Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 77

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 76) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 78) →

2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails criterion 2c: The article is overwhelmingly sourced by primary sources, which is an original research issue per WP:PRIMARY.
  • Fails criterion 3a: The article provides little coverage outside of news-style reporting of the actions involved. No meaningful analysis or study is covered.
  • Fails criterion 3b: The little content outside of that is a list of tangentially related events that go out of scope Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re 2c: Your interpretation of 'primary sources' is kind of a stretch here - Everything is properly sourced to reputable news sources, the majority of which could not be considered "breaking news" as it wasn't even published on day of the attack.
re 3a, 3b: Not to be rude, but you're making up criteria here. 3a states that "it [the article] addresses the main aspects of the topic" (which it does), and 3b "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", kind of the opposite of what you're implying here. Rami R 11:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien, have you seen the above from Rami R? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have. I felt that no response was warranted to the claim that new information cannot be primary after something had been ongoing for more than 24 hours. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • News sources are secondary sources. So primary sources is not really the correct complaint here. Are there any secondary sources you think should be consulted? I did a Google search + Google Books search, and saw almost entirely 2008 articles coming back from Google, and nothing substantive on GBooks (references the attack happened, mostly, not in-depth dives). It's not great to be mostly sourced to at-the-time coverage, but if that's all that exists, then that's all we have. (But if something else can be found...) SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRIMARY: For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
    • WP:RSBREAKING: When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution
    Also, if all of the sources are from 2008, then this isn't a GAR issue, it's an AfD issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not temporary. This topic would obviously be kept at AFD, so I wouldn't suggest bothering. The matter reached the attention of both the PM of Israel at the time and the Attorney General, who had to respond to it.
    • Checking... that line in NOR was added just a few months ago. Granted, it's been at the RS guideline for longer, but I'm not sure it's ever come up much there. Regardless, suffice to say that this is just a case of a policy being poorly phrased IMO. It's not worth quibbling on this too much, since I agree that heavy sourcing to contemporary news reports is not ideal, but IMO calling them "primary" sources dulls the meaning of just what a "primary" source is. Primary sources would be, like, interviews with people at the incident or the like. Breaking news stories might be inaccurate and outdated, but that doesn't make them primary, in the same way that a published book by an independent amateur on a topic who makes factual errors might be unreliable, yet still secondary.
    • Back to the merits: So are you saying by the AFD comment that you agree no better sources exist than what's currently used? The best outcome is just to find the better source and save the article, after all. I checked the Hebrew WP article and it seems its sources are from 2008 as well (although, to be clear, not all breaking-breaking news, i.e. stuff from the day after, but rather the weeks after). It's possible there's a better source in some unknown Hebrew work, but it might be worth verifying whether such source exists. SnowFire (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Han van Meegeren[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've never done anything related to a good article reassessment before, but I'm interested in crime, so I'll give it my best shot to bring it up to snuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PARAKANYAA, do you intend to continue working on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Yes I do, and will get back to working on it now. I acquired some of the book sources and am looking through them. I'm unsure if I can get it good enough to maintain its status but I will try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey PARAKANYAA, are you planning on returning still? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Yeah I don't think I can save this. I could probably fix the citation needed issues with enough time but after reading some of these books there are more severe structural/content issues with this article that I can't fix in any reasonable amount of time. Should probably be closed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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

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

I think this article has the same problem as the parent dinosaur article - everything from 1980 onward is given such a brief and rushed treatment that it does the subject matter zero justice. But, more fundamentally, where should and shouldn't this article overlap with paleoart? It's really many of the same key players and events with both. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it proves to be especially important to cover cultural depictions of dinosaurs in the 1980s onward considering that they've gained increased relevance and interest amongst public audiences, and it looks as if such high interest is here to stay for the time being. I think this article can stand if it extensively discusses dinosaurs in literature (writing, fictional media, public engagement with science, etc.), but this article currently does that very poorly which proves highly problematic. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the current state of the article, if it receives no interest for GAR by other editors by the 10th of April and there is no opposition, I will mark it off as a Delist for GA for major unaddressed issues of the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sue v Hill[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Multiple sequence alignment[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A request to make the lead image smaller from GA1 doesn't seem to have happened. It is still too big for MOS:IMGSIZE. As well as the unsourced sections and inappropriate extlinks there is a lot of material that appears to be primary-sourced and promotionally worded about individual research projects or implementations, rather than being based on published works by disinterested parties surveying and reviewing the methods that are available, I think maybe problematic with respect to WP:GACR#3b (going into excessive detail). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make time to go over this article this weekend, and I'd appreciate the reassessment remaining open for just a few extra days. Thanks ― Synpath 04:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and removed external links in the body of the article and adjusted the lead, but that only amounts to cosmetic changes to the article. I can see now that handling the citations and removing the conversational tone of the article is more editing than I'm willing to spend time on. Thanks for keeping the discussion open. ― Synpath 06:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Astronomical Observatory (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm Talk 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Kansas City Chiefs[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Issues unaddressed, delisting. Hog Farm Talk 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Traditions of the Georgia Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey, there. Igordebraga (talk · contribs) and I are fixing up the citation errors (including the dead ones) and maintenance tags where needed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect thank you! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed tags have now been addressed and the legacy section has been rewritten. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Some sources I'm also unsure on the reliability of, such as " classicgaming.com" (not listed at WP:VG/S). There's also a not verified in body tag in the lead (which was previously a citation needed tag from 2023 before being replaced mere minutes ago).
  • The entire Master Collection version section is unsourced.
  • Some unsourced statements that aren't marked as such right now, but are still unsourced.
  • I don't think the "Related media" section has very encyclopedic writing.
  • Reception could easily be expanded upon for a game that was so influential and got as many reviews as it did. It doesn't necessarily explain very much of why critics liked the game, and rather just focuses on the headlines. An example is below.
  • Just extremely weird writing throughout that I can't see being very beneficial to a general reader. For example, "Next Generation reviewed the PlayStation version of the game, rating it five stars out of five, and stated that "rest assured that this is a game no player should miss and the best reason yet to own a PlayStation." is its own line. λ NegativeMP1 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just look at the reception and found how bad it's layout for example, the legacy section could be it own section similar to Banjo-Kazooie, and some of paragraph in the reception could easily be merged with other and be expanded in which I agreed with you so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some comments from a cursory review that may be of value:
    • The lead section for the Gameplay could benefit from a more general description that it is an action-stealth game and generally what this encompasses, given this is a genre-defining game.
    • There's an overuse of leading sections and paragraphs in passive voice (Despite, Except) etc.
    • The reception section really needs a thematic rewrite as per the WP:VG/MOS. Listing the praise from every review source, one by one, is not really best practice or organised to read.
    • The 'Windows version' section is crufty. The reception should be integrated with the main section, and given there isn't much sourcing for it, it does not stand to reason to provide technical details on the nuanced differences. The executable files are not really worth discussing! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. There's also a problem with WP:LEAD. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 13:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Jos Buttler[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have notified everyone who participated in either the GA promotion and/or first GA re-assessment in 2018, as well as WP:CRIC, and mentioned this on Talk:Jos Buttler where I raised some of these concerns earlier this year. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - article is nowhere close to GA status on a number of criteria. I did some work on it in 2017 but it was hard going and it's much, much worse now. Huge amounts of over detail, far too many subsections, many of which are unnecessary and entirely unsourced - it would be easy to do so, but there's just far too much detail. The lead and domestic section are fine and the playing style bit is probably OK as well. They'd make the basis of a decent article - with a bit of an update in the domestic bit. But the rest is a pretty epic fail as Joseph says above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Keeping any article of a current player of such prominence to GA/FA standard is virtually impossible. Currently, it falls a long way short of the standard required, having been hijacked by IP's and editors of poor competence. AA (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Riya Sen[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is also generally not well written.

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

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.

Arrested Development[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delist. Fails criterion 5b "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Not in the worst shape though; it could probably be kept as a GA with the right attention. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the plot summary. A lot of the article is frozen in time. Production is about the production of seasons 1-3 with one paragraph tacked on to the end just mentioning that seasons 4 and 5 exist. Characters and reception don't acknowledge that they exist at all. Right now the article looks like it was written in 2012 and then a few season 4/5 details were added on after the fact, which is exactly what happened. If I were reviewing the article at GAN, I would also take issue with the "controversies" section, giving undue coverage to certain events during production solely because they are controversies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OlifanofmrTennant do you intend to continue addressing the issues? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to but my focus has shifted to my ongoing GA. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Centennial Light[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • The problems appear fixable. I'll take a stab at it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the lead and chipped away at the missing citations. Also added a new section based on more recent sources that weren't available at the time of original promotion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Remaining cn tags dealt with. This should be kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Fortress of Klis[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Z1720 it looks like most of this "Importance" section is uncited because it was in the lead section, as it had been added in edits like [1] or [2] decades ago, but was then broken out in this unexplained edit in 2013, by an account that was later indefinitely blocked for other abuse (I found this using the "Who Wrote That?" extension). Maybe the logic of that needs to be reassessed first. --Joy (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've re-integrated the old lede into the lede and edited it mildly for concision. The nomination does not appear to be correct that a "significant amount of the article is uncited" - can you clarify where exactly these uncited parts are, if you're standing by that?
  • While I'm not sure if it's GAR-worthy, the prose is not particularly tight, and it seems to have some Croatian nationalist vibes in parts (which I'm sure is in the sources, but it doesn't mean that has to be transmitted here - I removed a "Turkish menace" for example). I'd argue that would be a more productive area to examine and spruce up in this. SnowFire (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I noticed as well was the quality of the supporting materials - I swapped out the top image immediately. The laundry list of historical years in the infobox also doesn't strike me as well documented or a good use of screen-estate. --Joy (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed now that @Edgars2007 noticed this in 2015 (!). I've moved it around a bit, is this better? --Joy (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to SnowFire's recent edit, I had a look at one of the main sources, the municipality's history page:
  • Listeš, Srećko. "Povijest Klisa". klis.hr (in Croatian). Službene stranice Općine Klis. Archived from the original on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2010-05-16.
This archive link implies that the text was taken from a 1998 book called Klis: prošlost, toponimi, govor published by an NGO called Croatian society Trpimir Klis. It would be better to get this referenced to the actual work, which seems to be ISBN 953-96751-3-8, with page numbers.
At the same time, the current website's history link goes to this:
--Joy (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would request that this GAR not be closed too aggressively - I do think that this article could use a tune-up, even if not for the reasons the nominator cited, but it will probably take more time. SnowFire (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't had the time to come back to this like I'd hoped. I think this article has the bones of being in great shape and only needs some minor work to get back to GA quality - just some rereading of the sources and rephrasing, mostly. @Joy:, would you have time to take a go at this? If not, I suppose I'd be fine with a reluctant delist-by-default. SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Bristol Harbour[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Thom Darden[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do see some expansion was done so I'll make some time and look to see if it was sufficient. Wizardman 22:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a look Wizardman? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now so I guess it'll suffice. Wizardman 13:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to close this?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to do closures so I'll let Airship handle it. Wizardman 20:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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

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

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

Mohanlal[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Slender Man[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Restructured. As for the media section, how does one decide which inclusion is worthy? Serendipodous 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements to the article structure.
Regarding the media section, it's an essay, but WP:IPCEXAMPLES is a good guide on this stuff, and basically says that the work should be significant, the mention should be significant, and that the mention should have been noted by reliable sources. ~ A412 talk! 20:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concretely going through a couple examples from the article, if that helps:
  • Minecraft Endermen: This one is probably fine, as a significant element of a popular game, but ideally we'd have better sourcing than igxpro.com, which appears to be a blog reposting social media speculation. [3] [4]
  • Lost Girl: This one is fine, seems to be a major element of a popular television episode, sourced to RS.
  • "Sympathy for Slender Man": This one's very shaky. A filler short; the cited source doesn't actually say anything other that hosting the short.
  • My Little Pony: This isn't a significant mention. As the text indicates, it is a "brief cameo". ~ A412 talk! 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • +Article doesn't even have reception section; which is important for every fictional character articles. Same issue with Michael Myers. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is extremely outdated. At least four academic works (Chess and Shira, Peck, Asimov, Slender Man is Coming) dedicated to Slender Man exist, none of whose content are adequately covered in the article. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 00:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links? Serendipodous 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Then the references in media title should be renamed as "In popular culture". Also, that section shouldn't be written like that. Article a little bit outdated as it seems? and there are still unsourced claim. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What unsourced claims? And outdated in what way? Also, while your sources do make the connection between slenderman and enderman, igxpro is the only one that explains how the connection was made. Serendipodous 23:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have rewritten it. Looks good now. There are still some cn tags at development section and it might need a bit expansion I think; the quote in history sec seems to be a bit messy? Also, try removing citations on the lead and cite it in the body. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just felt like some were not covered yet (like what Voltrex said) for such a popular character like this, but for now, my concerns were from the history section that I replied to above. I'll leave it to Vortex since he is more familiar with this than I am as a video game character editor. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412, Serendipodous, Greenish Pickle!, and Vortex3427: are the issues resolved to your satisfaction? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issues I raised (bloated, poorly sourced "References in media" / IPC section), and section organization, are resolved to my satisfaction. I don't know about the outdatedness concerns. ~ A412 talk! 23:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the folklore qualities should be renamed "reception"? and then moved it into the last section. I also feel like it should be expanded more with scholar sources. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were going to call it reception I would have to split it, since it isn't all about reception. And reception by whom? The parents of Waukesha, Wisconsin? I also think it is where it needs to be, because the idea that it's folklore should be above the fact that it is not public domain. As for more sources, well, there's a book apparently. Almost everyone in said book is already cited in the article, but if you want it, I suppose I could buy it. I'm not exactly rolling in cash, does anyone want to go halvsies on it? Serendipodous 13:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Hmm. Then the remaining issues for you would be to fix the refencing issues and add authors like ref 66 and ref 67 then replace the ref 71 into better one. After that I don't have problem with article keeping its GA status. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Serendipodous 11:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

London, Ontario[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. The Sydney Morning Herald 07:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Clementine cake[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • During the process of creating and expanding the article, I pretty much used up all of the reliable sources that were available online at that time (e.g. from Google Books, Google News, Highbeam, etc.) Personally, I don't view the article or its sections as short or "tiny". For a cake article, it is very comprehensive as well as informative, relative to the actual sources available for the topic. Regarding the In popular culture (IPC) section, extensive listings are actually discouraged. There's even a template for overly long IPC sections in articles: {{In popular culture}}. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. North America1000 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (Article creator)[reply]
  • I think over the years -- and especially during the recent AfD, when there were multiple edits including additions from now-available sources -- the narrative flow has suffered. And the images could be improved. But the coverage isn't incomplete, it's all cited and verifiable, other than the recent AfD and those edits it's stable, it's neutral. Agree with NA1000 that we don't actually want any pop culture section to be longer than is strictly needed. And that applies to the article in general -- broad coverage doesn't require a certain length. I'm not sure this is a fail, it's just a GA that needs to tending to. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've improved the images and narrative flow. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Kaunas Fortress[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs major work to meet the broadness criteria:

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

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

California Southern Railroad[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 promotion was last reassessed in 2009 and is so old the initial promotion was literally just "I trust the printed sources are sound" [5]. Substantial passages are uncited and the article's prose is not really up to modern standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Citroën C3 Picasso[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: All users involved have declined to improve the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is an advertisement. Much of the article focuses excessively on the trim levels and violates WP:NOPRICES. Lead is five paragraphs, and some parts do not summarise the article. Also, some of these references do not seem reliable.  750h+ | Talk  13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the vehicle is encyclopaedic then so are the differences - the trims in this case. I have no opposition to the prices being taken out, and included them only as they seemed valuable at the time for historical information. They certainly weren't added for sales, since the vehicle was discontinued long long ago. The original GAA had no issues with any of this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that content wasn't in the article at the time of the original GAA - here's the diff between then and now. I'm not expressing a view on that content btw, just pointing out it wasn't part of that GAA review. WaggersTALK 11:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prices were clearly in the article at the time it was passed as a GA without any issue, and that's present in the link above. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, Jenova, please go ahead and remove the prices. I would also recommend removing the "Full model line-up and engine availability" table since that's literally just an advertisement in itself, ensure the lede summarises the article (some parts of the lede are not in the article itself), replacing references of questionable quality with those of good quality. By the way, when this article was promoted, it fell well short of GA standards. Given the tightening regulations, the articles should maintain a high level of quality. Best,  750h+ | Talk  05:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to edit it as you see fit. I'm semi retired, and not here to obstruct - rather i'm here to see what the result of the assessment is. Giving detailed or technical information isn't the same as an advert, or everything would be considered an advert - and the vehicle hasn't existed for sale since 2017, so that just strikes me as an odd line to take. I gave historical information that was available to state what variants Citroen offered worldwide - a common practice with vehicle articles, and a thorough attempt to stop the article from becoming centric to just the US - which is prevalent throughout all of Wikipedia. The article isn't different from any other vehicle article. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenova20, I'm sorry but this burden isn't on me. Unless you or another editor would like to help bring this back to GA status, this will see a delist. I understand your point about trying to make this article comprehensive, but if a buyer would like to buy one, they would go to a catalogue territory--which no offence, but is what some of this article looks like. Eg this Code Red/Code White was released in January 2012. The limited edition C3 Picasso Code Red and Code White replaced the Blackcherry in the UK. The Code has the same engine as the Blackcherry and has been finely tuned for a marginally increased fuel economy and lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It features obsidian black bumpers and 17-inch (43 cm) Polar White or Cherry Red "clover" alloy wheels, and can be equipped with extra features, which include roof bars, curtain airbags, cruise control and a speed limiter. Body colours exclusive to the trim are Belle Ile Blue, Shark Grey and Cherry Red. sounds like an advertisement to me. Pinging @WP:GAR coordinators: to see their opinion.  750h+ | Talk  12:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I have seen this ping. I will need to get back to you once I've had a chance to look over the article fully (hopefully tomorrow). There is also the caveat that I am not carsandotherthings but I'll try my best. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing immediately stands out to me as advertising as I know it, could you pick out examples of passages you believe are advertising? I'm not familiar with trims as a concept (in the train corner of the encyclopedia I deal with people obsessing over locomotive paint schemes in unencyclopedic manner all the time, not sure if that's an equivalent or not) but far as I can see everything there is cited appropriately, so it's a question of is the content appropriate for inclusion. I could definitely see an argument for trimming (pun not intended) the text in that section particularly for trims where it appears only minor changes were made. Clever reorganization could likely convey the same basic information in fewer sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTPRICE.  750h+ | Talk  03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking the time to engage with your concerns. I asked you for examples, and all you do is link some policy pages. Please meet me halfway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I will supply some instances alongside other things I found wrong.
Examples:
  • "C3 Picasso went on sale in France in February 2009 for €14,950"
  • "The LX was the most basic and least expensive model, with a 71 kW; 96 PS (95 bhp) VTi engine, priced at €12,590, while the Exclusive model was most expensive with a 82 kW; 110 PS (110 bhp) HDi Airdream engine at €18,650. The C3 Picasso was launched in the United Kingdom on 9 April 2009, where it went on sale for £11,495 for the 1.4-litre VTi, the most basic model with 6.4 L/100 km; 37 mpg‑US (44 mpg‑imp), while the most expensive was the 'Exclusive' with a 1.6-litre HDi engine and 4.6 L/100 km; 52 mpg‑US (62 mpg‑imp) at £15,595."
  • "As bonus, it came equipped with £1,000 of extras and was released..."
  • "..comes with a free white Samsung Galaxy Tab 16 GB.."
  • "...the least expensive being the Attraction with a 95 bhp (71 kW; 96 PS) VTi engine at €12,250 and the most expensive being the Exclusive with a 115 bhp (86 kW; 117 PS) HDi engine at €18,475."
  • "In September 2010, Citroën do Brasil launched the Citroën C3 Aircross in Brazil and Argentina. The car is a C3 Picasso-based mini SUV with styling differences including: raised suspension, chrome roof bars and mirror covers, side skirts, and a rear spare tyre." isn't sourced
Prose is fine in my opinion. Self-published sourcing, I believe, is okay every once in a while. But this article excessively uses it, as well as some unreliable sources.  750h+ | Talk  10:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's blatant advertising, but I can see where the impression comes from. The prose could be shaped up, especially with regards to writing the WP:LEAD as a summary. CMD (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not blatant, a lot of the content just feels more catalog-ish than encyclopedic, I think.  750h+ | Talk  06:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment but didn't reply because i thought it was ridiculously arrogant and hostile for a public forum. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenova, I then apologise if I've used an aggressive tone and will try to keep it mild for the rest of this conversation. I'm not actually trying to sound arrogant or hostile, but if is to you, then I will milden my tone.  750h+ | Talk  10:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that doesn't seem to have aged well at all. I don't think it's worth mentioning that it came with a free tablet for example. Not sure how that was ever worth mentioning. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
750h+, do you intend to remove the material you find objectionable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about this. I'm not the main editor of this page and I'm not particularly interested in this car either, so probably not, but maybe in the far future. I'd be willing to stay and watch the page's issues get rectified though. 750h+ 15:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Patrick Omameh[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger is citing the status of this article as a GA to justify submitting subpar GANs like Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1 and Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA1. However, it's clearly not at GA status today. It was perhaps a defensible promotion back in 2013, before Omameh's football had progressed. But it's far short of the GAC in 2024. His professional career is inadequately summarised in choppy prose – tiny sections detail little more than the dates he signed for and left his various teams. – Teratix ₵ 02:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the moment, the article violates MOS:OVERSECTION; that is easily fixed, but a quick couple of searches on newspapers.com and Google shows that there has been large amounts of coverage on Omameh's professional career, especially in its early years, which the article eschews in favour of endless statistics and all-star team inclusions. Thus, the article does not meet GA criterion 3a) as it stands. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teratix do you feel that the issues are resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the basic problems with paragraph structure and comprehensiveness remain unfixed. The article really speaks for itself on this account. – Teratix ₵ 05:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the issue was deficient content. I'll revisit this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Structure has been fixed. As noted above, there is not any significant content missing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you did was mash the tiny one-line sections into one big chunk. That doesn't actually fix anything. I mean, come on, you look at a section like:
Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.
You honestly think "structure has been fixed"? You honestly think "there is not any significant content missing"? You honestly think that's a well-written summary of Omameh's career that adequately addresses its main aspects? – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Teratix, what I am hearing is the encyclopedic content that you (me) have summarized is very heavy on roster transactions and little else, but there surely must be other interesting stuff. Otherwise, this can't be a GA. Please be advised that my role is to summarize encyclopedic content from secondary sources. There are some people who are not in the public eye for their entire lives and thus only portions of their life will be fleshed out in a WP biography. Others may be in the public eye with limited exposure for parts of their lives. It is my current understanding that Omameh is no longer the feature of original secondary source research beyond transaction detail and rehashing his WP bio. I am not aware of new stories regarding his biographical summary. I am well aware that this biography trails off in terms of biographical intrigue. Unless, you can explain to me that I am overlooking biological topics of intrigue, the fact that what I am presenting is boring transaction stuff, is not really a big strike against comprehensiveness. WP is a tertiary source and is only responsible for summarizing encyclopedic content of reliable secondary sources. A comprehensive summary of boring sources is still comprehensive. Telling me what I present is boring content of limited depth is not a mark against comprehensiveness unless there exist secondary sources that contain encyclopedic content that I am not summarizing. I do not believe oversight to be the case.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are five substantive sources on Omameh that are completely unused in the article.[1][2][3][4][5] They were all on the first page of a basic Newsbank search.

References

  1. ^ O'Halloran, Ryan (4 June 2017). "Omameh plays better than he practices". The Florida TImes-Union.
  2. ^ Johnson, Luke (15 May 2020). "Patrick Omameh is happy to find some continuity by re-signing with the Saints". The Times-Picuyane.
  3. ^ Lombardo, Matt (20 October 2018). "Giants to bench Patrick Omameh, start Spencer Pulley at center". The Star-Ledger.
  4. ^ Dunleavy, Ryan (10 November 2018). "Giants cut free agent bust Patrick Omameh". The Star-Ledger.
  5. ^ Just, Amie (26 November 2019). "Saints' OL Patrick Omameh 'prepared for anything' as he's the latest to fill in after injuries". The New Orleans Advocate.
Note these are intended as representative examples to demonstrate how much this article is missing, not to be exhaustive. You could include all five and that wouldn't fix the problem. So yes, you are overlooking significant secondary sources.
But I shouldn't even have to pick these out. It should be blindingly obvious, when two full years of Omameh's career is mechanically summarised as:
Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.
...that the article is evidently missing coverage. – Teratix ₵ 06:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that at 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC), I pinged Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Patrick_Omameh/1-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a ton that could be added about those portions of his career, although Tony, you probably could add things in between like, e.g. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He appeared in six games for the team before being waived on December 14, 2020. (See PFR). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph is also very poorly written (even relative to the rest of the article) and fails GA criterion 1a). I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. – while the years may not be necessary, the second part you mentioned is definitely necessary as it explains important details / transactions of his career (something all modern football player articles have), although it could be combined into less sentences. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tail end of the careers of pedestrian players is often a lot of choppy content like you see here. It is rare that anyone is ever asked to pay such close attention to the content of this portion of the biography for as mediocre of a player. It seems quite unnatural to me. There are many much more worthwhile expenditures of my editorial time. I am not above delving into the biographies of mediocre players. However, I consider it far more worthwhile to flesh out a redlink into a decent biographical picture than it is to spend time detailing precisely how mediocre a player is who already has a biography that gives a decent picture of that mediocrity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's perfectly alright to say "I don't care enough about these players to justify spending my time on fixing their articles. I'm going to spend my time on other things instead."
But taking this stance means accepting the possibility that these players' articles will degrade over time as their careers progress, that other editors will notice this and put the articles up for reassessment, and thus that if not enough is done, they will lose their GA status.
Ultimately, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There's no GAC exception saying "articles must be well-written and adequately address the main aspects, except if they're on mediocre NFL players". – Teratix ₵ 07:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teratix, you no doubt have shown that content is missing. The question is what is considered encyclopedic. I don't know what the football term is, but baseball statasticians (I have a Masters Degree in Statisitcs, BTW) use a term called replacement player. It is a generic term that star players are compared against in a statistic known as Wins Above Replacement. It is used to statistically assess how valuable a player is in comparison to the average player that would replace him if he could not play. What we see in Omameh is someone who is basically the embodiment of a replacement player, which is a bit of a digression. Certainly, if WP:V secondary sources that are WP:RS present content, it is our duty to summarize that content at some level. However, we must keep in mind WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which says "Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". We need to consider WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I view expanding upon mediocrity as a violation of WP:ROUTINE. I generally spend time seeking out content examples of excellence. Facts that document excellence are encyclopedic. A haystack of facts that are verifiable and sourced to document that which is run-of-the-mill is not what I use my time for. The vast majority of facts that I include in athlete biographies demonstrate things distinguishing a person from a replacement player. Documenting facts that further solidify a player's status as an embodiment of a replacement player seems ROUTINE and unencyclopedic to me. Furthermore, many athletes who are fairly pedestrian play positions in sports where they can have a great game that can be reported. Even a scrub basketball player who finally achieves double digit scoring in a game is an interesting element of content. However, for an offensive lineman there are not really any stats that if he has a decent day that we can present. If Omameh had a game where he played 50 snaps with any quarterback hurries, sacks, pass deflections, or penalties, it would be hard for me to write about it. Basically, if a guy is good enough to start in the NFL, we can give his article some facts. So for a lineman, we might end up with signings, releases and starts. Explaining his mediocrity is a waste of time, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teratix, I'm not seeing precisely what more is needed here? IMO, "adequately addresses the main aspects" does not mean "include every detail known to man" – the article doesn't look that bad to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Tony has expanded the article a bit having done some Newsbank searches of his own. This is good! For instance, the section on his 2016 season at the Jaguars:

Omameh signed with the Jacksonville Jaguars on June 2, 2016. Despite not looking that good to coach Doug Marrone in practices, Omameh made the roster over Mackenzy Bernadeau and others. When left guard Luke Joeckel had season-ending surgery in October, Omameh took his place. He was placed on injured reserve on November 21 after sustaining a left foot injury in Week 11 against the Detroit Lions. According to Ryan O'Halloran of The Florida Times-Union, despite his mediocre pass protection performance, in Omameh's six starts (453 snaps) at left guard, he performed superior to the other 4 people who started in 2016 at that position for the team.

now at least references some actual analysis of Omameh's performance. This is the standard I'm thinking of when considering whether a main aspect has at least been "adequately" addressed. Now if we can get the rest of the sections on his NFL career to at least this standard, the article would be well on the way to a retention. – Teratix ₵ 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding Newsbank, the Chicago Public Library has a different set of sources than whomever your Newsbank subscription is through. So our search results will overlap but differ. I have added one source that you listed above. We do not seem to have access to The Star-Ledger at this time, so I have found a source from the time frame of your TSL sources. You do not seem to be hearing me. Omameh is a biography that could be cluttered with WP:Run-of-the-mill content. I have shown with the edits since you listed sources to pursue that the content in those sources is Run-of-the-mill. As per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, & WP:ROUTINE, I will not clutter his article with further ROTM content. User:BeanieFan11 has opted observe this on behalf of WP:NFL. I consider the ROTM content that I added describing how mediocre he is to be unencyclopedic and do not want to add more ROTM content. We are at a point where "Find more stuff" is not acceptable. I think Beanie is impartial. Unless substantial facts that are known to you are missing, you need to explain why you wish to disregard WP:Run-of-the-mill, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, & WP:ROUTINE.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you don't understand what those essays mean. "Run-of-the-mill" is a concept that relates to notability – it's about whether a particular subject is different enough from the ordinary to deserve an article in the first place, not about what is covered within that article. "Routine" is another concept that relates to notability, not article content – it's about whether something like a wedding announcement, a criminal charge or an everyday sports match deserves its own article.
    Similarly, you don't understand what WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTEVERYTHING means. "Indiscriminate" is a concept that relates to things like articles that log every single software update for a particular app. An indiscriminate article on Omameh would be something like analysing every NFL match he ever appeared in. When I ask, e.g. that the article use the many secondary sources available to say a little more about his stint with the Saints than Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, that's not "INDISCRIMINATE".
    I've lost my patience here. I've been very clear about the article's obvious failures to adequately cover Omameh's NFL career and the ample secondary sources that haven't been incorporated, even to the point where I had to go out and explicitly pick out five examples for Tony. This GAR has been open for over a month now and there has been every opportunity for interested editors to get it back to a decent standard.
    Barring some substantive improvement, the article should be delisted for failing GAC (3a), adequately addressing main aspects. – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am done. Thanks for your time. Of course a GAR is not an individual effort so others may want to take up the slack.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have the relevant Wikiprojects been notified of this GAR?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The GAR automatically shows up in WikiProjects' article alerts and you notified WikiProject NFL yourself (not exactly in a neutral fashion, I might add). – Teratix ₵ 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      BeanieFan11, do you think this should be kept or delisted? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Leaning keep, but I want to take a further look later today. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I added a few extra details. I think its probably good enough to be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no comments on the overall broadness of the article, but the lead needs expansion to fully cover the (new?) body content (GACR1b), especially the College and Personal Life. I'd also suggest dividing the Professional Career section into a couple more paragraphs for readability, although this isn't something I'd hang a GAR on. CMD (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_77&oldid=1222064567"