception sections do not qualify for GA? If so, I'd like to see it. For what it's worth, I don't think WP:VG/GL was drafted with the intention of barring articles from GA without including every section mentioned. Every article is judged on its own merits and I don't see any other option but addressing breadth at the time of review.
I'll compare this situation to an existing GA game article before a remaster is announced. Does the lack of a finished reception information about the remaster preclude the article's completeness? I'd think not. This article can be complete for breadth without the game having been released. czar 04:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question here isn't anything to do with whether unreleased/cancelled titles can't be GAs, the point here is that this article is now about an extant unreleased title, which changes its status and eligibility. It will undergo substantial change beyond the normal scope of updating GAs, hence why I started this dratted thing in the first place. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A formal consensus? Not that I'm aware, although there ought to be. Certainly worth raising with the project. What I will say is that I've never, in many years as an editor, come across a successful GA for an upcoming film/album/book/etc (key word: upcoming). If that's a situation that's happened before, I'm not aware of it. I would think there's an agreed-upon rule across the board to withhold from formal review processes until after release.
You're of course correct that the guidelines weren't written to bar prospective GANs. However, they do provide a clear framework for how game articles should be structured and there are rare, if any, exceptions. The GA criteria is a universal guideline that applies to all articles, but WPVG provides the specific model for essential content relevant to a category of articles. Just about every project will have similar guidelines, forged by consensus.
As for remasters, the answer would be a simple no. That is because the main subject of the article would be the original release, not the remaster. OK Computer is an example that comes to mind; the 20th anniversary remaster did not jeopardise the article's FA status because the main body of the article would not have needed to be updated. A cancelled game resurrected by a new developer with (likely) a new engine on a new platform is not in the same ballpark. — CR4ZE (T • C) 10:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it comes down to the GAN breadth criterion. I think it's a reasonable point to say that an article will soon need reassessment if passed today because it will be released tomorrow, but I think that needs to be addressed in the criteria for fairness. Since the article doesn't say so, I feel like I should also ask how sure we are that this game by this title is definitely picking up where the prior development left off. czar 06:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I didn't say none mentioned the GA criteria, I said most had not and that those that did had failed show how it actually fails the criteria in its current state. Also there seems to be a misunderstanding by many on how broadness works. There needs to be information available to add that has not been added for it to fail that criteria (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(3) Broad in its coverage where under mistakes to avioid it says Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources.) It is why short articles with not many references can become GA's. It is only incomplete when reception is released and nothing is added (and even then we give editors a chance to update it). As of now it is as complete as it can be. Or at least it hasn't been shown that it is incomplete beyond crystal balling. How the video game project does things is irrelevant as the GA area has a higher community consensus. If the Video Game guidelines contradict the GA process then the Video Game guidelines need to be changed, or a consensus needs to be developed here (not at the video game wikiproject) that video game articles are an exception.
As to stability, or in this case the prospect of future heavy editing, as I linked to above it has been agreed upon that the potential (however likely) for future editing is not a reason to delist.
I will just add since notability was mentioned that notability has nothing to do with the GA criteria. That is the realm of AFD. Aircorn (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - The upcoming game is duly mentioned in the article. Since the upcoming game has not yet come out, there's not going to be enough to say about it to really have a broadness issue. I don't see a broadness issue coming around until October at the earliest, as it will take some time for the reviews of the new version to come out. It's not a broadness issue if the missing information doesn't exist yet. Hog Farm Talk 19:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GA. Good article status is not a canon version of the article that isn't supposed to undergo major changes. The article simply needs to be updated with new information i.e. it needs adding to. It doesn't need a rewrite or some kind of fundamental transformation. If after a while it appears that the article is out of date after all, and/or that the quality of the additions isn't quite as high, a real revision can be had. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist With the game coming out this year in just a few months away, I don't think it's crystal ball to suggest the release of this game is coming soon. There will be gameplay, and there will be a reception and new development information. I believe Delisting it now is the best course of action. The article is being reinvented as a canceled project to a properly announced game that will release.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aircorn: Because this isn't about updating new information and expanding the same article. The article itself is now recontextualized because of the new information and has to be rewritten in a different light. It is no longer a 15-year old canceled game that some reviewers want to bring back, it is now a full-fledged game in the making releasing soon with new aspects that need attention in order to be a GA. Reception, Gameplay, Development. I believe the article needs to be re-assessed as a new article, not the same one.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk)
  • It will still need this information as background to its development, so is essentially still just an expansion. It is not uncommon, for a high profile example Barack Obama was a FA before he became president and remained one throughout (and not surprisingly the article has changed significantly [6] withthe addition of multiple new sub sections over this time). If the game gets released and it is not updated with the appropriate sections in a timely manner then delisting is fine. This type of technical delisting is out of process and not the purpose of reassessments. Aircorn (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply don't see it as just an expansion. Barack Obama is a living person whose profession is bound to change. He isn't a project that was notable for being canceled, now an upcoming game that will need to meet other criteria.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per many others. And definitely keep as one article, if that is even up for debate any more. --TorsodogTalk 23:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – proper review wasn't even done. The reception section contains literally one sentence. – zmbro (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current state of the article is significantly different than it was when it was reviewed; the review was of a cancelled video game, which is what the article was at the time, so please note that the reviewer was not derelict in their review duties. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, there’s no way that a reviewer reviewing an article for a cancelled game in October 2016 can faulted for a one sentence reception section that was added after it was reannounced in June 2021.--65.92.161.147 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delist. Wait, an article about an upcoming product got GA status? How on Earth did that happen, I thought that was illegel. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was made GA back when it was just a cancelled video game. It's nominated because, following being labeled GA, development began again. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was also announced again over 4 and a half years after the review so no one could have reasonably guessed that it would return.--65.92.161.147 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as GA Came to close, but I disagree with the numeric consensus. Nothing in the WP:GA criteria prevent this from being a GA just because its an ongoing event or likely to see major changes. Only in the case of an edit war or content dispute does an article fail the criteria. As long as it is kept updated, folks would need to identify actual problems with the article or an editorial dispute, not just that changes are coming. If someone wants GA criteria 5 to include a case like this, the wording needs to change. As it stands it only addresses stability issues due to content disputes. Hobit (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hobit: the reason why is that the article has now been recontextualized and the information re-organized, and what was considered Reception or aftermath of the article is now just another step in its progression. The problem is that new info is releasing. New info such as gameplay, new development info, and Reception. All of that has to be monitored to see if it meets GA quality.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. And if at any point it doesn't, then fair enough to remove the GA status. But I don't see anything that says that rapidly changing topics should be delisted. People have cited criteria 3 and 5, but neither seems applicable. I can see an IAR argument, but I disagree with it--I don't see a reason to take an article that meets the requirements of a GA and delist it in the theory it won't stay a GA-quality article. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria changed the moment it was reconfirmed. It's an upcoming title, not a confirmed canceled game. The reactions of its initial cancellation and rumors are no longer what helps make it notable, it has been recontextualized, and now the new info is needed.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A) It's what makes it notable now. Otherwise probably a WP:CRYSTAL issue? B) who cares? Is the text bad? Is this not a good article? If the article doesn't meet the WP:GA criteria, fine, let's delist it. But I've seen no strong case made for that. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For A, because the article is recontextualized, I do not agree the previous content is what helps it be notable now. Did you revise the changes from before and after it was confirmed as an upcoming game? Even if it reconfirmed canceled, the previous content was for a 2005 canceled game, not a 2021 canceled game.As the game is now, no crystal, I do not agree it meets GA.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having read above, I come to the view that per the current criteria this is a procedural keep. We cannot expect the current article to have information about gameplay, release, reception, etc., as the game currently has not been released. It does not lack such coverage, because such coverage does not exist. I think a good time to reassess on those grounds would perhaps be November, giving some time for reliable sources to process the game and for this article to reflect those. CMD (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in The Lord of the Rings[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept There is general consensus here that the article meets the GA criteria. Some points for improvement have been noted, but many go beyond what the GA criteria require. Aircorn (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this reassessment is vandalized again I will have no choice but to seek admin intervention. Anyone is welcome to participate in the discussion, but until it's clear that a consensus has been reached in the discussion on this page - or that no consensus has been reached after several weeks of open discussion - the Good Article Reassessment notice should remain in place. Please abide by Wikipedia policy and don't do any more sneaky edits. There is a record of every change and the admins can see who did what.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following are comments from the original reassessment discussion. I can only copy them here and don't have time to re-edit. The decision cannot be made within a couple of days of the proposal.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's clear admin intervention is required to deal with your disruptive edits, your incivility, and your refusal to listen to feedback from the community about your attitude. Within the first 2 days, four editors who have spoken out on the Women in The Lord of the Rings GAR talk page indicate that you do not appear to understand Wikipedia guidelines and policies afterall. ​If you disagree with the early close, you should have made an appeal, not unilaterally decide that you now have the right to reassess this article's GA status on your own after you realized that you have zero support from the community so far. Your time on Wikipedia will not end well for you if you insist on carrying on the way you are now.
@Hog Farm: @Carcharoth: Haleth (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please confine your comments to the topic of discussion. This article proposal cannot be settled in the space of two days, especially without a chance for rebuttal discussion and clarification.Michael Martinez (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Begin copied comments[edit]

Copied comments

This article does not represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, it appears to constitute original research, in that most of it was written by one person. Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for idolizing authors and the article appears to be strongly biased toward a defense of J.R.R. Tolkien's fiction against criticisms.

I have elected to use the community reassessment path as the purpose of reassessment is to help improve articles. If the failure to create and maintain a neutral point of view can be resolved, then that will meet community standards (in my opinion). Michael Martinez (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I created the article; it has been contributed to, quite substantially, by Haleth, and was reviewed, thoroughly and systematically, by Amitchell125. To reply to Michael Martinez's points briefly but I hope clearly: Neutrality, including "idolizing authors" and bias towards a defense of J.R.R. Tolkien's fiction against criticisms: I'd be curious to know what in the article constituted "idolization", as the text presents and attributes by name many scholars' and other people's points of view, some of them definitely hostile to Tolkien. Further, the text makes clear that Tolkien did have "conservative views about women", as seen both in his own cited statements and in the opinions of both femininist and non-feminist scholars. By the same token, the article is strenuously anti-bias; it presents and attributes views for, against, and in-between, and none of them are editorial. The article groups different opinions into subsections, but does not favour any of them. Far from defending Tolkien, it presents him warts and all as scholars and others have seen him. Some of that is certainly unflattering. "Original research" because "most of it was written by one person": this is not the definition of Original Research (OR) in Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter how many editors are involved; the key is that OR is characterised by an editor's invention rather than the accurate use of cited sources. Colleagues will note that a) the article is fully cited, i.e. every statement is cited to a Reliable Source; b) there are 59 citations from a wide variety of sources; authors include journalists and scholars of different disciplines, while primary (Tolkien-dependent) material is carefully separated; c) the statements made in the article are all attributed to named scholars, so there is no editorial opinion in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is essentially a personal essay expressing unsubstantiated opinions. That violates the Original Research principle (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research ). It's true you've added a few citations, but Wikipedia is not a community for shared research and essays. The Tolkien and Middle-earth articles have been egregious victims of misguided editing in the past. They were once part of a featured series of articles that the broader editor community eventually deleted because it was inappropriate fan material. Your contributions constitute a pattern of Disruptive Editing (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing ) because you're using these articles to advocate your own point of view (thus also violating the Neutral Point of View principle - Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view ). This isn't something where one argues and wins in the Talk pages. It's something where the editorial community has come together and agreed on a set of policies that are used to decide which articles remain, how they are to be maintained, and what they should and should not cover. Please review the guidelines and amend your contributions as required. And don't propose your own contributions for Good Article status. Let others make that determination without any input or incentivization from you.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No, an essay has a goal, and an essayist selects materials and speaks in his or her own voice to persuade readers of that one thing. I have not just added "a few citations"; I've read, paraphrased, and cited about 50 books and journal articles for the Wikipedia article, not counting Tolkien's books and letters. It presents many points of view neutrally, whether they favour Tolkien or not. It is wholly inappropriate of you to suggest that creating and citing one or more articles on a topic is disruptive; indeed, it's the opposite, it's the purpose of Wikipedia. It is entirely in line with the Good Article instructions to nominate articles one has worked on, indeed it's the usual approach. Finally, it is inappropriate and uncivil to accuse me of "incentivization" of any other editor - I've never offered anybody any sort of inducement, and you should not be casting aspersions of that or any other kind. I've no idea why you are speaking in that way, but it is not collegiate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"I've read, paraphrased, and cited about 50 books and journal articles for the Wikipedia article, not counting Tolkien's books and letters." Yes. You used this Wikipedia page to write an essay. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal essays and POV. "The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, 'just-the-facts style'. Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing." (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose ) Now, that's not a policy page, but good Wikipedia articles follow that guidance. A good article doesn't document every detail that is important to 1 author. A good article provides a framework of information that is useful to the broader community.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking up sources and using them is the normal way to expand an article. The article does not present an editorial opinion (I didn't, and don't, have one on the matter), but presents and summarizes published opinion fairly, clearly, and accurately, with full attribution. The article does not promote anything, nor does it favour any particular scholar or opinion, but presents all of them plainly and concisely. Both of us seem to have stated our positions repeatedly now, so it may be best to wait see what others think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC) The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. The article as written does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for Good Article status. Nor should it remain in its current state as it doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedic article. It needs revision. At the very least, you have the option of scaling back some of your contributions to make the article more general and informative to the broader reading audience. Michael Martinez (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I don't agree with that, but since each sentence in the article expresses the opinion of some or other scholar or commentator, scaling some of them back would risk unbalancing the article and introducing accidental bias towards whatever is left, so any such move would have to be made very carefully; but anything is possible if there's consensus for it. The purpose of an encyclopedia article on a literary subject is to present the range of opinions that are held on it, as clearly and plainly as possible, which is what the article does. The "more general" articles are those further up the tree, starting with the article on Tolkien himself; by the time the reader has reached an article on XYZ in book ABC, the reader will be aware that the subject has become a bit more specialised; that is the nature of a large topic with subtopics.

I'm completely willing to fix anything that's misleading, difficult to read, or whatever, if you'll tell me what exactly needs doing. As it stands, it presents the facts clearly and neutrally. Since most of what has been written on the subject is by scholars, we can't avoid expressing scholarly opinion; but I've been careful to be as simple and clear as possible, and am happy to adjust anything you find difficult. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd start with the article title. Instead of "Women in The Lord of the Rings", I suggest "Literary Criticism of Women in the Lord of the Rings". The original article title would be better used to list female characters in The Lord of the Rings (but I don't think such articles are permitted on Wikipedia). There is already a category page listing characters in the story (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_characters ). A secondary category for female characters might be accepted - especially as there is a large category of female characters in literature.

For literary criticism of the characters, the "Tolkien's Background" section is inappropriate. This is the element that constitutes the strongest defense of Tolkien and original research. Keeping in mind that the article should appeal to the broader community, if the article is revised to address literary criticism then this section should include references to literary criticism that address his background (and how it may have influenced women in the story). Citing Tolkien's own works doesn't contribute toward such a discussion. On the other hand, if the article is revised to only describe the women in the story then this entire section should be removed.

The section about "A Role for Women" is suitable for an article about literary criticism of women in the story. It's not suitable for an article describing the female characters (which as I stated above, I don't believe would be accepted by the Wikipedia community).Michael Martinez (talk)

Happy to rename if people think that's best. However "Literary criticism of" implies this is purely literary, which isn't the case; for a start it's in newspapers and Tolkien journals too, and debated by feminists and by Christian authors as well as by literary scholars. So we'd need to be sure we had a better title; the current title has the merit of simplicity and neutrality. The background of Tolkien in an all-male environment is plainly relevant, not least because multiple commentators and scholars have mentioned it as a major factor. Since (per the paragraph above) I doubt that reframing the article to be purely literary would be a good idea, I similarly doubt that trying to exclude all non-literary matters would make sense. We could repeat citations in the background section, but frankly it's fine for a background/context to give the background of the rest of the discussion; this is actually part of what you were asking for, namely to make the context of the article clear so that more general readers could find their way in. Making the article context-free, more technical and more specialised would make the article much less readable for general readers.

The article doesn't just describe the female characters (that would be a list article, and we already have List of Middle-earth characters). Since it's not a list article, discussing what roles women play in the book, as understood by commentators, is certainly relevant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this GAR is nonsense. Just from skimming the article it appears especially neutral and uses a wide variety of opinions from different scholars. I'm not left feeling particularly inclined to agree with one side or the other and whatever "in that most of it was written by one person" means, is completely irrelevant. If anything, the proposals by the nominator would ruin the neutrality; the title "Literary Criticism of Women in the Lord of the Rings" suggests a bias and would also change the scope of the article. I guess the article could include Tolkien's all-male background (if commentators do actually use it in the context of this article's subject) but such an issue is by no means reason for a full out GAR. Aza24 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page adheres to all of the GA criteria. The re-assessment opener makes some serious allegations of disruptive editing that are left entirely unsupported. Furthermore, statements like "don't propose your own contributions for Good Article status" display a lack of knowledge regarding the Good article process. Quoting from the first instruction: "Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources" (my emphasis). This reassessment should be closed before Chiswick's time is wasted one minute longer. Tkbrett (✉) 02:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through I had a few moments where I didn't feel the tone was that encyclopaedic (eg. A question as a header), and the split between "powerful" and "ordinary" does not feel like the right wording, but I'm not seeing any original research. A lot of outside commentators are explicitly referenced within the text. If there are a significant number of prominent yet absent opinions, or if any of the existing opinions are being misinterpreted here, that would be a cause for concern, but no evidence of such has been provided. If such evidence does emerge, I would suggest first initiating a discussion on the matter on the talkpage, so it can be added, rather than jumping to GAR. CMD (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This presents as a frivolous, possibly mischievous proposal (and that is the generous interpretation). If the OP is to be taken at face value, then they clearly do not grasp how an article can be assessed for balance or whether it is based on original research. The OP has not offered one concrete demonstration of where or how the article exhibits lack of balance or original research. They are wasting other editors time with wild, unsubstantiated accusations, and the thread should be closed. — Epipelagic (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply below this line[edit]

It is difficult to find a comparable article to this one elsewhere on Wikipedia, although my time is limited. The problem with the current title is that it doesn't describe what the article is about. And given that the article is still in essay format it still needs revision. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to explain things from your (the article author) point of view. The Tolkien's background section is opinion and the fact you're citing things doesn't make it not-opinion. It's equivalent to saying "Tolkien was a man of his times". The author of the book provides very little insight into the roles of women in his fiction, and his personal letters were not intended to explain the story elements to a general audience.

A Wikipedia article should only provide a summary of what is relevant to its topic. Tolkien's comments could be mentioned in a shorter paragraph further down. However, the "A story about men for boys" section is also inappropriate (not least because the book was written as a response to the request from his publisher for "more about hobbits"). These opinion sections should be removed and their relevant points summarized in a shorter section.Michael Martinez (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling today and can't contribute much to the discussion, but MM, there's already been a discussion at the GAR that concluded that the article is fine. Wikipedia is a consensus project, even if you disagree with the consensus. WP:DROPTHESTICK or you may find yourself topic banned. Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to remind you guys (especially you, Hog Farm, given that you're an admin - you should know better) that a Good Article reassessment can be initiated by any editor at any time who has a concern about the article's status. The points I raised were not discussed previously and they are legitimate. Your action on the reassessment was inappropriate, as is your threat to block me from the topic. Furthermore, you have failed to disclose your conflict of interest in this discussion in that you have a history of supporting Chiswick Chap (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_soliciting_of_cliques ).Michael Martinez (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Women in The Lord of the Rings/1, you've got five editors stating that there's no original research, I don't see any, and it doesn't seem like Haleth is seeing any if I'm reading their comments correctly, either. There's a pretty clear consensus that this article (while maybe some prose work in places would help) doesn't contain serious sourcing issues. I see above you object to the "story about men for boys" section, which is cited inline to Wood and Croft/Donovan, both of which appear to be scholarly RS. In order to continue to state that that is problematic, you will need demonstrate through sources that Wood and Croft/Donovan are misused here, or provide high-quality RS to provide a balancing viewpoint here. I'm also not threatening to block you myself, and I have no COI with Chiswick Chap - passing their GA reviews in the past does not create a clique, it creates a collegial project to assess articles for quality. Nobody is trying to bury the GAR, it's just that there's gathering a fairly clear consensus against your arguments. You're going to need to provide direct quotes to high-quality RS (ideally from multiple authors) in order to back up your case here, or this GAR is not going anywhere. Hog Farm Talk 05:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty is always the best policy. You do have a history with the Chiswick Chap and you should know fully well that the Reassessment was bulldozed before I could see or respond to the other editors' comments. Haleth has made it clear he called you in to do a hit job, and that he thinks you should be blocking me and perhaps dropping other punishments on me. I suggest you and I stand down. Your behavior was inappropriate but not egregious. In less than 2 years you've made a lot of contributions to Wikipedia. Don't get drawn into Haleth's personal vendettas. I will not comment further on this page.Michael Martinez (talk)

Procedural note[edit]

Individual GA reassessments, per the instructions, are only allowed if the article hasn't been reassessed before AND it is not expected to be controversial. This article does not meet either condition. (t · c) buidhe 14:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however, the rapid removal of the previous reassessment discussion necessitates a slight change in procedure in order to keep the discussion going - preferably without the hostile reactions. This article does not meet the criteria for Good Article status. The purpose of the reassessment discussion is to improve the article, not to delete it or remove the Good Article status. As noted above, 2 days' discussion isn't sufficient for ending the proposal. Please respect the process from this point forward and stop trying to bury the proposal. Michael Martinez (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the open hostility you and others expressed on the Good Article Nominations talk page (without linking to my profile so that I would not be notified) constitute a very disturbing act of omission. Instead of plotting to send me to arbitration or some other kind of review, either contribute to the discussion or let it proceed uninterrupted.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to community reassessment[edit]

As it is indeed the case, per buidhe above, that once an article has been reassessed only community reassessments are allowed thereafter, I have moved this page to the proper name for a second community reassessment from its unallowed individual reassessment placement and adjusted the boilerplate at the top of the page to reflect this move. The reassessment, which has not been posted to for over a month, is free to continue. It will ultimately be closed by an independent closer at some point in the future. I suggest that several weeks at least elapse before the closure is done to allow plenty of time for additional commentary on the reassessment now that it is visible to the community. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments made during the first reassessment. Tkbrett (✉) 00:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm yet to see any specific sources brought up to back up claimed issues. Hog Farm Talk 20:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well, I'm not sure of the procedure here as it seems to me this second reassessment is entirely out of order. However, I've replied in detail to the points above, and I don't think any of the small points below are of any substance. If whoever decides to close this case wants action on some of the points below, please just ping me and let me know what may be needed; my view is that the article is in fact robustly cited, clearly written, certainly covers "the main points" as in the GA criteria, and is completely neutral. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Edits[edit]

  • The introductory sentence represents an opinion and offers no supporting evidence: "The roles of women in The Lord of the Rings have often been assessed as insignificant, or important only in relation to male characters in a story about men for boys." The subsequent citation of Weronika Łaszkiewicz's paper doesn't substantiate the claim in the first sentence. Her paper doesn't cite many others and spends a fair amount of time discussing the portrayal of women in the movies (with which Tolkien himself had nothing to do). The second paragraph continues into opinion after citing the paper. The 3rd paragraph opens with an ambiguous "other commentators". The summary should be shortened to one paragraph that explains what is in the Wikipedia article (see my next point). Any reference to Łaszkiewicz's work should be confined to the main article itself since the Wikipedia article is not specifically about her work.
  • The "Tolkien's Background" section doesn't provide proper context. As I said previously, it provides a defense of Tolkien from an original POV. In fact, the article goes on to contrast the roles of women in the movies with the roles of women in the book, but this paragraph and the opening summary suggest that only Tolkien's fiction is being discussed. I suggest the section be expanded to include Peter Jackson's background and the paragraphs about Tolkien's influences be moved to their own section. Jackson's influences should also be addressed in a separate section.
  • The opening sentence in "Roles for women" says the story "has repeatedly been discussed as being a story about men for boys" but the two citations provided only rebut inspecific accusers. I suggest the first sentence be omitted and a couple of other citations be added after the Catherine Stimpson quote. Patridge and O'Connor would provide examples and get the point across that more than 1 critic has accused Tolkien of chauvinism.
  • I suggest the title of this section be changed to "Negative criticism of roles for women" or something similar. A follow up section titled "Positive criticism of roles for women" would be appropriate. Show the reader the two points of view fairly.
  • The title "The Powerful Women" seems a bit over the top. I suggest the title be changed to reflect the importance of these women to the literary plot.
  • The contrasting of the movie portrayals to the literary portrayals seems inadequate. It only begins with Rosie. Having been interviewed about Galadriel's role in the story by the media, I know there was popular interest and debate in her portrayal in the media. The controversy is completely overlooked (although my interview was only in connection with the 'Hobbit' movies).

I don't object to the article and don't feel it should be deleted. That was certainly never my proposal. But the arguments I've seen around the role of women in the book are poorly represented here. I think there should be a fair amount of more recent media (non-scholarly) discussion of the Tolkien and Jackson's portrayal of women. There was a huge controversy about the proposed rewriting and expansion of Arwen's role for the movies at the time. There seems no mention of that. Much more work should be done to improve the article. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guallatiri[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept No reason given to delist Aircorn (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a major rewrite of this article to incorporate some recent (2020-2021) research findings. As it no longer resembles the old version, it should probably be re-reviewed to see if it still satisfies GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Area Rapid Transit[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted Consensus that the article does not meet the criteria Aircorn (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article includes some disputed statements and also a lot of its content is not verifiable to reliable sources. So I'm bringing this to GAR. (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - edits since GAR was opened have been primarily a back-and-forth about if archiving web links is useful. There's just too much uncited text here for this to remain a GA. Hog Farm Talk 22:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kyteto: in case they are interested in working on the article. Aircorn (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanol fuel in Brazil[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist bibliomaniac15 18:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 promotion is now extremely out of date - in many places that article has not been updated since 2014 events, and many of the statistics are from before 2010. Hog Farm Talk 19:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - needs largely rewritten, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 22:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - seems no one interested in updating Chidgk1 (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – reasons above. – zmbro (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Definitely a delist, as per Hog Farm. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Ono[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Issues mentioned remain Aircorn (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue with this BLP article is the lack of verifiable sources for some of the content. An additional issue is that considerable amounts of content seem to be WP:UNDUE. I think compliance with GAC#3b would be obtained with some trimming of low-relevance info, esp. in the later life section. (t · c) buidhe 07:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - no improvements, and uses user-generated sources like last.fm and discogs multiple times. Needs sizable sourcing work, and at almost 12,000 words is probably too long. Hog Farm Talk 22:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Hog Farm. – zmbro (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted Its now been a matter of months and the issues aren't sorted. While length itself is not a GA issue, when it does get above 100kb it suggests there are failures in using summary style. Either way the presence of multiple citation needed tags is reason enough to delist this article. Aircorn (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous GAR was 5 years ago, and there seem to be some significant issues to adress.

  • Article is too long, with a readable prose size of over 18,000 words, almost twice the recommended 10,000. As noted by Jehochman on the talk page, more content should be moved to subarticles and replaced by summary style.
  • The lead, too, is way too long, consisting of 5 lengthy paragraphs. The expositions of his wars and campaigns should probably somehow be condensed. There's also a balance issue, with the last paragraph extolling Napoleon's achievements - including a direct quote from a historian taking up more than half the paragraph - without mentioning any negatively viewed aspects of his legacy, e.g. reinstating slavery in the Caribbean. An additional paragraph focusing on the latter was recently added, though not in an optimal way, and has since been removed again. See also Talk:Napoleon#Lead: length and recent addition.
  • There are six {{citation needed}} tags, five of which date back all the way to 2016.
  • Reference errors as noted by Jehochman at Talk:Napoleon#Citations.

There might be additional issues that I'm unaware of. The ones above seem altogether sufficient to justify a GAR, especially for such a vital and prominent article. Lennart97 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may be intrested in the discusion held before on the talk page, in wich i proposed a way to cut the lead to five shorter paragraphs, so far i have proposed it, but i would want to hear your opinion, and how to improve it. (we are talking about the lead). we talked about this. So far we need consensus, and focus on the problem itself.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the proposal of a new lead. It's definitely shorter, that's good. Apart from needing a lot of copy editing for grammar/spelling, I'm not personally sure whether it's up to GA standards. Others' opinions on this are very welcome. Lennart97 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was notified of this GAR - but I have no real interest, experience or expertise with the article,a dn am not currently writing on Wikipedia. However the concerns expressed are clearly something that someone should be able to fix in a matter of days, expending about the same amount of energy as a GAR would take. Why not fix it instead? By the way, excessive length is really a silly object to an article's quality, some topics need to be longer than the standard article to provide sufficient coverage of the relevant literature - without having read this one, I'd not be surprised if this is a such a topic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notified you only because you were involved in the previous GAR, hope you don't mind. I nominated the article for a community review because I'm not personally able to fix the article's problems, it's as simple as that. More specifically, per the guidelines at WP:GAR, I 1) don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and 2) [am] not confident in [my] ability to assess the article - thus a community reassessment seems like the correct choice.
    • You may have a point about the article length, but isn't that what spinning off content and using summary style in the main article is for? I'm pretty sure I've seen length considerations in GA reviews, anyway. Maybe Jehochman who first noted the length as an issue wants to comment on this as well. Lennart97 (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • . I hope the issues can be corrected within the scope of this review. Summary style is not hard to do, nor does it take very long. I fixed the worst reference issues. Some that remain may require an editor with more reference expertise than my level. @El C: might know who to contact. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alien (film)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted Multiple citation needed tags still present. A bit of a shame as these could have been fixed relatively easily. Still it has been open for three months now and more than enough time has passed Aircorn (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008 promotion that has seen better days. Although many parts are exquisitely detailed, there are dozens of citation needed tags (including one in the lead) that need to be addressed. I recently made some edits myself regarding extra references in the lead and infobox, but I can't assist anywhere else. I feel the dozens of tags are sufficient enough to nominate for reassessment. – zmbro (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are 14. I am not going to work on this article myself but am curious to know whether if all the remaining uncited sentences were removed it would still rate as "good"?Chidgk1 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aircorn Yep go ahead. – zmbro (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I thought it was an individual reassessment. I can close this then. Aircorn (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy![edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep It seems like this discussion has run its course and folks are pleased with the improvements. I see the maintenance tags have been addressed. Thanks all for your work keeping this up to code. Ajpolino (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for Good article reassessment for multiple reasons. The citation needed, page needed and Miscellaneous info tags alone would be more than enough, but there are also of couple a potential WP:COPYVIO Youtube refs (157 and 158), and the awards section doesn't talk about or source the specific awards in prose but rather just makes it dependent on a unsourced Succession box list. It may have met the criteria at the time it was promoted, but I don't think anyone predicted how even more popular this show got and thus there were probably less experienced editors infiltrating the article with unsourced info and trivia. Nonetheless, the issues are significant enough for a reassessment. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in regards to the awards section- I came upon that recently and there is certainly no need to list predecessors or successors of when the show did win. Something similar to Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series)#Awards and nominations would probably be more preferable. Would I be fine to go ahead and do that when I get a chance? Magitroopa (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever it takes to improve this. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I wasn't the one who did most of the work to promote this to GA (that would be SethAllen623) but I do remember when this was going through the nomination process. I am away this weekend but am willing to work when I get back...let me know if anything else needs to be done beyond reference/source fixes and improvements. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opps, my apologies. I looked at the edit history and it wasn't clear who the nominator was, so I assumed it was you. Sorry. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: Aircorn (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
missed @Magitroopa:. Aircorn (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haven't had much time to take a look. I did try to trim some bloated text but I could use help on fixing the awards section and seeking feedback on what other bloat to remove. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: I know what I said above, but you're more than welcome to do that if you want to. I might check it out/redo the table tomorrow (currently 3:40am for me...)- just had never gotten around to it, like a whole bunch of other stuff I've been wanting to get to. I've been in the Jeopardy-mood lately (and have been cleaning up Mike Richards (television personality) since the recent news...), so will try to use that to my advantage. :P Magitroopa (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed some of the mentioned issues. The rest seems alright, good enough to keep it as a good article in my opinion. Aircorn (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The recent scandal involving the newly-announced host (who was shortly thereafter out following the scandal about his sexual comments) may affect the article's stability, so I'd wait until that settles so that we can come to a conclusion. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @HumanxAnthro: How about now? It is coming up five months which is long enough. I can close it myself if you are happy with the article, or I will request a closure from an uninvolved editor. Aircorn (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This needs a citation: "In the show's history with Trebek's version, there were only six occasions where all three contestants ended the game with zero dollars." Also, it's been that long already? 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Holbrook[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a reassessment following observations from Yngvadottir. As the original GA assessor I feel very embarrassed and humbled that I missed the items that have been mentioned in the observation - which are very obvious to me when I look at it afresh. simongraham (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The observation identified the following problems:

  • The section on equipment produced by Holbrook's company contained obvious OCR errors and its phrasing indicated that the source was an advertisement.
  • Repetition of information (the creation of the company and factory)
  • Uneven style (the Genealogy section, in particular, did not fit with the rest in style)
  • Unclear writing including burying the information on when he started his first school and simply puzzling sentences like "There were a hundred lyceums formed in the 1820s for crafts and mechanics of agricultural methods and geological surveys and further advanced the teaching system into other areas."
  • Clumsy integration of the information from references, such as "He developed a small factory for the manufacture of scientific apparatus" in the "17th Reunion" news source was "made a factory that was specifically designed to manufacture scientific apparatus" in the article.
  • The "Founder Yale Grad" source is the same text as part of the "17th Reunion" source; obviously some of these news reports have a common origin.

Yngvadottir has undertaken essential editing but I feel that the article needs to be reassessed by someone with more experience than me. The nominee, Doug Coldwell, was always helpful in the review and I feel has made this errors, as I did, in good faith. simongraham (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: Sorry you have not got much response here. I have had a look at the article and find some of the sentences lack flow and are a bit repetitive. Not sure they are at the level of failing the GA criteria though. For example the first three sentences all say "the United States". There is also some ordering issues. For example it says how he defined a lyceum, then talks about him being ahead of his time and other info, before going back to the lyceums. That whole section reads too much like a collection of facts with no real thought to tying them together. I feel that paragraph could be rewritten to flow much better. Further the third paragraph then says he introduced the first lyceum school after a paragraph saying what was in the lyceum schools. The more I read the more I feel this fails criteria 1a. Aircorn (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: Thank you. This is very helpful. I have done some edits myself to manage the flow better and extended the topic from its focus on lyceums. Please tell me if you think this rectifies the problem. simongraham (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is much better. Aircorn (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Yep when an article makes a prediction of By 2020 ... and we have passed that date then it is out of date. There is very little information beyond 2010, when the article passed GA.Aircorn (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has commented on the talk page that the article is out of date but I don't know enough about the subject to reassess the article myself Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CaptainEek[edit]

An important article to get right, this page has unfortunately suffered in recent years. Its grown amorphous, its lead has ballooned, and it appears a number of inaccuracies have been introduced. In just the first paragraph there was an obvious typo, and even worse the lead photo caption had been clearly inaccurate for several years. I would do the full review myself, but I admit I am a bit short on time, November is always the busiest month...

  • Numerous uncited sentences
  • Lead too long, and just chock full of citations. Leads should summarize, not introduce tons of new info
  • Broad in its coverage is questionable, the history section is surprisingly short. Much more could be written about the two major fires, or the extensive cleanup operations. Just reading a single newspaper article [7], it is apparent how much is missing and could be included. That article is 20 years old too, so I wonder if there is more recent coverage. There appears to be a book out as well, which would be great to incorporate.
  • It looks like very few of the edits in recent years have been scrutinized at all, and the prose is not well integrated. I would like to see claims examined for factual accuracy, as well as for POV. Tensions around Rocky Flats have run hot through the years and I have no doubt some folks would like to push a certain narrative.

I imagine this article can be saved, but it will need some work. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nuked the lead back to the version when it ran for FAC. It is a bit of a blunt approach, but I not only adjudged it to be too long - it also was decidedly non-neutral (i.e saying Despite radioactive contamination remaining underground at the Rocky Flats AEC/DOE site, the U.S. government—with an inherent conflict of interest—eventually judged the plant's surrounding areas and their exposure risks suitable for any use). I would imagine there has been some POV editing into the lead. Now it could do with an update, bu this belongs in the body and needs to be more carefully worded. I might look into this later if I get time, but as it stands this does not reach a GA standard. Aircorn (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lichtenstein Castle (Württemberg)/1

Vere Bird Jr.[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept No reason given for delisting Aircorn (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the GA status being almost or even over 10 years old and the person who rated it is banned, it should be time to review it again. I said that it could be a C or even a B but it is no longer GA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonlightVector (talk • contribs)

  • MoonlightVector, could you specify which part of the GA criteria you don't think is met here? Currently there's an active cleanup tag but it's not immediately clear to me what needs to be cleaned up. Article organization looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MoonlightVector: I tend to agree with Buidhe as the article looks pretty well organised to me. Some edits have been done since the review so maybe they fixed a few issues. Also we need more info, specifically how it fails one or more of the WP:GACR before we can delist. The age of the status or nominator being banned is not relevant (unless they were banned when they passed the article). Aircorn (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian gay propaganda law[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist A very comprehensive list of issue can be found on the talk page and so far no one seems motivated enough to fix them. Plenty to work on for any interested editor Aircorn (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed my concerns on the article talk page, but in short there are serious issues related to the clarity, balance, and organization of this article. I have tried to fix some problems but I was not able to get it up to GA standard easily. (t · c) buidhe 10:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando de la Rúa[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: closed as keep/withdrawn by nominator (t · c) buidhe 19:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page was promoted in 2016. Late last year, User:MADA245 made a substantial edit [8] that was near enough a re-write. The edit was tagged for introducing a deprecated unreliable source, though I don't know which one. The major problem is that MADA's edit stripped the page of references, I will lose count of how many unsourced Sections there are, never mind paragraphs. Due to the political nature of the article, and especially because he presided over an economic crash, sources are paramount. There is a lot of original research and opinions in the legacy section. I have half a mind to manually revert the page back to the version before MADA turned up, though I don't know if that would be allowed or would be disputed. But the page as it is, is so bad that it's not a GA, if it was submitted new today it would be rejected. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unknown Temptation I don't see much unsourced content or any cleanup tags. Can you be more specific about how you think the article fails the GA criteria in its current state? (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe Hi, the page was overhauled in this edit in December 2020 by a new user who took away sources and added personal opinions [9]. I did a manual revert seven months later and I was unsure that it would be allowed to stand due to the size of the edit; I thought it would be challenged and told to discuss the big changes. [10] As nobody has challenged me in a month, maybe my fears were unfounded and you can close this review. Sorry if it's wasted your time. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown Temptation No worries. In future, if you think you can fix the article yourself you can just do it and only if someone challenges it consider GAR or dispute resolution. (t · c) buidhe 19:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

French fries[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion is to delist the article.

A close of this reassessment was requested at WP:CR. Since G/A assessment in January 2018, the raw size of the article has grown by about 25% with about 50% more references being added and some significant restructuring. Referencing is the primary issue identified in the reassessment. Recipe books are an acceptable source, provided they meet WP:RS and the info cited is WP:VER. In some cases, I would agree with the point that a WP:SPS source can be acceptable. But these are not the main issues. There is a high reliance on web sources questioned herein on the basis of WP:RS and WP:VER and this remains unresolved. I did take a small sample of the sources listed as questionable to verify the evidence and am satisfied that there are unresolved issues of consequence. I acknowledge that there has been some effort to improve the article to the expected standard. Despite this, it appears unlikely, given where progress now stands, that the matters will be sufficiently addressed in the foreseeable future. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delist Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the article since the review have added an unreferenced section. Changes to the lede contain typographical errors (the last sentence of the lede is without a full stop).

There are at least two references to wordpress blogs. The section on France contains measurements for different cuts of fries but doesn't provide references. The list of "popular options" for dipping sauces in the Belgium section is unsourced. (Zigeuner sauce is served with schnitzel and not a dipping sauce for fries.) The content about vacuum fryers in the preparation section is unsourced. The last sentence of the South Africa section is unsourced.

I was very tempted to demote it unilaterally based on the self-published Wordpress references. However, I think it can be fixed if any editors are willing to go over it again. Spudlace (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are major sourcing issues. For the record, sauce tzigane really is served with fries and I doubt you could buy a schnitzel in Belgium or the Netherlands if you tried... —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanAir88: as the person who got it to GA status. Aircorn (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing full stop – is that really the sort of thing to bring up at a GAR? It's the sort of thing that we just routinely go and fix, not make a song and dance about. SpinningSpark 23:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some work on it. I think it is good enough to remain a Good Article now. Aircorn (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: thank you for making the improvements. The lede is much better now. Some of the references may still be UGC - just looking it over quickly, we could probably do without The Countertop Cook. If others are satisfied with it, these could just be fixed by normal editing without demoting the article. Spudlace (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know most of the word soups, but what is UGC? Aircorn (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just the same as WP:SPS. Spudlace (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UGC – "user generated content". It's not quite the same as SPS which is sometimes acceptable. UGC is never acceptable unless the author can be identified and determined to be an acceptable SPS. SpinningSpark 13:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spudlace: Which sources do you think are still problematic? I don't want to go through nearly 100 refs and guess which ones you meant. SpinningSpark 13:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only item that does have a rationale is because it calls for readers to submit recipes. Perhaps it does, but the fact that it has a large editorial board is usually taken (by us) as a sign that there is some editorial oversight, fact-checking, and material is not published uncritically. The author of the piece cited is Lauren Habermehl who appears to be a respected food writer and blogger. According to Muck Rack she is previously published in Reader's Digest and the Tri-state Times. There is at least an arguable case for her as an acceptable source under WP:SPS.
On citing recipes, I've had this discussion on other articles. WP:NOTRECIPE does NOT mean we should not cite recipe books. Recipe books are, in fact, the very place where one would expect to find reliable information on recipes. And yes, there is usually more than one way to make any dish. If you had found sources that seriously contradict our article you might have had a point, but without them it is just a version of a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument.
In short, this is a scattergun criticism of this article with little real substance behind it. SpinningSpark 12:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The concern I have is citing a recipe for "X dish is made in Y way." Otherwise I could cite this recipe to support the sentence "Risotto is made with brown rice, vegetable broth, and mushrooms." It can made that way, but as a generalized statement it's not accurate, and is original research. (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that none of those sources are great. It does depend a bit on what they are referencing. A recipe book would be fine to source that a certain dish exists, but not much else. I found a better one for the first and changed the wording of the statement the second referenced so it made no further comments beyond the dish existing. Forbes is not MEDS compliant so that source needs to be changed and I think someone should at least put in an effort to see if better sources exist for the others mentioned. I am sort of done with this article for now as I only started editing it because I saw it here and I want to focus on other topics. As an aside I decided to completely rearrange the "by country" section as I think it encourages UNDUEness as the French and Belgian origin dispute should be given more weight. I think it is alright, but not great. I hope someone else decides to look into the remaining sources highlighted by Buidhe. Aircorn (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2021 (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.

Aircorn pls check that I have taken all of the required actions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Just added this to the archive[11] Aircorn (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Building of the Little Rock Arsenal[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion now contains a large amount of uncited text, including some very large chunks from Aleutian06, who has a CCI open for repeated copyright violations. The lead mentions it being in the MacArthur Park historic district, while this is not expounded upon in the body, while the article is not clear if its in the Camden Expedition NRHP batch listing or not. The structure is weird, with the modern history before the early history. I just don't think this meets the criteria anymore. Hog Farm Talk 01:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mullum Malarum[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. After months, there is no one suggesting it should be delisted (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article failed it's fourth and most recent FAC, because of one detractor (Fowler&fowler). While there will never be another FAC attempt at this article by me, I will nevertheless be satisfied if it at least maintains GA status. Because factual accuracy and coherence matter more. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I will do a thorough read-through of this article later in the week. I did a brief scan through the article, and I did not find anything that would take away its GA status. I would remove the "Accolades" section and incorporate that information in the "Reception" section as I would avoid having a one-paragraph section. I would also rephrase this note, " In the end Mohan's name only appeared in the opening credits.", to simply, "Mohan's name only appeared in the opening credits.". I found the "In the end" part to be confusing as when I first read it, I thought you meant at the end of the film. Those are my only notes for now. I hope you are doing well and having a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not really see any other issues that would prevent this article from keeping its GA status. Aoba47 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you done with the thorough read-through? Did you read any of Fowler's comments from the FAC and see if they must be addressed, or if he was just being overdemanding? I'll share with you pages of the book Pride of Tamil cinema, you please read them and tell me if I missed anything. The link is available only for 24 hours. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay in my response. I will leave this for another editor. I am currently in the middle of a few other reviews and I plan on taking a break from Wikipedia once my current FAC is completed, and to be completely frank, I do not really want to read through Fowler's comments from the last FAC. Again, I will leave this for another editor. Apologies for that and best of luck with this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DaxServer[edit]

  • Why is the article using EngvarB instead of Indian English? Strong national ties is established MOS:TIES, so I think it makes sense to move it, despite having an established variety MOS:RETAIN — DaxServer (talk to me) 10:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been changed. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the year of [12] from 1978 to 77, as it was in the link. The Worldcat has different entries [13]. Could you verify if possible? — DaxServer (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nicholas Michael Halim[edit]

  • Merge the "Accolades" section with the "Release" section since it is really short or make it a table.
Done. It certainly won't look good in Reception will it though? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just realised it will be better to move it to the "Reception" section. Make the "Release" section only a paragraph, and move the "Awards" section to the second paragraph of the "Reception" section after Balachander's letter. Also, change "the film's commercial performance" to "its commercial performance" and "positive magazine reviews and favourable word of mouth spread" to "positive reviews and word of mouth spread". —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transferred to Release. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)--Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film's remakes can be moved to the second paragraph of the "Legacy" section.
Done. Is it good now? Or does it need rephrasing? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the title translations not capitalised?
Such as? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. I meant "italicised" —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Beside that, the article is absolutely fine. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I just saw that refs 36 and 45 are books. Move both to the "Bibliography" section and use {{Sfn||p=}} to cite them. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • "at people who" --> "whom"
  • Remove the comma in "First serialised in the Tamil magazine,"
  • "It was only after producer Venu Chettiar of Ananthi Films", remove "producer"
  • "Ramasamy was signed as art director,[15] and D. Vasu as editor", add "the" before the "art director" and the "editor"
  • Do you find better sources for the film's Telugu-dubbed version's 1979 release? I don't think the iTunes is reliable enough for this.
  • "Mullum Malarum was well received at the time of its initial release"", remove "at the time of its initial release"
  • They? Changed it to "The reviewer also praised the performances of Shoba and Jayalaxmi, called Balu Mahendra's camera work a "feast for the eyes", and Ilaiyaraaja's melodies "delicious". The critic was disappointed of the film's first half for moving at a "leisurely pace", but said the second half was "eventful"."

—Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes to them, except the 1979 release source and removing the "at the time of its initial release". I'll leave it to Kailash. — DaxServer (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas Michael Halim, sorry for the long break. I've made changes, would you like to have a look? If you are okay, I'll arrange for the GAR to be closed with the consensus to keep. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in a perfect shape, still deserving its GA status! —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magtymguly Pyragy[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted, no consensus that the article meets GA criteria (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrianism[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted, 24 citation needed tags (t · c) buidhe 00:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The prose for this article is not always clear and concise, and large chunks of this article are left uncited. Therefore, I believe delisting this article should be considered. 777burger user talk contribs 03:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael of Zahumlje[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 10:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per comment at Talk:Michael of Zahumlje#Is this actually a GA? this could be sketchy. Persistent anonymous edit-warring also seems to be involved, so this topic needs help. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This the diff between the version from early 2011 when it was edited by User:Kebeta and today. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Per my comment at here I don't think this is was ever a valid good article in the first place and should be removed. Naleksuh (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the note on the talk page that the GAN was passed by a nominator's sock, it appears to me this was not so (and I left a note in the relevant secton on article talk with a relevant diff on that). Had it been nominated and passed by the same user/sock, it would have been unreasonable to do anything but to delist it. However...
Without going into details of the article, there should be some effort to point out what's wrong specifically. For GAR, "the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it". In that respect, I think it would be fair to list what aspects of the article need work in terms of GA criteria before the article is fixed or delisted. The review back in 2011 certainly appears very superficial, so it is very well possible (or likely) there may be justifiable objections. The original GAN nominator appears inactive since 2013, but hey, there may be takers... or even if there are not any this week, a future editor will have something to work with.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a further examination (looking for edit warring in article history), I'm wondering if the original complainant at the article talk - Naleksuh was a bit hasty. It appears they thought the nominator promoted the GAN alone per this edit summary. Naleksuh could you please specify which GA criteria you feel are not met by the article and why/how? It would be very helpful for potential fixes to the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomobe03: Pretty simple. GA nomination. GA tag. By the same person. Both have similar usernames and one is a sock of the other by CheckUser evidence. Plus this is nowhere close to a complete GA review. Naleksuh (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naleksuh I think you're mistaken. What you linked as the "GA nomination" diff is actually diff of GA review page creation and there's nothing unusual there. The diff with the GAN nomination is this by user Kebeta while GA was taken up by Wustefuchs (sock, apparently unrelated to the nominator - at least no sock tag is linked to the nominator) diff and the review page Talk:Michael of Zahumlje/GA1 was made by Wustefuchs. I agree that the review was very superficial, but it would be equally incorrect to assume the nomination was in bad faith or not in compliance with GA criteria when it was not reviewed - then or now because two wrongs don't make a right. If the article is non-compliant with major aspects of the WP:WIAGA it should be simple to list such non-compliances.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's use the opportunity to just look at that diff from the last 10 years... I skimmed it and noticed the sentence "Zahumlje belongs to the oldest Serbian principality." that just doesn't strike me as something that would be referenced to John V. A. Fine. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. I have looked up Fine and it does not appear to support the claim. I have tagged appropriate references with the failed verification tag. This clearly makes the article non-compliant with the WIAGA criterion #2.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In view of above non-compliance with the verifiability criteria and apparent lack of volunteers who might fix this article, I think it would be appropriate to downgrade its quality rating to C or start-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck C since at least criteria 2 (verifiability), likely 4 (neutrality), and 1 (prose) are not quite there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waking Up the Neighbours[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delist, active cleanup tags present for months (t · c) buidhe 03:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article no longer meets the criteria for GA since being listed in 2008, particularly points 1, 3 and 6. Article is no longer well-written by GA standards, and will require heavy cleanup to meet GA criteria again. Article is also very brief and not broad in its coverage. Theknine2 (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Leoseliv as they had a similar discussion on the talk page. Theknine2 (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White Stag Leadership Development Program[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted, has active cleanup tags (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2010 GA that has had an unsourced section tagged since 2018. I haven't looked too closely, but prose also seems like it may have promotionalism and excessive reliance on primary sources issues. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential superpowers[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. After a month there is no consensus that the article should be a GA and serious concerns that have gone unaddressed. (t · c) buidhe 02:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what to make of this article. The title is overly broad as any country could be a potential superpower. Emerging superpower would be better, but still carry many of the same problems. The opening sentence is vague in its definition (use of speculated). It is pretty much presented in a list format. I am not sure if this topic can be written about without getting into original research. The talk page showcases this with the discussions on whether Japan and Brazil should still be included. Is China a super power or potential superpower? Is the USA still a superpower? It just seems to be open to so much interpretation and not many sources seem to discuss the topic in in an overarching way. As it is the sources used seem to hold vastly different views on what constitutes a superpower that there is no overall cohesion to many of the statements.

Anyway as to the criteria, the lead contains a lot of information not found in the article and lacks an overview of the actual body. It is contradictory, calling USA the only country that fulfils the criteria of a superpower (sourced to a reference that does not mention any criteria) followed by a citation overkill of sources saying how it is not sole superpower. The set up of the articles is a list of views of people that see the country or entity as a potential superpower, followed by those who don’t. The trouble with this set up is that it is giving the same weight to all opinions, which is not really justified (especially when the sources vary so much “real truth” to “New York times”. Obviously the tags need to be resolved (Citations, updates etc) for it to remain a good article.

I feel this needs to be judged by more editors than me so I am putting it through a community review. @Chidgk1: as the gar requester. @OccultZone: as the nominator. Aircorn (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist I have no idea who would benefit from reading this rubbish Chidgk1 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain GA status There is absolutely no such issue with the article as it makes it certain that what really qualifies as 'potential superpower' through academia. We generally relied on the mainstream consensus to list who is a superpower and who would be a superpower, in line with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I think most of the issues cited here belong to talk page. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original research original research, undue, more citations needed and outdated tags were removed with this edit. I don't feel these issues have been adequately addressed, especially in light of a GA review. Aircorn (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had to be removed in April, but I got busy elsewhere. The relevance tag regarding EU was wrongly added though. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continue GA status: The article defined the term in a very concise and accurate manner. Speaking of facts, the U.S. is the only superpower in the world as of current. China and India are potential superpowers as they don't hold enough influence over the world. Russia and EU are other candidates but they are in decline. The article describes these facts accurately. I don't see any serious concerns with the article, and I think the tags at the top should be removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is this definition? There is no introductory sentence or explanation on what makes something a superpower or for that matter a potential superpower. It just jumps straight into a section on China. Like I said this is more presented as a list than an article. Even as a list it does not do a very good job of defining what can and cannot be included. The above comment emphasises the original research problems, where editors are using their own judgement to decide what is a superpower, a potential superpower or no longer a superpower. The retain !votes are moot at this stage anyway as the article has citation needed tags and clearly fails WP:LEAD. Aircorn (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I haven't examined closely the individual country entries, but this article certainly fails 3a in that there is no discussion about what a potential superpower actually is. The very bare touching upon this topic in the lead was further soured by the first link I checked (Leika Kihara) having little to do with the sentence it supposedly supports. On criteria 4, I suspect the for and against article framing is also not a great way to structure each entry. CMD (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform Resource Identifier[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A GAR request was asked for by Sun8908. There have been two prominent tags at the top of the article since November 2020 that need resolving. Given past issues with technical articles I am not going to comment on that aspect apart from to say that I find it very hard to follow this article (although that is true for most articles of this type). There are some areas where the prose can be tightened up (the refinement section is mostly proseline) and sourcing seems inadequate in other areas and relies too much on Request for Comments when it is used. There are external links embedded in the body and outside the lead no description of what URI actually is. Going through the community process due to past experiences with these types of articles. Aircorn (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is also a Harv error in the references section that needs attention. Keith D (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think this one is a failure of WP:TECHNICAL personally, for a topic that should be more accessible to a general audience. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a long time since I have been with RDF and OWL, most of which is done automatically now. The Lead is confusing to the general reader. Linking to FOAF in the lead is irrelevant. The language used in Conception and Refinement are relevant to W3C, the web consortium. If you are not familiar with IETF and the like, there can be quite the obfuscation taking place. There is a correction here, referring to the Semantic web, which is that (body) (instrument/code) that gives you and me a Uniform Resource Identifier. What will become of this, is unfolding as we write. There have been developments leaving Dublin Core in the dustbin of history right through to post Google adsense identifiers.
  • This article is simple enough for those used to working with the W3C and its frameworks, validation, resolving URI references and the like. XML namespaces do deserve an inclusion here, and its a wonder Open Graph Tags haven't been included.
  • Delist, too technical for the average reader. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trinny Woodall[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted, active cleanup tags (t · c) buidhe 20:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now substantially different to when it was promoted in 2007 (diff as of 30 November 2007). I've culled a lot of promotional content, but we still have lack of sourcing in the article, as well as some citation needed and failed verification tags. It seems pertinent to have the community reassess the Good Article status of this article. MIDI (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started this reassessment proposal not because I have any ill will towards the article as is, but because it has been 13 years since it passed its GA nom and thought it prudent for the community to reassess its state. My rationale for reassessment is as follows:

  • It lacks enough depth discussing the highly publicized role it had in Franco's government, especially its war crimes and unique legal procedures [1] [2]
  • The history section is quite short.
  • The criticism section reads more like a "he-said/she-said" (MOS:WEASEL). While I can understand how this balance of statements would help preserve neutrality, I personally feel that dividing the criticism sections into supporters and opponents rather than topic-by-topic means that the reader will not be able to gain a coherent understanding of the controversies surrounding Opus. By this I mean that the current section just floods the reader with various opinions and perspectives, meaning there is an overall sense of conflict but no actual understanding. For example, if the section was divided into:
    • Secrecy
    • Membership rules
    • Recruitment practices
    • Sexual abuse
    • Collaboration with dictatorships
    • etc.
it would be much better.
  • The members proposed for beatification part does not feel very relevant to the main article. I believe it should be linked within the history or spirituality sections.
  • Not going to lie I think the organization of the article makes for immensely dense reading.
  • The relations with catholic leaders should be in my opinion part of the history section. See point above.

Please do reply with your thoughts on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Controversy sections are not a great idea at the best of times: when they are of the form "Criticism - Rebuttal" they are particularly unhelpful at achieving NPOV.
  • WP:NPOV is, in my opinion, one of the most misunderstood of Wikipedia policies. I have said this here many times before: NPOV is not primarily achieved via a contest between pro- and anti- viewpoints, it is primarily achieved by writing and structuring the entire article from a neutral perspective.
While I dont necessarily agree with the first comment, I think their points are important to consider in this discussion.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another important point I forgot to mention is the COI of major contributors to the article, especially Marax (15% authorship, second biggest), Lafem (7.2% authorship, 3rd biggest), Walter Ching (5.5% authorship, 4th biggest), Arturo Cruz (3.3% authorship, 6th biggest), StatutesMan (2.7%, 9th biggest), and so on. Just these examples alone (definitely not all the COI or possible WP:Sockpuppet edits) account for over a third of all authorship to the article.
In regards to account just for text-added percentage, Thomas S. Major, IP 1, IP 2 plus the users mentioned above account for 62.3% of added text.
This is positively insane. I have never seen such a massive COI situation. I honestly don't even know what to do. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I feel your frustration A.C. Santacruz... If I may paraphrase my thoughts when I first looked into the situation “F*cking hell thats a lot of COI.” Like you my conclusion is I honestly don't even know what to do. I personally don’t have the time to rewrite this clusterf*ck of a page and I’m genuinely concerned that I may have inadvertently killed Lafem by taking them to task so taking the rest to task is not high on my to do list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These COI seem minor at worst, especially if the content is otherwise acceptable. From a GAR perspective, however, I agree the article is not really there as noted below. –Zfish118⋉talk 14:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfish118: A._C._Santacruz linked the wrong group, its actually Parents for Education Foundation so there is a very real and significant COI issue here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: I agree with most of the issues previously stated about the article, particularly that controversy section should be arranged by topic, rather than defenders and detractors. Without substantial revisions to this section, the article cannot stay listed as GAR. Procedure wise, I don't see any substantial edits between the article being delisted in December 2007, and being relisted four months later in March 2008. If nothing improved after delisting, relisting would have been inappropriate. However the December 2007 decision appears to have been closed early before a consensus was reach, making it easy to challenge and reinstate. Other issues of concern I see: the list of members proposed for beatification should be limited to those where a case was formally opened by relevant bishop, and the list should include the date the case was opened and by whom. Otherwise it should be renamed as notable members, as many have an article (whether those articles are appropriate, I have not assessed). A list of canonized and beatified members would be appropriate as well, as it is a Catholic organization. The "Relations with Catholic leaders" section reads like a list of endorsements, with little substance. The history section is also weak, and redundant to the above list of proposed beauti. One notable issue is the claim that members were responsible for "babynapping". Such a serious accusation needs multiple citations and better explanation of relevance. –Zfish118⋉talk 14:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pilapil, Vicente R. (1971). "Opus Dei in Spain". Royal Institute of International Affairs. doi:10.2307/40394504.
  2. ^ "On the trail of Spain's stolen children".

SpaceX Starship[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Withdrawn (t · c) buidhe 10:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a major contributor to the article, and recently I found out that a lot of the information is being synthesized by me by adding a ton of information from the last GA assessment. Maybe that's because I know quite a bit about Starship before writing the article and I try to force it in, or maybe it's the organic growth that cause synthesis to grow. Either way, I would love to have the article to be assessed thoroughly to find more problems and being fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Nevermind, I just did a source review and cut down on those. The article still looks suprisingly good, so I withdrawn my reassessment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Henry College[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delist (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008 GA with myriad issues. Too short lead, missing elements such as seal/logo image for infobox, wide chunks of unsourced content, and bare URLs. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delist – per nom. It's had that tag for seven years so that's honestly embarrassing. – zmbro (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist too much unsourced prose, and too much prose sourced to primary or non-RS sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - uncited text and outdated material, such as discussion about the moot court team's activities from almost 20 years ago. Hog Farm Talk 06:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I have reviewed the article carefully. I agree with the reasons previously mentioned in support of delisting the article in this thread. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo Galilei[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. 20 citation needed tags and no one has stepped up to work on the considerable issues identified. (t · c) buidhe 08:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As was noted this summer, this article has a fair amount of citation needed tags, unsourced paragraphs, and broken citations. I am also concerned about the writing quality given all the short stubby paragraphs in certain sections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of two emperors[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Request for review withdrawn, erroneously opened Dimitriye98 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very sparse with inline citations compared to other articles at the GA-level. In particular, the entire lead text has only a single inline citation, which relates only to the etymology of the term, with no inline citation of any of the facts stated in the lead text.

Beyond that, while most paragraphs and statements are cited properly to a single source, there is no citation of corroborating sources. Given the sheer quantity of sources cited, I have no doubt that the information is corroborated, however there is no indication of where it's corroborated.

The bigger problem at issue is the lead text though. Dimitriye98 (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimitriye98: What is the meaning of this? Why was this brought directly to GAR without any prior discussion anywhere (on the talk page perhaps)? If there was prior discussion, why was I as the main contributor and nominator for GA not notified?
The article is very sparse with inline citations compared to other articles at the GA-level is simply a lie - the only portion of the article that is unsourced is the last two sentences. There is no reason to include multiple citations for every statement when one citations does the trick and as for with no inline citation of any of the facts stated in the lead text, lead text does not have to be cited if supported by citations in the article body. There is nothing stated in the lead that is not supported by citations further down. See here and here for examples of GA articles with extensive lead sections but no references in them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm kinda new here, and not necessarily entirely familiar with the etiquette. This wasn't meant as a personal attack. I wandered into the article while working on another one, and saw a large section of what appeared to be completely uncited text and added the template. I only realized after that it was listed a good article. I thought I reverted adding the template after that, entirely my bad on that front. I also didn't realize GAR was a major step, I was under the impression it was more or less just opening the conversation on the issue. It was my impression that even Feature Articles lapse in and out of the status, e.g. Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Dimitriye98 (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimitriye98: Yeah, alright. I did not realize you were new and I am sorry for being overly confrontational - I just woke up to see that one of my GA:s had been tagged as being insufficiently sourced. Articles do drift in and out of GA and FA status but my impression is that in most cases, issues can be resolved by bringing them up on the talk page. I've never had anything gone to GAR before but it seems to me that this happens when it's large scale issues such as obvious errors littered throughout or large unsourced sections in the article body. The version of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that got demoted from FA status for instance had unsourced sentences and paragraphs in virtually every section, with some sections lacking references completely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ichthyovenator: Sorry about all that. I don't quite know if I'm allowed to close this, since it says uninvolved editors, but on the basis of WP:SNOW I'm gonna do so, and hopefully I won't get in trouble for that. I do still feel it'd be better to have the lead section cited, as in many articles (case in point the current version of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth), but that's something I was planning on addressing myself anyway once my finals are done. Dimitriye98 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimitriye98: Yeah it's fine - I was just very surprised. You're free to work on adding citations to the lead section if you want to - the relevant references in that case should be found without much trouble further down in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanic ash[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Keep (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over half the article is a long and very detailed discussion of the impact of volcanic ash on human communities, with almost no supporting inline citations (criteria 2b and 3b). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent G. Budge (talk • contribs)

Let me elaborate a little. The serious deficiency in inline citations in the Impact section means this article clearly no longer meets the GA criteria. However, as with any good article reassessment, the best possible outcome is that the deficiencies are addressed well enough to avoid delisting. I plan to invest some time over the next few days in finding the necessary supporting cites and heavily copyediting this section. I appreciate any assistance from other editors doing so. Listing this for a community review is a way to ensure that a section so heavily reworked is, in fact, restored to meeting GA criteria as judged by independent reviewers at the end of the process.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finished a first pass on citations. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. Uncited content is not acceptable in a GA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, issue appears to have been resolved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kent has done a fantastic job in cleaning up the article and adding citations! I think it has now been easily restored to GA status. Thanks so much for your efforts, Kent! — hike395 (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_66&oldid=1081700545"