Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 65

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 64)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 66) →

Amazon HQ2

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

Result: Kept No reason has been given as to how this fails as a Good Article. Cites in the lead are not prohibited, I can see no outstanding tags and nothing on the talk page to suggest it fails any WP:GACR. As there is no real interest from the community an individual reassessment may be the way to go forward if anyone has concerns specific to the criteria AIRcorn (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

When this article was given a GA review by Mgasparin back on 16 May 2019 and listed, the article's creator, SounderBruce, wrote have concerns with how fast and drive-by this review is, especially for a subject with quite a bit of political controversy surrounding it. Mgasparin stood by their review, but expressed willingness to consider a second opinion, at which point Trillfendi, who had nominated the article for GA earlier in May, added a GA nominee template asking for a second opinion, though the GA template was also left on the talk page. Unfortunately, the GA nominee template was badly malformed, so the nomination never appeared at WP:GAN.

What this article actually needs, since the review was not reopened at the time and the article has been listed as a GA for three and a half months, is a community reassessment. This allows everyone to comment on the article, including all three editors mentioned above, to assess whether it meets or fails to meet any of the GA criteria, and if it is lacking anywhere, for the article to be improved to the point that it meets the criteria, or to be delisted if sufficient improvement is not made.

I will notify the appropriate WikiProjects and finish cleaning up the article talk page. Best of luck to all concerned. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Its been 2.5 months and still no comments. Do you want to give your opinion on whether it meets the criteria and then I can treat it like an individual reassessment and close it? AIRcorn (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'd have asked the nom to push all those citations currently in the lead into the sections (or all that don't represent controversial info). I didn't check, but when I see that many citations in the lead, I strongly suspect much of that information isn't already in the body sections. They were there in the reviewed version; I would have asked for that as a first step before continuing review, myself. --valereee (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You Ain't Goin' Nowhere

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

Result: Kept Improvements have been made. AIRcorn (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• For one, the article is completely missing any information on the song's composition. What do the lyrics consist of? What key is it in? What is the chord pattern?

• The "Other covers" verison seems to be suffering from example creep, and other than maybe the solo Hillman/McGuinn and 4 + 2 versions, none of the covers seems to meet WP:COVERSONG.

Those are my main issues. Nominator left in 2014. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I closed this as delist, but Kohoutek1138 has expressed an interest in fixing the issues over the next week or so. As I see the main aim of this process is improving articles I am happy to open it again so they can work on it with the aim of meeting the WP:GACR. Good luck. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I think that Kohoutek1138's improvements have given the article more substance and addressed all my issues. @Aircorn: you mind taking a look too? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me too. I will close it as keep. AIRcorn (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Saint Dominic in Soriano

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

Result: Delist Article no longer meets the Good criteria AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It is evident to me that this article does not meet the good article criteria because very considerable amounts of it are unsourced. There are two "citation needed" tags, but there are many other things in the article which do not have citations. Here is one peculiar sentence: "The friary was rebuilt for a second time, but seems never to have regained its earlier reputation; it seems to disappear from the records." If the friary seemed to disappear from the records, how do we know that it was rebuilt? The whole sentence is, by the way, unsourced. There is a section entitled "Notes," which lists five separate items. None of these are sourced. The notes are also so clearly tainted with WP:Editorializing that they would need revision even if there were citations.

I am choosing community reassessment because I previously failed a good article nomination made by the same editor who nominated this article and do not want to be accused of not having enough objectivity to make the final decision myself. But I do think that it quite clearly fails part 2 of the GA criteria, which mandates that the articles be verifiable. Looking at the version that was reviewed, the article seems to have been in even worse shape then, so I'm not sure how it managed to get passed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, a claim in the "History section" about a particular narrative concerning the origins of the painting being "largely the one accepted by the Dominican Order today" is not supported by the source. Display name 99 (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've read the article and am concerned about multiple unsourced assertions and assertions that may appear to be OR; I've tagged them. IMO this article no longer qualifies as GA. --valereee (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Washington State Convention Center

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

Result: Kept No reason to delist has been given and another editor found no major issues AIRcorn (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This article was never properly reviewed having a flyby note by a new editor on their 12th edit who's not even sure who the nominator or reviewer is. Surprise this "flu" under the radar lol.--Moxy 🍁 23:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Irrespective of how the reviewer conducted the review, I'm not seeing any major issues here. I'll formally assess this against the GA criteria:

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• The history section is the longest section in the article (I'd estimate conservatively that it is about 60% of the entire article). However, a lot of GA's about architecture topics are like this, especially with a topic whose construction has been as drawn out as the WSCC, so it is focused. As for the other issues, I examined the article and am not seeing any egregious zingers, though maybe there are a few long paragraphs. epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment @SounderBruce: Saw you had some activity on the talk page, informing you of this if you did not see it. Kees08 (Talk) 20:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Bill Gates

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

Result: Kept Issues dealt with AIRcorn (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This article was listed as GA just over 10 years ago. However, since then we've got a few issues:

• Criticism section affecting neutrality
• Recognition section structured with bullet points and not prose
• External business ventures and investments structured with bullet points
• Personal life / personal donations sections with short paragraphs and doesn't flow very well
• In media section lavishly bullet pointed with little explanation/description. Wondering how relevant it is.
• Sources - there's a Facebook source (unreliable) and potentially other errors down there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzy150 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Update from me - I've been cleaning up the article myself so this should hopefully be recovered. Phew! Just Lizzy^(talk) 12:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey Lizzy150 are you happy that this is up to standard now? AIRcorn (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's safe to remove this reassessment. Article is in better shape and can be brought back to GA. Thanks. Just Lizzy^(talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Ireland

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

Result: Delist Consensus here to delist, with verifiability being a major issue AIRcorn (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This article was promoted in 2010 and has not been reviewed since. It is in better shape than Scotland when it was delisted earlier this year, but there are significant problems with the GA criteria. The biggest issue is verifiability: just look at the cleanup tags on the article and unsourced statements. Lesser concerns are that the lede does not meet MOS:LEDE, and the overreliance on official sources for things like the economy may be an issue with neutrality. I am willing to work on improving the article, but it's a monumental task and without a lot of work this article will not meet the GA criteria. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 08:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment:: I would have thought if the nominator showed some actual willingness to improve the article they would have done more than just one small citation fix, instead of doing what seems like drive-by tagging with a load of citation missing tags. It might have been a courtesy to discuss this with some of the most prolific editors before starting this request. Right now I have too many other things going on to devote time to this. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Ww2censor, if the article does not meet GA criteria it will have to be delisted. It does not matter who has edited it. GA reassessment can be done by non-involved editors. buidhe 00:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely delist in this condition. It's a long way from meeting criteria 2 for Wikipedia:Verifiability. The whole section on politics is almost entirely uncited! There are also major sourcing lapses under history and culture, and the economic history section has been tagged for a while.Homemade Pencils (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Penrose tiling

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

Result: Keep listed. User:Aircorn (the filer of the GAR) has indicated on their talk page that they won't be available. It appears that enough people showed up in the discussion to give independent opinions in support to allow this to meet the bar. I came here in response to a listing of the discussion at WP:AN/RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Recently the prose criteria was expanded [1] to include understandable to an appropriately broad audience (see Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Understandability criterion for discussion). Penrose tiling seems like a good case study to test the practicability of this on old Good Articles as it has had a tag specific to this on it since August 2019 and some discussion on the talk page regarding the technical aspects of the article. I have read it and did find much of it difficult to follow. I think it could probably be written much clearer (for example I don't know what the difference between a non-periodic tiling and a Penrose tiling is). The lead at least should be clearer. We have things like Thus, the tiling can be obtained through "inflation" (or "deflation") and every finite patch from the tiling occurs infinitely many times. and It is a quasicrystal: implemented as a physical structure a Penrose tiling will produce Bragg diffraction and its diffractogram reveals both the fivefold symmetry and the underlying long range order. The lead at least should provide a relatively easy entry into the topic. Personally, I don't mind having overly technical details in the body as long as there is enough basic information before we get to that level. I am opening this as a community GAR as to my knowledge it is the first GAR since the criteria was updated and could benefit from a deeper discussion. I have come across other articles with similar issues and would like to get a feel for what the community feels is the level of technical language that is acceptable here before I start any individual GARs. AIRcorn (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note Left a message on the users talk page who added the template and initiated the discussion, and discovered they have been recently indefed. AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. To me this reads like any piece of writing on mathematics for a popular audience, and not at all like the way mathematicians write professionally to each other. The nominator's concern such as "I don't know what the difference between a non-periodic tiling and a Penrose tiling is" is mystifying, both because it doesn't actually make sense (Penrose tilings are examples of non-periodic tilings, not different things from them) and because the exact phrasing "an example of non-periodic tiling" appears in the very first line of the article. If what you're looking for is a single sentence to put in the lead that by itself will let you tell what a Penrose tiling is, to someone who doesn't understand any mathematics, then you're not going to get one. See Euclid's reply to Ptolemy: there is no royal road to geometry. If what you're looking for is where in the article to go to find out what they actually are, the answer is (surprise!) the section titled "Penrose tilings", the first one after the background section. I'm sure there are improvements in understandability to be made to the article, and I have attempted to make a few, but to me the framing of this nomination is a very bad start towards that. In particular, the nominator does not seem to have paid any attention to the qualifier "appropriately broad" in the new rule, includes no evidence of considering who the audience might be and how educated they should be expected to be, and instead seems to think all mathematics articles should be "relatively easy" to all readers, a completely different criterion.

Mathematics articles are periodically targeted by naive editors who think that only elementary-school mathematics is an appropriate for an encyclopedia and that anything beyond that is too technical; when that happens, we can look to see whether any of the difficulty in readability is actually unnecessary, but let's not overreact. I went on at considerably greater length about exactly this issue in the discussion leading to the above-mentioned change to the GA rules, and was reassured that it would not be a problem, so I am dismayed to see that those reassurances were false and that it has indeed become a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't tag the article. My interest is purely clean up. We can't have an article orange tagged as something that the criteria implicitly states fails. Either the article is technically fine and we remove the tag and carry on as normal or it does have issues and needs to be fixed or delisted. I don't want to turn this into a back and forth between me and you, so I will just ask you to trust me that I don't care what the outcome is. Look through the archives here and you will see that I close 90% of these GARs, so it is important to me to know where the line is. Please try to approach it from that perspective than one of me being on a crusade to delist all mathematical articles. AIRcorn (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment this is certainly creating a lively discussion. For my feeling, we need to get back to the essential point which is that some editors have stated on the talkpage that the intro is too technical, which probably means that it is. The user who posted the template message is banned but has also made some cogent points on the talkpage. I feel that the template could be removed without fuss if the introduction was made a bit clearer. From my perspective as a lay reader, "shifted copy" is hard to parse, I really don't know what "shifted" means there. And it seems curious that in "aperiodic set of prototiles" "aperiodic set" links to Aperiodic set of prototiles and "prototiles" to prototile. Most of the intro does make sense, although again for me "persists over long distances" seems odd, since I'm taking distance in the literal sense. That's my feedback but I don't feel qualified to edit the intro. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • To me this comment reads like "oh dear, this looks like mathematics, and it took me longer than five minutes to understand the whole thing" level anti-intellectualism rather than an honest reading of the article. In many cases, in mathematics, it takes a little background (here, not very much) to understand material, but if we tried to expand out everything to first principles we'd be here all day, and it wouldn't actually be more accessible. (The classical example of this is Principia Mathematica taking hundreds of pages to prove that 1+1=2.) But in any case: "shifted", here, is intended as a less-technical way of writing "translated". Do you have a suggestion for an even-less-technical way of saying the same thing, in an appropriately concise way for a lead? And yes, distance is intended in the literal sense. Why wouldn't it be? What is odd about it? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • If you want to throw your mathematical dick around elsewhere then go ahead, I don't see why you need to be so condescending here. Everyone is trying to improve the page, but I guess you can't see the wood for the trees any longer. "Translated" is much better than shifted and it even links to another page for the curious! For distance, "persists over long distances compared to the tile sizes" just reads weirdly to me, I'd suggest changing it to something like "infinitely persists" or "persists" or even just take out the whole phrase.
  • One editor in the past year said on the talk page that the introduction is too technical, in a discussion that attracted only one other participant, who disagreed. I don't think much anything about the technicality of the article can be inferred from that. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I guess you interpreted the comment of Ael 2 differently to me then. Mujinga (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Now I'm confused. Ael 2 hasn't edited anything since 2016. I said "one editor in the past year" because most of the discussions on the Talk page are quite stale (going back to 2005, with only one section added in 2018 and one in 2019), and it's not apparent that the old discussions are at all applicable to the article as it stands now. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have serious issues with the lede, which is what most of the discussion seems to be about. It's possible that throwing words like "tiling" and "aperiodic" in early on will make a reader's brain switch off, but saying that about a reader who has looked up a mathematics topic seems rather condescending to me — and if we're willing to be that condescending, well, there's a pretty picture for them to look at right there, too. Nor are the non-techy explanations of these terms buried deep within the page; in fact, they're in the very first section. I can see ways that I might tweak the opening paragraph, but I'm not convinced that any of them would be a clear and dramatic improvement. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Addendum Having now made a first pass through the article, I haven't found any serious problems, just some minor cruft accumulation and some peculiarities of writing style that were easily fixed. Reassessing the GA status is probably a good thing to do, since that status was granted in 2009, but I have found no grounds to demote it. (Arguably, having a big banner about how technical the page might be is at least as intimidating as any of the words in the introduction.) Currently, the article is adequately comprehensive and contains no reputation-killing flaws. It would be accessible at the very least to people who read Martin Gardner and Eugenia Cheng books or watch videos by Vi Hart, Mathologer, PBS Infinite Series, etc. Could parts of it, particularly the introduction, be made more widely accessible? Perhaps. (One proposal: A Penrose tiling is a scheme for covering a flat plane with an arrangement of shapes that leaves no gaps and never repeats. In more precise terms, Penrose tilings are examples of non-periodic tilings generated by aperiodic sets of prototiles.) But that's a matter of making a good thing better. There exists a level of expertise such that this article is clear and helpful for readers at that level. Moreover, that level is reasonably consistent with the broadest population likely to need this article: it's not an article about a topic of pop-math interest that is only accessible to professional mathematicians. (Like, say, E₈ lattice is, IMO.) XOR'easter (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Re your proposal: I think at the least something like the current "an example of" needs to be earlier, in the "Penrose tiling is" sentence, unless what follows actually specifies the Penrose tiling and not something more general, to prevent exactly the confusion exhibited in the review nomination: if a Penrose tiling is (definition of aperiodic tiling), and the linked article on aperiodic tilings also says that an aperiodic tiling is (same definition), why do we have two different articles that tell us they're about the same thing? They're obviously not the same thing, but that needs to be made clear even to people who read only the first sentence. I'm skeptical that it's possible to specify the Penrose tiling in an accessible lead sentence, rather than merely stating that it's an example of something else, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong in that. (Also re your E₈ example: yes, that one actually does deserve the technical tag, because it's clear that it can be made better with even a little effort.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Ah, yes, I see your point. It does need some phrase like "an example of". Or, putting the bold part in plural, Penrose tilings are one type of.... Something like that. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Brainstorming something like this for the first paragraph: A Penrose tiling is an example of a scheme for covering a flat plane with an arrangement of shapes that leaves no gaps and never repeats. In more precise terms, Penrose tilings are examples of non-periodic tilings generated by aperiodic sets of prototiles. These tilings, a special case of the more general concept of non-periodic tilings, are named after mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose, who investigated them in the 1970s. I'm not convinced the current opening needs revision, but I don't think it hurts to contemplate how we might go about it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • My immediate reaction is: what do the words "a scheme for" and "an arrangement of" add to this? Those can be technical words (scheme more in algebraic geometry but arrangement is standard in low-dimensional geometry; see arrangement of lines); is the usage here intended to reflect their technical usage? But, stepping back, it would probably be helpful to get opinions from non-mathematicians on which wordings appear clearer to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Hmmm. Perhaps one might say a way to cover instead of a scheme for covering and a pattern of shapes instead of an arrangement of shapes ... the curse of writing about a subject where every ordinary word has a technical meaning, from category to pencil. But this whole exercise of crafting a "pop" sentence to precede the moderately technical one seems vaguely pointless without further input. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Update I think the recent changes to the intro have taken it in a good direction, and the "too technical" tag is even less appropriate now than before. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment My point of view on this is that the additional criteria links directly to WP:MTAU, a kind of best practices for making technical articles more accessible. The most important parts of that guideline are effectively, "write one level down" and "put accessible material at the beginning". I think the article satisfies the write one level down advice, especially with David's improvements. Aperiodic tilings and quasicrystal are subtle bits of mathematics and geometry; it is one reason that this stuff was not discovered and figured out until the 70's onward. The article already does a good job of putting accessible material first. We might consider putting the real-life applications earlier in the article, but that would also go against the tradition of putting impact in other areas toward the end of the article. I am involved in the editing, but my POV is that the article passes the additional GA criteria. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Is this review supposed to be as directionless as it appears to me? Normal first-time GA reviews have a reviewer who leads the process, assesses compliance with the GA rules, finds specific points in the article that need to be improved, and discusses with editors whether those issues have been properly addressed. Instead, in this review, the nominator opened it by telling us that the article needs a review because a sockpuppet tagged it, and then...nothing. Is the specific issue that needs to be addressed the removal of the tag? Who is expected to do that part, the editors, the sockpuppet, or the reviewer? Could we have headed off this whole effort just by removing the tag earlier, with the sockpuppet blocked and unable to edit-war to restore it? What conditions need to be met for the review to be over? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Aircorn: Hello? Is anyone there? In the absence of any guidance whatsover from you or any response to how this GA review is supposedly being run, I have boldly removed the tag myself. Did you have anything concrete that you wanted done with the article other than the removal of the tag? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  It is a community reassessment. Hopefully someone uninvolved will read through it and decide whether to keep or delist the article based on the comments left here. You can always request closure through the normal means. See point 7 on the community reassessment panel at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. The tag was incidental. Obviously it needs to be removed before the article can be deemed good, but the underlying issues either needed to be fixed or deemed acceptable as is. That is what this discussion will determine. AIRcorn (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment from I'm Aya Syameimaru!: This article would be easier to understand if the Simple English Wikipedia had an article about this subject. You can make the Simple English version a GA and it would assist a rewrite of this article. I'm Aya Syameimaru!I文々。新聞Iuserbako 21:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Delist from I'm Aya Syameimaru!: This article has been commented about but never improved upon. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 22:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein, Mark viking and I worked on it fairly intensely after this GA review was opened, in order to remove problems that had been introduced after its promotion to GA, make the introduction more approachable, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. A more accurate statement would be: this article has been significantly improved upon despite a near-total lack of anyone pointing out specific issues in need of improvement. Also, the presence or absence of other articles on other Wikipedias is completely irrelevant to the GA process. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Support from I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Okay, I changed my mind. This article has commented about, and also has been improved upon (even though no one pointed specific issues for improvement). A Simple English Wikipedia article never needs to assist a GA rewrite. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 23:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep listed I have re-read the article after taking a break from it for a few weeks, and I think it is in good shape. The problems that had accumulated since its listing as a GA have been solved. Further improvements are doubtless possible, but that's just saying that GA's aren't yet FA's. XOR'easter (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep listed As I noted above, with improvements, I think this article satisfies the new GA criterion. as embodied by WP:MTAU. There are no other significant problems raised, so the article should retain its GA status. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The Andy Griffith Show

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

Result: Delisted Mz7 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

(sigh) I hate to have to do this but... I am requesting a GA reassessment because this article has numerous citation needed tags, many that I, or any other user, can't just fix in minutes, which immediately fails it as a good article according to the second criteria and WP:V. The reception section is dedicated to a paragraph that only says "In recent years the series has been criticized due to its all-white cast and absence of positive depictions of minorities." and NOTHING else explaining that sentence or other instances of people's response to the show. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delist, No other words, it's just sad seeing all these tags. 🚶‍♂️⭕⭕ (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delist not nearly enough citations, and reception needs a major expansion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delist hopefully the article can be brought back up to GA status, but its gonna take a lot of work. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The Rove Formation

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

Result: Delist Focus issues as the article appears to be on much more than the Rove Formation AIRcorn (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is a complete mess, I don't even see how it was promoted to GA in the first place. To describe the article as C class would be generous. The titular "Rove Formation" is never defined or explained. Most of the article discusses orogenies and other formations, before veering wildly off course into the Fur Trade and Endangered Flora. It is completely unfocused and overbloated. The sole contributor, @Bettymnz4: hasn't been active in half a decade. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The article seems to have been improved since this nomination. I can see no mention of Fur trades and there is a definition in the lead sentence. Still has the endangered flora section, but that seems relevant enough as to not fail the focus criteria and is easy to remove if it is still a major issue. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Maybe it is difficult for a non-geologist to understand, but in geology a "Formation" refers to a specific unit of rock with defined characteristics. Compare this article to another geological formation article like the Marcellus Shale. The marcellus shale is the only other geological formation GA (other than the Touchet Formation, which is a late pleistocene superficial deposit), and I think you'll agree that the Marcellus Shale artcle is the better article. The problem is that with this article, while there is a lot of information, most of it is irrelevant to the rove formation itself, and the rove formation is poorly defined. You could rename this article "the geological history of Minnesota" and lose pretty much nothing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Apple Inc. litigation

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

Result: Delist Update tag still present and relavent AIRcorn (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The Template:update maintenance tag puts into question the stability of the article (GA criterion 5)?. —Nemoschool (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment — I don't think the article has a stability problem. The stability criteria means that the article should not be subject to constant changes due to edit warring or content disputes. I think the maintenance tag on the page goes more to broadness and whether the article addresses the main aspects of the subject. I don't know enough about Apple litigation to know for sure. I will say that there is a subsection about litigation that occurred after the maintenance tag was added. The article could also use some clean-up with its citations, including bare urls and inconsistent styles for the date. Knope7 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The tag says that the article has needed to be updated (true) since 2014: 2 years after it passed GA nomination and 6 years ago, respectively, which is a criteria 3 issue. During this reassessment process, someone or some people should take up the mantle. Otherwise, it must be demoted. ⌚️ (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Vintage amateur radio

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

Result: Keep Concerns have been addressed and mostly fall outside the criteria AIRcorn (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed contents that appear to be original research as well as cited references that aren't quite what we call reliable sources in Wikipedia standard such as self published materials from enthusiasts, such as contributed materials posted on QSL.net and home made YouTube video used as a reference. I have also looked at the way it looked when it was assessed in 2008 and I didn't think the article quite satisfied the requirement #2 " Verifiable with no original research". Specifically the parts: "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged..." "it contains no original research" The assessor wrote "2. Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." Checking to see if the article looks factually correct to what the assessor knows doesn't satisfy the requirements that contents are directly supported by reliable sources. so I think the assessment for #2 wasn't done using the correct criteria. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - : I took a quick peek at Google books. I see that a number of much higher quality sources are available since the article was first written. I'm not familiar with the GA reassessment process. Would it be worthwhile to make these improvements now, or would you prefer the GA status be revoked first and then the article resubmitted later? Never mind, I found the answer at WP:GAR (..."Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it."). I'll work on getting the issues you have noted fixed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie:, I'm merely asking that the article be reassessed using the correct criteria, because the comment provided by the reviewer in 2008 for item 2 "Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." indicates that this item was passed based on reviewer's appeal to their personal experience, which is not consistent with the evaluation guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable concern. Both myself and GA reviewer User:Dusti were relative newbies back in 2008. I have no problem with reassessment. In any case, the sources certainly needed review and improvement, which I have been happy to do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Re the citation to VIR History, this specific page has been named as recommended reading by the amateur radio journal QST at least twice [2] [3]. The author's work in general vintage radio history was also recommended by QST here. In other words, “an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications”, as described in WP:SPS. What do other editors think? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for hunting down those recommendations. Those recommendations are enough for me to consider the FAQ a reliable source. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the same applies to amwindow.org, it has been listed by QST as a recommended resource [4]. The citation to it is used only to refer to a published list of frequencies, so WP:OR isn't an issue. I disagree with some of the WP:SPS tags that were quite recently placed in the article. In general, amateur radio organizations (.org's) such as the Military Radio Collectors Group, Vintage & Military Amateur Radio Society, etc. are reliable sources for information about themselves and their members, which includes interest in specific types of radio collecting, operating practices in use by them, and various organized events and activities they participate in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mark viking:, the problem with the FAQ is that it's a self-published research by one guy based on contents from public posts by the general public on the rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors newsgroup BBS. It says: "Created and maintained by Nick England K4NYW." Has Nick England had his work related to the field of amateur radio reliably published according to Wikipedia definition? Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It is the fact that the FAQ has been recommended by other experts as a good resource that makes it reliable. Such expert recommendations are a kind of informal peer-review, and the fact that are multiple recommendations gives some confidence that it is widely seen as a source of good information. More generally, I agree with LuckyLouie that for basic, uncontroversial facts, referencing with primary sources is OK if there are no better sources out there. WP:RS isn't a suicide pact where we must delete all the sources that don't meet the highest standards; it is a guide pointing us to use the highest quality sources available and to judge the source relative to the assertion it cites. If the Military Radio Collectors Group asserts it has an interest in collecting military radios, without evidence to the contrary, I am going to believe them. If that primary source is the best available for that assertion, I think it is OK for the purposes of verifying that basic fact. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 12:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Good analysis. Various issues have been raised in the process of making ongoing improvements to the article. IMO, some have been helpful, some have not. But in the end, it's WP:CONSENSUS that'll decide what actions are best. So I hope to see some wider community input in the future. I’ll be offline for the holidays, but back to work on this next week. Best Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

frequencies popular with....

@LuckyLouie:, As tagged as verification failure in Special:Diff/928132458. The cited reference failed to support the claim. I also investigated page 275 as mentioned in an edit summary. The two channels did appear, within a large list in an appendix, but fails to support the main point which is the claim that those two are popular with glow bugs. It would be like saying popular residential streets are 5th and 9th avenues and referencing a long list of streets that have houses on it. Even rephrasing it "there are occupied houses on 5th and 9th avenue" wouldn't cut it as a justification to include purportedly popular streets for affluent people which doesn't have reliable sources. This is just an example of one of many verification failures in the article. Some have been corrected, and more may be revealed down the road. Graywalls (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC). If a reliable source could be locatedt that picks out 3560 and 3579 from the table, I believe that would show some significance and justify inclusion. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't "with glow bugs" indicate that channels used, specifically, people using vacuum tube type amateur radios instead of home made radios in general? "Graywalls (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, glowbugs = low power (QRP) morse code transmitters that are home built using vacuum tubes. OK, I see your point that, although the frequencies in the appendix apply to both solid state and vacuum tube QRP transmitters, it cannot be interpreted as specifically applying to only vacuum tube transmitters. BTW, frequencies are referred to as frequencies rather than 'channels' in amateur radio. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

set aside for discussion: "Arland notes that calling frequencies for QRP contacts include 3560 kHz and also 3579 kHz, which corresponds with the Colorburst frequency of crystals typically found in older color TV sets.

As noted, I offered the copyedited sentence above, to serve a literal interpretation of the cited source. Saying certain frequencies used by aficionados "include X, Y, and Z" rather than characterize them as "popular" is a good solution. I recall using the word "popular" in the original text 11 years ago because it was used in a number of the existing sources at the time. So it's fine with me if "popular" is replaced with more appropriate phrasing suggested above. Regarding the Aland citations relationship to glowbugs, I think after reading substantial portions of Arland's book, it's clear Arland's overarching context includes home-built QRP transmitters, aka glowbugs, which are literally low power (QRP) home built ham radio CW transmitters. As for the colorburst crystal frequency, it is parenthetically noted in the Arland source as Colorburst "xtal", which is an abbreviation for crystal. You can learn more about colorburst crystals at Colorburst#Crystals. @Graywalls, if you are the sole editor doing the WP:GAR community assessment, I'm happy to work with you to correct any errors and fix problems. I ask that you WP:AGF please, rather than assume an expectation of revealing future verification failures. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It was not intended to direct that they're attributed to you or non assumption of good faith by anyone. I was commenting that unaddressed unverified original research may come up as I compare sources and things they're supporting. I am not the sole editor doing the evaluation. This is a community assessment. As for including two channels picked out from a table, I feel it would be undue without something showing the significance or relevance of those two to merit that inclusion. Why the two that were previously said to be popular without attribution but not some other random two? Graywalls (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't locate the source I had verifying those two frequencies were suggested for glowbug contacts, so let's take them out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

References

copy and paste from Wiki policies and guidelines to be referenced for discussion

Extended copy and paste of policy

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs WP:UGC. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia, though there are exceptions. And even though a self-published source might be acceptable, a non-self-published source is usually preferred, if available. Examples of acceptable sourcing of self-published works: A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself. (See #For claims by self-published authors about themselves) Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[5] A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published. WP:USESPS, WP:SPS It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. It is a third-party or independent source. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes. A self-published source can have all of these qualities except for the second one. " A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. "WP:PRIMARY " I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough." Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources copied and pasted to help with discussion. Graywalls (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but we usually use links such as WP:RS and WP:SPS etc. rather than pasting the entire text of a guideline into discussions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. These extended quotes are gratuitous and unhelpfull. The particpants here are all well aware of the policies. A simple link suffices. Collapsed to reduce unnecessary clutter. Please stay on topic and suggest improvement to the article. --mikeu ^talk 06:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Levels_of_consensus - "7) Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. Passed 9 to 0 at 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)"

• WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

I'll see if there's an existing broader consensus regarding the use of a self published FAQ website compiled by one individual based on posts of forum/BBS posts would be considered reliable if the website itself has been suggested as useful by expert as "informal peer review". 23:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but am very familiar with the GAR process. It is quite rare to get an editor here willing to get an article up to scratch so it is good to see someone responding. As to self published and Primary sources they are allowed, they just have to be used carefully. It really depends on what they are referencing and how it is attributed. If it is slightly controversial, there is doubt to the authorship, they have no or limited expertise in the subject at hand or better sources are available then they should not be used. I am pretty hard on these sources when I do GA reviews, taking a view that if the only source is a poor one, then the information is probably not important enough to include. There are exceptions to everything, and some subjects do not have a lot of sources to draw upon. I would think that this one would have enough reasonable sources. GARs are slightly different to GANs in that there needs to be pretty clear reasons why an article fails thecriteria for a delist to happen. We generally only require sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons although likely to be challenged is very broad. Basically if the information it is citing is WP:BLUE then there is not as much concern on the quality of the source. AIRcorn (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Thank you for commenting. The clear reason is that article was passed despite containing original research and failing verifiability, because the reviewer did not apply these criteria like they should have. Would you agree that their self-chosen criteria applied in 2008 was a major deviation from what should have been used? In reading through sources, checking numbers, I found quite a bit of data, such as channel/frequencies that are not found in sources or differ from sources as well as explanation and theories in prose not covered in sources, so that fails verifiability. It was also failing big time by having original research, Assertion of claim of majority scenario based on one guy's compilation from a BBS/forum posts is something that shouldn't be included in my personal opinion. The wrong criteria used was "2. Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." is a huge deviation from the actual set of requirements that say "2. Verifiable with no original research:[3] it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4] all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism." Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you agree that the objective of GAR isn't to build a case for delisting an article and then defend that case — it's to fix the article. In that spirit, I invite you to join in the fixing process by adding citations to RS, or suggesting text modifications for purposes of improving the article quality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources available

I'll be integrating these and others as time allows. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• Bring 'Em Back Alive!

QST August 1995, pp. 49-52

Restoring vintage ham gear is challenging and fun, but be sure you take proper safety precautions.

QST October 1995, p. 78

• Refurbishing "Boat-Anchors" 
:QST January 1997, pp. 35-38
:Bring vintage radios back to life.

Archive is here

• The ARRL Handbook for Radio Communications, ARRL, 2014

p. 1.1.7 "Vintage Radio"

p. 26.35 "Repair and restoration of Vintage Equipment"

No archive, but I can email page images if needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• More Glowbug Glamour

Dave Ingram

CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, November 2006 p. 60

PDF available

• "Once there was an Ocean Hopper, when radios had names". Scott Freburg. CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, December 2003, p. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16.

PDF available.

@LuckyLouie:, are a lot of those QST articles that have author name, location and FCC registration numbers newsletters? Are they published as submitted by the membership? What is their editorial policy and where do they publish their editorial policy? They're used as a source an awful a lot and I would like to know where they stand in reliable sources criteria. Graywalls (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

QST Magazine and CQ Amateur Radio Magazine are both print magazines. Here is an example of the editorial roster (left hand column) for QST. Here is an example for CQ Amateur Radio. As you can see, they are not newsletters, and circulation is not limited to members, or even to licensed radio amateurs. You can find these magazines in the periodicals section of your local library (If you are going to be working on other amateur radio articles for WP you might check them out, they're an excellent resource). When newsstands still existed, they were sold alongside Car and Driver, Golf Magazine, Popular Science, and similar hobbyist/enthusiast publications. The "FCC registration numbers" you see included with most individual author names are Call signs; it's no surprise that most subject matter expert writers in amateur radio are also licensed radio amateurs. And regarding The ARRL Handbook For Radio Communications, this book can also be found in your local library as well as on the shelf in the technical section of your local booksellers. All this is good news for us: the sources are WP:RS by Wikipedia standards, and we can use them to improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I was curious about articles, such as this one. [5] I thought it's a bit odd it lists the author's address. Are articles such as these actually checked by editorial boards or are these opinions of individual authors published word-for-word like communication or letter to editor? Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

In some publications it is/was common to designate one or more "corresponding authors" that readers can direct questions to.[6] More recent QST issues just give name and call sign under the title with an email as the method of contact at the bottom, and it now omits the postal address.[7] That's a byline, QST has a separate section for letters to the editor. The kind of work that you are describing would be published in QEX which has a far looser editorial process in contrast to the more formal QST review, as described here]. "Occasionally, the QST Editor will forward an article to us for our possible use. The author is notified that although not accepted for QST, his or her article has been automatically submitted to QEX." --mikeu ^talk 00:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Tags

In the process of reviewing the inline tags, I see a citation need tag was placed on the text: "A majority of "AM'ers" stations consist of vintage transmitters and receivers housed in separate cabinets. Some operators have even obtained old AM broadcast transmitters from radio stations that have upgraded their equipment". A citation was given here. By reading the entire article, which is about AM-operating hams using separate transmitters and receivers, this is not a controversial statement. Re the second sentence, the source says: "A retired broadcast transmitter often gets pushed to a dusty, dark back corner of the technical room at a radio station. Increasingly, ham radio operators are giving a second life to these graceful old beauties, donated or sold cheaply to hobbyists by stations with no further need". So I am not sure why the citation needed tag was applied. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

How about a direct quote here which you think supports the claim that a majority of "AM'ers stations" have transmitters and receivers in separate cabinets.? "For a ham-radio operator, practical and residential considerations limit the list of desirable broadcast transmitters to those using single-phase line voltage, designed for RF power output of 1 kilowatt or under, and which take up "only" a single cabinet’s worth of space" This suggests otherwise..? Graywalls (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

That particular sentence refers to the transmitter, which is a separate cabinet unto itself. The receiver is another component, separate from the transmitter. The article briefly discusses the types of receivers typically used by AM hams, which are also housed in their own cabinets. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you provide the specific quote that unambiguously say that without the need for any interpretation/analysis? Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the word "cabinets" is confusing you. It really is a simple concept and a mundane fact that is uncontroversial. There is no interpretation needed, only reading and comprehension. The article cited is all about ham radio operators who restore vintage AM broadcast transmitters and repurpose them for use in amateur two-way communication. The transmitter is in a metal enclosure (or cabinet), the dark grey metal skin such as you can see here. It does not contain a receiver since it has been designed for one-way commercial broadcasting. So hams must use a separate receiver in conjunction with it in order to have two-way communications. The receiver is in its own cabinet or enclosure, sometimes metal, sometimes wood, depending on age. We could change "A majority of AM operators..." to "Many AM operators...", if that would satisfy your concerns. But a citation to a sentence stating the glaringly obvious isn't required here. We know that good encyclopedic writing that avoids plagiarism requires rephrasing or summarizing a body of information in your own words and sentence structure, so lets stick with best practices when generating text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not a plagiarism for you to offer the RELEVANT quote, here in discussion to clarify the discussion. What is plagiarism is if you include close paraphrasing directly into the prone. I'm just asking you to quote a sentence or two here, because, what you claim as "mundane fact that is uncontroversial." was apparently not obvious to me. Someone made a comment fairly recently with something along the line of that's like sky is blue to those with specialized knowledge. Well, this is not an academic journal or a specialized encyclopedia for those in the field, so such assumption can not be made, as often made in patents and similar documents as you know from phrasing like "those familiar with the arts will readily understand". Your statement "does not contain a receiver since it has been designed for one-way commercial broadcasting." glaringly obvious to ANYONE, or is this an "obvious to those familiar with the arts"? Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your repeated 'citation needed tags' for WP:THESKYISBLUE stuff are tiresome, but I'll resolve this one with a new citation and some copy editing which adheres close to the word for word phrasing contained in the sources. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I contend that things in this article are not obvious like people have five fingers. Perhaps so to a circle of people involved in IEEE conferences, but this isn't a broadcast engineering journal wiki. Graywalls (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If there is any potential for confusion about what a "cabinet" means in this context I would suggest linking to the more technical term equipment rack, which is also used in the reference cited above. A curious reader will discover how common these are for mounting electronic equipment such as telecommunication gear. A footnote for a trivial detail about the number of cabinets falls into the category of {{Excessive citations}}. --mikeu ^talk 23:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Further progress/cleanup and improvement

OK, so while others agree that local/regional amateur radio organizations are reasonable sources for uncontroversial facts regarding their interests, activities, and practices, I've removed the text cited to these that listed AM frequencies in countries other than the USA. I believe these were gradually added to the article over the last ten years by well-meaning passersby, but IMO they’re not worth holding up ongoing progress in improving the article. Same goes for virhistory.com as an acceptable source for uncontroversial statements, but since we have many other sources supplying much the same material, I removed that citation rather than let it be a roadblock to the process of improving the article. I also did some copyediting to better conform to sources and reformatting to tidy up the text and citations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed two pictures since it was starting to look too cluttered. Graywalls (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Yet another questionable tag was placed on the article by Graywalls, this time in the lead: "time frame uncertain. 40 years old according to what source that was published in what year?". The fact that the entire article is about amateurs using radio equipment that is more than 40 years old is not "uncertain" by any stretch of the imagination. It's self evident to anyone who can read the article and the image captions of 1950s and 1960s gear contained in the article. The age range of the radio gear is explicitly stated in the article body ("Amateur radio equipment of past eras like the 1940s, 50s, and 60s...") and cited to a reliable source. I've added an additional source to make it crystal clear: CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, December 2003, page 14, Vol. 59, No. 12. Title: There Once Was an Ocean Hopper, When Radios Had Names. Author: Scott Freeberg. Quote: “Because of this interest, you can now hear many of the old classic radios on the air again. This is radio gear that is often 40 to 50 years old…” I don't get the impression this ongoing tagging has anything to do with article improvement. It appears to be a continued pattern of impeding, pettifogging, and asking for citations for obvious minor details. This type of behavior could be interpreted as an issue of WP:COMPETENCE or WP:DISRUPTION. If there are details you legitimately need clarification for, I suggest you bring them up on the Talk page, and I'll do my best to resolve them for you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

A minor tag like that isn't disruptive or too controversial. Generally we try to avoid things like "recently" or "xx years ago" because they're likely to become outdated per MOS:DATED. There are many articles that still have wording like "recently...." which was the latest at the time, but still sitting like that over ten years later and we'd like to avoid that. "xx years ago".... without point of reference should be avoided unless we're talking about history that's thousands of years ago. 40 to 50 years old... in 2003 would mean 56-66 years old now and after a few years it would be 60-70 years old You see the issue? Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Persistently adding "minor tags" is what is disruptive. Your editing shows a consistant pattern of behaviour here and at other pages. That is controversial. We've watchlisted the article. You don't need to play games by plastering sticky notes warning readers about trivial details in the text and leaving messages for us in the edit summary. Please leave a list at talk of the items that you think need to be addressed and we'll take a look at it. --mikeu ^talk 23:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

History of cricket to 1725

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

Result: Kept Closed by opener. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The article was reviewed in 2008 and elevated to GA. There has been substantial expansion since then. By summer 2019 it had attracted a content issue banner which was subsequently removed because due process had not been followed (see article talk page), but certain cleanup banners then became necessary and they remain in place.

The main problem is use of what may be unreliable sources, especially one self-published website. There is massive overuse of quotations and many if not most of those haven't been cited. The 2008 GA version did not include the huge matchlist which was added later and may have come from a dedicated list article (needs further investigation). It is proposed that the matchlist and first mentions section are shifted into a list article, or restored to their old one if such can be identified. The use of quotations must be moderated and all must be sourced. Content taken from self-published or unreliable sources must be challenged for other sources to be cited or the content to be removed.

To summarise the problems per the GA criteria:

• 1a. The article is generally well-written with prose, grammar and spelling of a good standard. There is a problem with excessive use of quotations, many of which are unsourced.
• 1b. Haven't checked this thoroughly but, on the face of it, seems okay. It is proposed to take the main list out, though, as above.
• 2a. Complies with reflist standard.
• 2b. Serious issue with self-published and potentially unreliable sources.
• 2c. Given 2b, it's possible there is OR in the article but it will be difficult to find without comprehensive sources.
• 2d. No apparent problems.
• 3a. It is a history so the scope is very wide but it seems satisfactory in this respect.
• 3b. The matchlist and first mentions lists constitute excessive detail which is why they should be moved to a dedicated list article. As this is a history, it should be narrative only with lists and stats limited to a necessary minimum.
• 4. No comment at this stage.
• 5. It is stable.
• 6. Images are appropriate and without any evident issues.

I'd be willing to take this on as an individual reassessment but, realistically, it needs community involvement especially anyone with access to relevant sources. The only source I have is More Than A Game by John Major which discusses this period in its early chapters and will be useful up to a point. Apart from possibly ESPN, I'm unaware of any online sources that might be useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Report

I have put this off for a long time because I found it daunting but I've now worked through it and made a heap of changes. I've left several citation requests in the article but I don't think anyone will be able to supply them because I strongly suspect original research. This means that the article should be delisted, in my opinion, because OR and unverified content both contravene the GA criteria. I'll leave the review open for a period to see if other editors wish to contribute. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• No Great Shaker, you could also just remove the unsourced/OR content. buidhe 01:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I'd like to compare the article with John Major's book in case that provides source for any of the needed citations. There are about a dozen statements for verification. I'll try and do that soon and then, as you say, remove anything still unsourced or apparently original. Received wisdom is that Major's book is highly rated. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

All citation needed tags have been addressed. Some of the content can be sourced to John Major, one piece is well sourced within a linked article and a couple of useful internet sources were found. A small amount of content could not be sourced, despite searches, and has been deleted. The cleanup banners have all been removed so perhaps this can now remain a GA? It would be good if another reviewer could decide. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jhall1: Hello again and thank you for the notification which has just flagged up. This GAR is open for consensus and you'd be welcome to comment here if you wish. Thanks very much for your help. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I confess that I either hadn't noticed or had forgotten about the GAR. The one thing that you've removed that I'd question is, from memory, the reference to Sir Robert Paston having seen cricket played on Richmond Green in the mid 17th century, which did have a supporting citation. JH (talk page) 09:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That's correct but the source appears to be a self-published website and those are held to be unreliable, even if they are actually good works, so I've had to follow site policy and guidelines there, especially given the GA criteria. I suspect the use of that website, for many statements, could have been why the disputed content notice was placed in the article, though this was never explained. If you believe that the Paston piece should be included I'd be happy to restore it and place a citation needed tag on it. I checked the John Major book but he doesn't mention it and I can't find anything about it among various references to Paston on the internet. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Closure

It's a long time since there was any movement on this and, with all cleanup banners gone, I propose to close the GAR. It's appropriate to do that now as a GA backlog campaign has just begun. If anyone has any belated objections to closure and retention of the article as a GA, please raise your concerns at the GAR talk page. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Bell X1 (band)

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

Result: Delist Was going to close this as keep as no evidence had been presented here that this fails any criteria. However I had a quick look over the article and in the lead there was a statement referring to the band as a "national treasure" sourced to the bands website. The overall tone of the lead is very puffy and even worse doesn't actually summerise the article. A quick glance over the body showed similar problems, "Eve, the Apple of My Eye" soon established itself as a fan favourite, and would become a staple of first dances at weddings as well as an inspiration for the naming of new-born daughters. again sourced to the bands website. I don't know if this is paid editing or just fan service, but it is enough to delist. I will also remove all suspicious facts sourced to bellx1.com AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Two substantial contributors to this article, Hilwhite (talk · contribs) and Mary Palmer (talk · contribs), have been blocked for covert advertising and undisclosed paid editing. Being substantially edited by spammers and GA status are mutually exclusive on neutrality grounds (WIAGA 4). This article, passed in 2010, has not yet been reviewed. MER-C 04:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems to have been reviewed by HJ Mitchell at Talk:Bell X1 (band)/GA1. It is very brief, but they are an experienced reviewer. AIRcorn (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

University College, Durham

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

Result: Kept Deadlink in themselves are not a reason to delist and we do not have any consensus that the article is not broad enough to meet the GA requirements AIRcorn (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Although the article is neutral, stable, illustrated and largely well written, I don't think the coverage is broad enough to warrant good article status (the history section, for example, seems underdeveloped – compare and contrast with the one for Hatfield College, Durham) and some sections do not have enough references, while a number of the reference links are dead and have been for some time, and other references are lazily written. Overall it has the appearance of an article that once had high potential but has since been badly neglected --Fat Larry's Ghost (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you think it's missing by the way, Hatfield's history section is slightly larger, yes but that might be a sign it might want a GA review, not the other way round. This isn't a featured article, and it's just about a college not an entire university, so it won't be to the same scale as a university one. It seems to have sufficiently good coverage to meet GA criteria, possibly slightly weak on the history section. I disagree that it's been badly neglected, if there only seems to be a few deadlinks, so it might be helpful to fix some of the issues? Shadowssettle_(talk) 10:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Elements (miniseries)

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

Result: Kept Issues resolved during the review. AIRcorn (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I've never requested reassessment of an article GA's status, so hopefully I'm doing this correctly. I feel that the 1,163-word plot summary in the article Elements (miniseries) is excessively lengthy and does not comply with manual of style guidelines, therefore violating one of the GA criteria (additionally, long synopses can also be found in the articles Stakes (miniseries) and Islands (miniseries), both of which also cover Adventure Time miniseries). While we're at this, I also think that the citations in this article should be double-checked for reliability, just in case. —Matthew - (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to cut down some of the plot. To be honest, while this is an issue, I don't really think it is major enough to call for a full-on reassessment (but I am biased, as I'm the one who promoted this article). It also might be a good idea to ping Courcelles, since they were the one who reviewed the submission.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: I just found this at MOS:PLOT: "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections ... For some types of media, associated guidelines may offer advice on plot length; for example, WP:Manual of Style/Film § Plot suggests that plot summaries for feature films be between 400 and 700 words." This isn't a movie, but it is movie-length. I also found this at MOS:TVPLOT: "Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words." Elements (along with Stakes and Islands) is a miniseries made up of 8 episodes, so it would make sense that it would be a wee bit longer than 400. It should probably still be cut down, but arguing that this violates the MoS is a bit of a stretch, given that the MoS does not really have a specific limit, especially for something like a miniseries.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. Again, I've never done this sort of reassessment thing before. I think the MOS:FILMPLOT guideline should probably be in effect here, as in the plot summary shouldn't be more than 700 words. I left a message about this discussion on Courcelles's talk page. —Matthew - (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries. It's at 670 words right now. Please let me know if this is looking better. It'll probably need a few more copy-edits before I'm satisfied with it, but I feel like it looks much better. I'll get to work on Islands and Stakes, too.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Much better, I agree! I've removed the long plot tag from the Elements article accordingly. —Matthew - (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any other conerns MatthewHoobin or can I close this? AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, you can go ahead and close this now. Thank you! —Matthew - (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

John Chrysostom

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

Result: Delisted I think some of the unreliable sources might be OK, but enough are certainly unreliable and there are many uncited passages that really should have a cite AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC).

The article fails to consistently use reliable sources and also contanins uncited content. I have flagged some of the unreliable sources in the article. buidhe 23:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's another source. Can this be used to demonstrate more certainty of the quotes? https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210204.htm Jbermudes (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing in the source is WP:DUE unless covered by a secondary source (especially when there are so many high quality scholarly sources available on Chrysostom). I'm not sure what you mean by "demonstrate more certainty of the quotes". buidhe 06:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Carly Colón

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

Result: Delisted buidhe 17:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The article was a GA in 2007. 13 years later, doesn't meet the criteria. Huge parts are unsourced, like WWC. A lot of excesive detail of in-universe storylines (like OVW and WWC). Some sources are unreliable, like Online World of Wrestling and others, like PRWrestling or notiluchas doesn' appear in the WP:PW/RS --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

support unlisting: unless someone is prepared to do some serious work on this one - I don't think it meets the GA criteria. An awful lot of uncited info for a BLP as well as the amount of unreliable sources as per nominator. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Delist: Agreed, this BLP needs more sources. It has also grown from 2,067 words (in 2007) to 8,225 words, so most of the article is unchecked against GA standards. L150 17:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Cerro Blanco (volcano)

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

Result: Kept buidhe 17:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have just done a large rewrite of Cerro Blanco (volcano), to give it pagenumbers and installing the most recent literature. As the new text has almost nothing in common with the old one beyond the lead section, I'd like to get input on whether the new text still qualifies as a Good Article under the criteria. In particular, the paragraphing and the comments I've placed in the source need reviewing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay I read through it and it seems pretty good. A few comments:

• Some more pictures would be nice, but I assume we don't have any. Found it a little hard to find it on the infobox picture. Wonder if it could be marked or circled.

  Aye, there aren't that many freely licenced files of the volcano as it's so remote. I'll see if I can annotate the image somehow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Feel it could do with some more wikilinks to some specialist terms. Tephra and caldera is only linked in the lead and ignimbrite is linked in the lead and then well after a few mentions. Even things like Country rock could benefit from a link. I see now I am at the end that you have added notes about these in the article.

  I've moved one of the notes up. Changed the linking for ignimbrite and added a link for country rock. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• The geography section starts with The caldera while the next section says Cerro Blanco ... consists of four nested calderas. So which is the caldera mentioned in the first section? If my understanding is correct I think it would be better to just say volcano or use its name.

  Yeah, it's confusing because many sources apparently are not aware of the existence of more than one caldera. I swapped "The volcano" in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• They are formed But only one is mentioned so not sure how they fits in.

  That's because "they" refers to the caldera walls, not the caldera. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• A site southeast of the Robledo caldera is known as Robledo. This seems vague to me. What is meant by site?

  The map is not really clear on this point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• A map would be nice. It gets confusing following all the similar names.
• One of the most spectacular aeolian landscapes of Earth is found at Cerro Blanco Of Earth seems a bit unnecessary and makes this appear quite peacocky.

  Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• where a field of large ripples covers an area of 8 square kilometres this lost me

  Rewritten, is it clearer now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• while a role of the bedrock structure or the size of the material is controversial This is sort of left hanging. Does it need some further

  I dunno, there is apparently disagreement between two researchers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why a link to commons is wedged between two paragraphs?

  Probably an artifact of how that section was written. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• have been recorded in July What year?

  It doesn't appear to be a specific year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• which only crops out close to is that right grammatically?

  Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• and is also known as the first cycle ignimbrite. Don't quite follow. Is this what this was called, is it a common name for am event or is it something else. It doesn't seem to tie in with the start of the sentence

  It's the name used in several sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• there is no agreement whether the Robledo Caldera is the source and the volcano-tectonic depression northeast of Cerro Blanco has been proposed as a source These clauses don't quite fit as worded

  I've split that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• A major future eruption would put local communities to the south at risk. The body almost says the opposite, that the area is sparsely populated.

  The body also says Also, pyroclastic flows could through narrow valleys reach the Bolsón de Fiambalá valley 50 kilometres (31 mi) south of Cerro Blanco, where many people live. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not quite sure what note k is getting at. Are you saying it is a different Cerro Blanco?

  The reason why I mention it is because it has the same name and is in a geographically correct position - a point reinforced by Penck 1920 (OCLC 27914696). However, nobody more recent has drawn a connection between this event and Cerro Blanco, which is why I put it in a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not all required in a Good Article and all pretty minor. AIRcorn (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Will wait to see if anyone else has any comments. If no one else does I will keep it listed. AIRcorn (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

NASA

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

Result: Delist. Please fix this article and bring it back to GAN! buidhe 17:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have never performed a good article review, nor a good article reassessment, so not confident in doing this as an individual reassessment.

I see a number of issues disqualifying this article from been a good article, including:

• It is not difficult to find unreferenced paragraphs (examples: most of the "Leadership" section; first paragraph of "Recent and planned activities"; second paragraph of "Directives").
• The article is at some points excessively detailed (examples: the three-paragraph quote in "Activities (2005–2017)"; the section "NEO detection").
• The article is very messy and especially recent events or info is randomly organized (examples: "Leadership", "Directives", and "Budget" are in three different locations; the sections "Recent and planned activities" and "Activities (2005–2017)" seems to be the preferred location to dump new info).

I would like to hear what other think. Thanks. ― Hebsen (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Delist - thanks for raising this. I agree it falls flat on some of the GA criteria (not very well-written, unsourced material). The article was last GA-assessed in 2009. It has since grown from 4,461 words to 10,290 words, so most of the article is unchecked for GA standards. L150 17:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Delist – It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}}). --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Transportation in Omaha

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

Result: Delisted buidhe 17:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The article has several uncited sections, such as Trails and Highways, a lot of references are incomplete, some citations are not inline, and overall, this article seems to be a summary of sections of other articles instead of being a comprehensive overview of transportation in Omaha. There are also outdated statements like Beginning in fall 2007 there will be more than 30 traffic cameras operating on Omaha area freeways. The way the article is designed, it is hard to gauge what the current status of transportation in the city.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007

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

Result: Delisted buidhe 17:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"Well-written" violations: There is some puffery (i.e. "single-handedly" in Interim Developments) and editorialization (i.e. "really" in "continues to believe that he shot down a spy plane, when he really shot down a passenger aircraft"). Often, quotes are included as standalone sentences in jarring manners (i.e. "The border guards. What ships do we now have near Moneron Island, if they are civilians, send [them] there immediately.").

--BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The Flight deviation from assigned route section is difficult to follow. I am not going to touch the technical aspects of it as I know this can be a touchy subject for some, but it seems a convoluted way of saying the flight deviated from its expected route. Statements like The inability to establish direct radio communications to be able to transmit their position directly did not alert the pilots of KAL 007 of their ever-increasing divergence is just poorly written whatever the technical standpoint. We have so much detail that as well as making it a chore to read we are heading pretty close into focus trerritory. The transcripts are not clearly formatted, we have details on all the damage to different parts of the plane under their own headings and other formatting and overdetail issues that bring down the quality. Sourcing doesn't seem up to standard, there is a lot of uncited content especially in the popular culture section. AIRcorn (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

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

Result: Consensus to keep. Article submitted for confirmation by an author. Outside input, while limited, was positive. CMD (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This article has been significantly modified since its GA promotion almost nine years ago, with influx of new information as well as changes in the lead, major tuning of the prose, and rearrangement of certain sections. I believe the substantial changes warrant a reassessment of the article, although as a major contributor I don't feel that I should conduct an individual reassessment. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I had a read through and didn't notice anything major that would disqualify it from GA status. It is a little bit fan boyish, but most articles are here (people generally don't write about things they don't like) and it is not really that bad. I think it should stay a GA. AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to tune the prose for greater objectivity, for what it's worth. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Prose looks pretty solid in this article. The lede could be a tiny bit longer, to ensure it accurately summarises any pertinent design and history, as per the article. Images could also do with alt-tags. Thanks L150 21:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ravi Zacharias

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

Result: delisted buidhe 07:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A very large part of the article is cited to the subject himself, or groups that he works with. Given he is a well-known author, there is little independent sourcing or review of his activities, books etc and their impact. Does not appear comprehensive and sourcing quality is inadequate. Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden

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

Result: delisted per § Reassessment – wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

One of my main focuses here is the reassessment process, and I am the main contributor in this area. My attention was drawn to this article following a post on the Good Article Reassessment talk page. I am not happy with how that individual reassessment process was conducted and feel that it needs to be reexamined through a community one. My main concerns are.

• That it should have gone through the community reassessment process in the first place. Articles where the decision of the nominator is likely to be controversial should be brought to the community for discussion. This is particular true for controversial or partisan topics with a sudden surge of interest.
• Stability was brought up as one of the main reasons for delisting. My feelings on this criteria are that it is important for reviewing an article nominated for Good Article status as it gives the reviewer a stable version to review. When delisting however the opposite applies. A lot of Good Articles undergo bouts of edit warring and other forms of content dispute. That doesn't mean they suddenly are no longer good articles. Generally we wait for the dispute to end and then assess the article. In fact one little pet peeve of mine here is when the Good Article process is used as a tool during a content dispute. Even if we take the stability criteria as read, at the time of reassessment the article was fully protected. You can not get more stable than that on Wikipedia.
• There was not an adequate explanation of how the article fails the criteria. Neutrality was brought up, but it was never explained how the article failed the neutrality requirement. This was despite various other editors asking. The purpose of a reassessment is to give interested editors the chance to fix problems with the article. To do that they need to know what the problems are.

I don't know, or really care, if this article is kept or delisted. What I do care about is that it is given a chance. I do not feel that was the case in the recently conducted reassessment. I know there was a lot of delist !votes there, but this is not decided by a show of hands. What is needed is a break down of the failings which allows any interested editors the chance to resolve them. Also since this is likely to attract editors not that familiar with Good Articles it probably bears mentioning that the requirements are not as strict as many think (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not). AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging commentators at Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 @Mz7, CaptainEek, Coffeeandcrumbs, MelbourneStar, MONGO, ConstantPlancks, Vfrickey, Vanamonde93, UserDude, and PackMecEng: Sorry if I missed anyone. AIRcorn (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I do not disagree with the claim that the initiator of the GA reassessment should have used the community process as opposed to the individual one, given the contentiousness of the article and the probability of a controversial outcome. With that being said, the article does fail the stability criterion of the good article criteria. This criterion states that the article should not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  Joe Biden is an active politician and a presumptive nominee for perhaps the most contentious political contest in the United States—as more information about his candidacy becomes known, so too must the article change, and since more information is coming out day-by-day, so too is his article changing day-by-day, with more than 50 edits in the last week alone. New content disputes are being contended every day on the article's talk page, many of which involve neutrality and quality of sources, which are also central aspects of a good article. I would reject the argument that because the article was fully protected at the time of reassessment, the article "technically" met the stability criterion—the article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to do so.
  I agree that if the content dispute was just a one-off thing that resolved itself in a month or so, there is no need to start a good article reassessment, and I sympathize with the complaint about good article reassessments being used as tools during content disputes. However, when the content of an article is subject to dispute after dispute, lasting several months, I think that should raise doubt as to whether the article is truly stable. We do not necessarily need to wait until the article is stable before reassessing whether it is in fact stable. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I should note here that I am open to persuasion. Perhaps I am being a little jaded after trudging through all the recent contentiousness on the talk page when I closed the RfC. I figure the content of this article is changing on a day-to-day basis, and probably will until after the election is over. With that being said, if it is just a one-off dispute (i.e. the Tara Reade allegations) and there isn't anything else pending, then perhaps I am wrong. Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Historical perspective: Barack Obama was FA through both his 2008 and 2012 presidential elections and throughout his presidency; John McCain was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2008; Mitt Romney was GA and then FA throughout his presidential campaign in 2012; and Hillary Rodham Clinton was GA throughout her presidential campaign in 2008 and then FA throughout her presidential campaign in 2016. The same kinds of things that you have seen, and will see, with the Biden article this year – edit-warring, RfCs, claims of NPOV violations, momentary lacks of stability – are the same kinds of things that all these articles saw back then. But it did not prevent those articles from gaining and keeping their reviewed status, nor should it automatically cause this article to lose its reviewed status. This GAR should be about specific, detailed, concrete issues identified with this article – this fact here is wrong; that source there is weak; the prose in such-and-such section has inappropriate tone; this important topic has insufficient coverage; that not-so-important topic has too much coverage; etc. – and whether they can be remedied. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The article either meets GA or it does not. Just because other articles did not get a reassessment has no bearing on this one. Right now because of the drastic changes, the RFCs and heavy discussions on controversial subjects, and rapid large changes to the article it fails stability. Full stop. Perhaps down the road it can be re-run though GA and might even pass. But as it stands there are stability issues and maintenance tags that require a lot of work to address. PackMecEng (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Arguments that claim noncompliance with WP:Article length, WP:NPOV, presence of maintenance tags, edit warring, and instability resulting in full PP and DS with 1RR restrictions should not be the criteria for delisting a GA is inadvertently making those failures the criteria for maintaining an article riddled with problems as a GA, and that makes a mockery of the entire GAR process. I see it as a slap in the face ^(hyperbole) to those editors who have worked hard over the years to promote, review and/or maintain GA articles to assure our readers the article actually does meet the criteria for GA. I hope the community will agree as others already have in the original GAR or we risk losing the dignity and significance of having on any article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC) ^{Adding that the accusation by the OP is fallacious in regards to my motives for delisting as being partisan or anything but good faith, or that I, in any way, attempted to politicize the GAR process. The same could be said of the effort by those who are trying to pretentiously maintain its GA status, and a much stronger argument when the article clearly fails to meet GA criteria, so please, let's not politicize GAR - I would/have felt the same for any article in any topic area and my actions had nothing to do with partisanship, as my non-partisan view is further evidenced here. 11:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)}
• Oppose delist. Completely concur with AIRcorn's assessment of why we're here again, and thank them for opening this discussion. I'd like to point out: at the time of this GAR, just like the previous GAR a week ago: no edit warring, no article protection, no article disputes (some will class an RfC as a dispute; 1. collaborative encyclopedia, 2. BLP matters ← good to get community input on both of those). Likewise, at the time of this GAR's opening no specific neutrality concerns have been raised — oddly enough, just like the GAR preceding this one. As such, I don't believe the article should be delisted. I am happy to be convinced otherwise, as long as editors can provide specific examples. Also, for the previous nominator to speak of a "slap to the face" and making a mockery of the GAR process... I would urge them to keep a look out for a WP:BOOMERANG. The only reason we are here is because they did not adequately explain the reasons as to why the article should be delisted in the first place — despite others specifically asking them to, might I add. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• 29 April: editors endorsing a delist of this article have failed to provide examples of any of the issues they've discussed. Neutrality? no firm examples whatsoever. Edit warring? none post the PP. PP? temporary, to assist an RfC on a BLP matter. DS/1RR restrictions? WP:ARBAPDS, look at FA Hillary Clinton. It's rather disingenuous for editors to suggest a problem, yet fail to pin–point where exactly that problem is, leaving it unfixable. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not a GAR regular and I've been adminning in the topic area, so I'm not going to take a position on delisting. But I do want to share some perspective into what I suspect might be going on.
  I believe Talk:Joe_Biden#RfC:_Should_this_article_include_Tara_Reade's_criminal_complaint_against_Joe_Biden? and the coincident page protection were deeply frustrating to many users. We've seen that frustration play out in several forums already. The issue was complicated because at the time the RfC started, many mainstream news outlets had not yet picked up the story, making it a questionable BLP issue. I suspect that many of the people trying to include the allegation in the article felt that their views were being actively censored by other editors and the admins who protected the article. (I believe this was true of Atsme too, who was liberally using big words like "stonewalling", "whitewashing" and "censorship" in the related talk page discussions.) I don't want to invalidate the frustration people probably feel, but I do wonder if strong feelings related to the Tara Reade thing might be coloring people's view of the rest of the article. Afterall, if there's this big group of editors and admins stonewalling coverage of the Reade allegation then certainly the rest of the article must suffer from that bias.
  In any case, I think it would be unfortunate if the GA process became politicized. GA shouldn't be a bone that partisans can fight over, but something that encourages and facilitates article improvement. For that reason I would encourage User:Atsme to follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment by pointing out specific actionable problems and tagging the relevant sections, paragraphs, or sentences where appropriate, instead of simply demoting the article to a "C" and moving on. And I would encourage others who might weigh in here to take the time to read the article top-to-bottom and jot down a list of problems that need fixing. Whether the article gets a or not is unimportant. What matters is that the process results in actual article improvement. ~Awilley (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Awilley: Perhaps you should read all the issues people have raised here and at the previous discussion. They have been laid out several times by several people in several ways. Please stop trying to color this as a partisan issue when nothing supports that misguided view. Also stop personalizing comments about editors, it is less than helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Only here as I was pinged. I respect that many GAC reviews are diligent and attempt to provide a good review, but question why one person can elevate such an article pretty much unilaterally but one person cannot delist it when "keep" arguments are weak (how an article can expand 4 fold and be expected to meet the earlier review a decade ago is beyond me) I am however well versed in Peer review and the FAC process with more than a dozen articles in which I was the primary editor and another 30 in which I was secondary that I do not even list on my userpage. This article FAILS GA due to the lack of stability. I think Atsme has adequately explained this previously at the GAR and since she is someone like others with background in GAC, FAC, etc. its not like they are some clueless noob about it. Comments about how the Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (I was a participant in that FAC) "survived" being successfully challenged for their ranking while they were in the limelight are fair, but that could also mean that we had less diligence then than we do now. I find @Awilley:'s assumptions of bad faith regarding Atsme's efforts to also be troubling. Awilley seems to be saying that Atsme did not get her way so she decided to extract revenge...that is a pretty powerful accusation. Here is my recommendation: Allow the GAR to stand as "delisted" and in a month or two after gathering comments, place it again at GAC and see if anyone wishes to reexamine it and promote it back. GAR is not the same thing as FARC, where an article is reexamined by numerous folks and time is allowed for appropriate changes to perhaps keep it listed as FA. The instability, edit warring, good faith claims that the article lacks neutrality of this GA is more than enough reason since it was a GA, to demote it. Everyone should carefully read once again the criteria of a Good Article here.--MONGO (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Historical perspective II. Here is an example of a GAR being done for an article about a candidate in a presidential race, in this case Martin O'Malley during the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign – Talk:Martin O'Malley/GA2. (It's one I remember because I'm the one who did it.) The GAR does not rely on general claims of edit-warring or instability or NPOV or article growth over time. Instead it lists a number of very specific faults, omissions, and other issues with the article. When there were no responses after a couple of weeks, the GA was removed. Had somebody done work to remedy the listed problems, the GA could have been retained. This is the approach that makes sense to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Further clarity for the reasons given to delist per GAR procedure: Also see Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 for the initial delist discussion.

1. The article is unstable - immediate fail. The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction which is a clear indication that it is a locus of chaos now, has been for a while, and will continue to be for some time to come. When instability is caused by vandalism, we do not demote GA/FA promoted articles but the same does not apply to the instability this article suffers as the result of conflicting views and challenged material. The topic area has -0- influence because the same behavior occurs in other topic areas, and at times where it is least expected...such as a dog or fish article.

   • Response: "The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction" — the article falls under the scope of WP:ARBAPDS. That includes FA article Hillary Clinton — which has the same restrictions. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

2. This article is plagued by edit warring - immediate fail. The argument that edit warring is expected in controversial articles and should not affect current GA status is an invalid argument to not delist as is the argument that there hasn't been any edit warring in a while, and the reason follows: this article has PP, DS, and 1RR restrictions that are not conducive to WP's open platform which is lauded for it's design that encourages article improvement and neutrality.

   • Response: Please provide recent examples of this article being "plagued by edit warring". I would be curious to see if they are in relation to the BLP matters which resulted in full-PP. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

3. The article has neutrality issues - immediate fail. See Talk:Joe Biden/GAR3 - neutrality speaks to POV conflicts that raise questions about content and compliance with WP's core content policies. Until a consensus is reached that resolves the neutrality issues, the article unequivocally fails GA criteria and should be delisted.

   • Response: Please provide examples. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

   • It took some time for the cautious Obama and the blunt, rambling Biden to work out ways of dealing with each other.[204] This is placed right after a maintenance tag. Username⁶⁸⁹² 03:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

   • Hardly POV, if anything awkwardly written like a story as the maintenance tag describes. Would need to be rewritten, though. Can you please provide a list of NPOV examples? because if there are blatant NPOV breaches, we all need to be made aware of them so they can be fixed. I would further be happy to delist if there's plenty of NPOV issues -- as implied within both this and the previous GAR. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

4. The article is not well-written per GA Criteria 1, as it contains too much detail, trivia, and promotion; e.g., things like his early life college football, and/or noncompliance with MOS:LEAD which states: 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. Also, the article is currently 88 kB (14495 words) vs the 2008 article that was promoted to GA with 31 kB (5122 words). In its current state, the article is unwieldy and should be split per WP:Article length.

   • Would splitting his Senate career and/or his vice-presidency into seperate articles be a good idea? Username⁶⁸⁹² 14:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

5. The article still has maintenance tags and needs more but maintenance tags tend to be removed when instability is an issue and 1RR prevents removed tags from being restored. PP and DS w/1RR are deterrents that have a chilling effect and results in disincentivizing editors from contributing.

   • Response: I don't see why you wouldn't be able to tag where necessary if it's needed. I certainly wouldn't remove a tag (I'd be curious to see who would, especially if it's needed). Further, in the context of a GAR: we need to know where things need to be fixed. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hopefully the above list will provide the clarity needed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the above did provide clarity, though perhaps not in the way Atsme intended. Much as I dislike bolding in this manner—it's effectively shouting—I think it's important to point out a basic fact of GAR that is being overlooked: there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR. There just isn't. At GAN, there is (the WP:GAFAIL, cited by many people, though in context it's clear the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations when article issues are so severe that there is no point in embarking on a full review), but as is evident throughout the description of how GAR works at WP:GAR, the goal of a GAR is to attempt to deal with the article's shortcomings in terms of the GA criteria: Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

GAR is a deliberative process, and reading the individual GAR (Talk:Joe Biden/GA3), it's clear that the guidelines were not followed. There was no attempt to note any issues with the GA criteria aside from instability, and requests that this be done were ignored. The end result seems to have been decided from the moment it was opened: there had been edit warring, therefore GA status had to be removed, regardless of what anyone said. Never mind that the edit warring had subsided, according to more than one editor. It is a weakness of the individual GAR—as indeed with individual GAN reviews—that the opening editor has the final say, because sometimes the reassessor or reviewer gets it wrong, and that's why the community GAR is available, so that the community at large can have its say.

Going over the five points above:

1. Is the article unstable today? Right now? Measures such as being under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction are imposed to bring stability to an article that has suffered edit warring and other problems. If they have succeeded in bringing a reasonable degree of stability to the article, then the GA criteria are met.
2. Similarly, if the editing restrictions have put the brakes on edit warring (or it has subsided on its own), then again the GA criteria are met.
3. I have yet to see a specific example of neutrality issues in any of these reassessments. For this to be raised, examples of passages and/or biased sections need to be specified. Of course, since GARs are meant to bring articles back to GA level if possible, those passages and biases can be fixed in the course of this review.
4. GA criteria 1 issues: if there are sections that are problematic, again, raise them here, and if they cannot be corrected, then the delisting can stand. But they must be raised and given an opportunity for correction. The invocation of WP:Article length here, however, is not relevant, as it is not a part of the GA criteria. It may be good advice for future article development; indeed, I notice there's a split discussion currently under way. (GA status, if any, stays with the parent article.) If there are concerns regarding criterion 3b (it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)), those should be enumerated so they can be addressed.
5. Maintenance tags on the article should be addressed in the course of a reassessment, and I hope someone will do so now that it's been highlighted. (I see one "citation needed" template, and the second half of the "First term" section's "story" template, which also has "clarification needed" and "according to whom" templates). Again, this is part of fixing the article, a clear goal of GAR.

• I have fixed the "citation needed", "clarification needed", and "according to whom" in-line tags. I used Ballotpedia references for the "citation needed" tag and reworded the content tagged with "clarification needed" and "according to whom" based on two NY Times articles. See Special:Diff/953102135; Special:Diff/953282948. userdude 00:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC), diffs added 00:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

My hope is that this community GAR can proceed per the guidelines at WP:GAR, particularly that the article be fully assessed against the GA criteria in terms of where it falls short today, and that those who are interested in doing so work at editing the article so that it no longer falls short of the criteria in those areas.

If the article does come to meet the criteria in a reasonable timeframe, then I trust that the consensus will reflect that fact and the article will qualify for listing. If it doesn't meet the criteria at that point, then consensus will reflect that. Either way, the reassessment can at that point be closed, and the result reflected on the article's talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• I disapprove of any attempts to cheat the system. We have proceeded per the guidelines; therefore, attempts to call an unstable article stable by ignoring challenged neutrality and multiple issues that require PP and 1RR restrictions to get it to that point make a mockery of the GA process and a travesty, indeed. Resolve the issues first, get the article stable without PP or DS, and renominate it. Imposing false stability on an unstable, challenged article is not how the GA process works. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• I honestly don't know where to begin in responding to this, because phrases like cheat the system, make a mockery of the GA process, and even Imposing false stability on an unstable, challenged article is not how the GA process works don't reflect how the GAN and GAR processes do work. Even now, the challenged neutrality issues have not been identified with any specifics—flouting the very process supposedly being cheated. I just hope that when an independent closer appears for this page, they will look at the actions and arguments and actual GAR guidelines and GA criteria, and if the article meets the criteria on that date, close this GAR as relisted. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the responses. I would just like to make some comments regarding a few points raised.
  • Mz7. If this was not already judged a good article and someone nominated it during a period of high activity I would mostly agree with you. It is bloody near impossible to review an article undergoing mass changes. In this case it would be prudent for the nominator to let the dust settle before proposing it for assessment. The same should really apply here. We should be judging the article under all the dust, not just looking at the current storm. A somewhat relevant discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 153#RfC: Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs. It was withdrawn, but the consensus was clearly opposing the proposal.
  • Awilley. I agree with you. The sole purpose of this process is to improve an article. If that is not possible or no one is willing to then we delist it. Whether the article is marked as being "Good" or not is not really important. It does serve some utility as providing a standard that other similar articles can use as a template, but beyond that it is really just peer review lite. Saying that, someone has devoted a lot of time get this article up to a certain standard and we owe them or any other interested editors the chance to resolve any concerns.
  • Mongo. One person can delist it, as Atsme has already done. The community process here serves as a safety net of sorts. If someone believes an article they nominated has been unfairly failed they can bring it here so it can be reassessed by the community. Same if someone believes an article was inappropriately passed or in this case delisted. You are wrong when you say that GAR is not the same thing as FARC, where an article is reexamined by numerous folks and time is allowed for appropriate changes to perhaps keep it listed as FA.. As it says at the top of the reassessment page Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it..
  • Atsme. You are still just reiterating the criteria with out explaining how it fails them. If it is not neutral you need to show what parts are not neutral and use sources to show how they are not neutral. If a RFC has been closed giving consensus to certain content or wording then that is considered neutral as far as GAs are concerned. This is not an end run around community consensus. Right now what we have is the equivalent of the "I don't like it" !votes at a deletion discussion. Also listen to BlueMoonset. They know more about the Good Article process than probably anyone else.

We don't need to relitigate the process. All we need is for somoene who thinks this doesn't meet th criteria to provide clear examples of how it doesn't. AIRcorn (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh come on. Just look at the talk page. Years ago when Biden was not running for President the article was stable enough that GA wasn't an issue. Now, there are edits all the time and they are not just gnome like edits. There are edits that involve many discussions on the talk page, many edits that have some edit wars, or RFC's, etc. The article itself is always evolving and what we have today is going to be considerable different than what may be there next week. The GA process is not for articles that are rapidly evolving. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It already passed the GA process though. Sure I wouldn't recommend nominating an article that is undergoing rapid changes, but by the same token we don't delist articles because they suddenly become heavily edited. AIRcorn (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The GA that passed 12 years ago is not the same article that was delisted - see the 5 reasons given for delisting. Just curious...Aircorn, what reasons do you believe would be valid reasons to delist a GA because it appears you are arguing in opposition to the reasons stated in GAR? A few have said that we should leave it a GA, fix the issues and improve the article but simple logic tells us articles that need fixing have problems which is the reason it was delisted in the first place, so the keep arguments contradict themselves. Fix the issues that caused the delisting, hopefully to the point the article has improved and will pass GA criteria. Until then, it is not a GA. The arguments to delist provided at GA3 were solid ones, and now similar arguments have been echoed here, some by new editors who support the delisting. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset has already addressed your five points and I agree with what they say. The only part of the criteria I dispute as being relevant is the instability one, which has been convered quite extensively here. Every other one is fair game. I don't know how else to explain it, but we do not do immediate delists. We give editors a chance to fix the issues and to do that we need to explain how it fails. If you or other editors say it is not neutral and another editor says it is then there needs to be an explanaiton of how it is not neutral. This is not happening, just vague allusions to the talk page and protection levels. AIRcorn (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This has reached the point of diminishing returns. There are two big problems with GAR. One is too little participation and the other is too much participation, particularly from editors who are unfamiliar with the process and not willing to listen to editors who are. This is definitely the later and it is problematic because it can drown out the more GA knowledgeable editors. I left a note at WT:GA when I opened this so hopefully some more of the regulars venture over when this settles down some and we can get some actual reassessment instead of our current retreading. This was opened because I was unhappy with how the individual delisting went. Therefore this should be considered a continuation of that reassessment, with the status quo being that it is a "Good Article". If no one presents any clear and actionable reasons on how this fails the criteria (the ongoing debate on instability notwithstanding) then it should be returned to the status quo. AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: re: I left a note at WT:GA when I opened this – you opened this at 23:22, 22 April 2020; the last edit at Wikipedia talk:Good articles was on April 14 (a week earlier). The only note I'm finding is at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Joe Biden: "make sure the comments align with the GA criteria. it also begs a deeper question on how the stability criteria applies to delisting articles that we should probably address a bit more formally at some point." It's hard for me to see how we can avoid addressing the issue now, as this strikes me as the crux of the matter. Do you mean that you want to make sure the comments align with the GA criteria, or the GA review criteria? At Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria I see six good article criteria, including "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", but Wikipedia:Good article reassessment says, paraphrasing, "don't use this process if you see any ongoing content dispute or edit war". Despite this advice not to use this process, this process has been used twice (both individual and community) for the Biden article where there have been recent content disputes. If the GA criteria, including the "immediate failure" criteria, does not apply to GA reviews, then what are the reassessment criteria? WP:GAR doesn't clearly say what the GAR criteria are, and how they differ from the GA criteria. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant the Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Joe Biden post. Both talk pages have similar functions (there was a propsoal to merge them at somepoint), but WT:GAN is much more frequented than WT:GA so is a better place to post if you are looking for more eyes. As far as I am concerned the stability issue is a bit of a red herring. The instructions here clearly say not to bring reassessments here during an edit war and that supercedes what other instructions on other pages say. This is backed up by Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4#RfC: Reassessment of an "Unstable" Article on the talk page. Sure it is old, but the participants are well regarded good article contributors. Anyway old consensus still stands unitl a newer consensus is obtained, no matter how old it is. So in my opinion the instability of the article (which is disputed by some anyway) is not a reason to delist this article. It is up to those who think it should be to obtain a new consensus. Nuetrality concerns could be a reason to delist, along with referencing, prose and broadness.

As to why I brought it here, it was because I had no choice. An editor used an individual reassessment to delist this and I disagreed with how that was conducted. This is the only real way to make sure the correct decision is made as it attracts editors who are not just interested in the article, but the Good Article process as well. This will be closed by an independant editor who will either judge that the case for delisting is sound and uphold the previous delist, or that it wasn't and restore the Good Article status. I have no stake in this article so don't care whether it is a Good Article or not. What I care about is that correct process is followed and that this process is not used as a pawn to further ones own political agendas. To my mind no convincing reason has been given yet.

Moving beyond this reassessment I think some clarifiacation is needed to clear up any future misunderstandings or to change the consensus here to state that stability is a reason to delist. I close 90% of these reassessemnts and put no weight into instability arguements so if it is seen as being a good reason to delist then I would like to know that. I will start a clarification one if no one else does, but am not keen to do so while there is so much heat on this article. The last thing we need is editors with no interest in Good Articles in general making calls that could affect multiple articles based on a single relatively uncommon incidence (the reason we have such an old consensus is probably because this has not really come up that often). AIRcorn (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The viability of your argument that instability is not a reason to delist apparently hinges on the assessment of the consensus of this RfC which was opened after a content dispute on "Poker Face" (Lady Gaga song). There is a footnote on criterion 5: "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold." In the specific case of the Lady Gaga song it was argued that edit warring was "being done under a silly pretext", but the assumption in the RfC was to take it as a good-faith disagreement rather than disruptive editing. The RfC was closed at 18:23, 18 June 2009, about a week after the last comment there, without a formal assessment of consensus, but while it was still open Geometry guy added this to the reassessment guidelines on 10 June 2009 (with edit summary "Add clause per RFC at WT:GAR)":

• Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.

The length of time to wait before considering reassessment on the grounds of instability wasn't discussed in that RfC, but I see several contemporary comments supporting "a couple of weeks":

• I guess I'll give the article a total of two weeks for the problems to be addressed and delist if they aren't. Thanks for the help guys. DiverseMentality 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Currently there's the backlog template on this page, despite there only being seven articles here right now. Do you think we can just remove it? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  It automatically lists reassessments more than 2 weeks old, and automatically removes itself when there are none. Geometry guy 08:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Community GARs are only deliberately kept open for about 2 weeks in most cases. The fact that many remain open for 2 months or more has nothing to do with some idea that good editing happens in the second month. Instead it reflects the fact that closing GARs is a difficult responsibility which takes time to do properly - and editors with the inclination and expertise to do so are few. An article should be listed as a GA if it meets the GA criteria and not listed if it does not. Geometry guy 23:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So wait two weeks, if the content dispute doesn't resolve in that time, put them on notice for another two weeks, and if after four weeks they are still disputing some content then delist it.

Thanks to BlueMoonset for pointing out this 3 March 2016 edit which they characterized as "overreach". I would use a stronger word. At this time the text "If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." had been in the article guideline for 6 years, 8 months. Prhartcom's edit summary Major copy edit. Tried to bring consistency to the instructions for both types of reassessment. Did not change any guidelines, only improved formatting and clarity in the wording of the existing guidelines. is not truthful. Removal of the longstanding advice that after waiting two weeks, reassessment on the grounds of instability could be considered, was an (apparently bold and undiscussed) change in this guideline that put it in conflict with the "GA six". This change should have been, and still should be, reverted. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wait. The lead paragraph at WP:GAR states The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. That pretty unambiguously says that there are no separate reassessment criteria. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• At the risk of sounding like a broken record, assessments of neutrality need to point to specific content in the source material that is inadequately represented in the article (or misrepresented). I do not see sufficient specificity in the GAR. This is not to say legitimate concerns with this article don't exist, but they have not been demonstrated clearly enough. As with Awilley, I'm not going to take a position here (the GAR was within-process, in any case; this discussion, as far as I can see, cannot overturn it; that would need a new GA review), but "biased, delist" isn't a useful thing to say at any point, because that is turning this process into a battleground, as it doesn't allow for improvement of the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  struck, per below. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, Vanamonde93, but I actually did explain the non-neutral issues in various places during the discussion, most recently in the formal close as follows (my bold underline): MOS:LEAD states that the article should be well-written, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The lead fails to include any prominent controversies, and there are several, including allegations of inappropriate touching and sexual assault; however, as evidenced on the article's TP there are ongoing content disputes. The article also fails neutrality in that it does not represent viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. I further elaborated by providing examples of material that was not presented in a dispassionate tone (the tragedies) and that were UNDUE as over-emphasized trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply:

• If the "prominent controversy" you are referring to is Joe Biden sexual assault allegation I think including it in the lead would be undue recentism — dozens of controversies will likely arise during the course of a US presidential election, they do not all belong in the lede. Regardless of what I think, this is a content dispute that ought to be resolved by consensus, not you unilaterally deciding content should be included and thus the article is not worthy of GA status for not including it.
• I disagree with your claim that "the tragedies" are UNDUE and over-emphasized. With regard to UNDUE, this article is about Joe Biden and numerous reliable sources support the notion that "the tragedies" had a significant impact on his life. With regard to over-emphasis: the death of Neilia and Naomi is covered in one 135-word paragraph; the death of Beau is covered in one 85-word paragraph; Biden's brain surgeries are covered in four paragraphs, 253 words total (I agree that the fourth paragraph is trivia and I will boldly remove it after posting this comment—bringing this section down to three paragraphs, 216 words). These are all events that significantly impacted Biden's life; I fail to see how this level of coverage is UNDUE or over-emphasizing.
• If there is content written in a "dispassionate tone" please tag it or even just point it out on this page. If you already elaborated by providing examples of material that was not presented in a dispassionate tone, I kindly request that you direct me to where you provided such examples. I have tried to stay up-to-date on this discussion but I missed your examples.

userdude 17:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: One function of community GARs is to reevvalute fails at GAN. We have never had to formally put it in writing that this also applies to delists at individual GARs as it has never really come up before, but the principle is the same. The Good Article process is deliberately simple by allowing individual editors to pass and delist articlew with relative felxibilty. However there needs to be a place to reavaluate contentious closes. This is the only place that can happen (I guess it could be done at the Good Article talk page if it is a blatent case of sockpuppeting or other obvious tom foolery). Bias may play a part in it (Atsme doing an individual reassessment shows an incredible lack judgement if nothing else), but the main reason I brought it here was because it was a bad close. There was no effort to give the article a chance to be saved, which is the fundamental principle of GAR and was pointed out several times. This was also in spite of multiple editors being willing to work on the article. Here was a chance for editors beleiving it should be delisted, or even better some impartial editors, to provide an actual proper reassessment. Instead it is turned into a rehash of editors saying delist because criteria and others saying explain how. The only good thing to come out of this is that it has highlighted that certain processes here need to be clarified and updated. Nothing like political wikilaywering to find the weak points in instructions. Anyway some poor bastard is going to have to read all this and come to a conclusion. My position is that if there is no consensus the default should be to keep it listed as that was the status quo before the reassessments started. AIRcorn (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK, Aircorn. You made my reassessment controversial when it should not have been and it was based on your fallacious allegations of it being political. Was my denial of the Trump GA nom also political? The problems with the article are blindingly obvious, and your insistence in keeping a 12-year-old promoted GA that has increased in size 4x, if not more, is now raising concern over your ability to reassess. If you think the guidelines need to be changed, then go in that direction instead of discrediting me. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn, Vanamonde, it has been my impression that the community reassessment was always available (as was a new GAN) if an individual GAR was felt to be controversial or problematic. (Ditto for a GAN review with similar issues.) If such was not the case, the following would not currently be given as the standard {{Article history}} introductory text at Talk:Joe Biden: Joe Biden was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. This is a perfectly valid community reassessment of an earlier individual reassessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the clarification (and you too, Aircorn). I've struck the relevant part of my statement above. I am going to still refrain from taking a position on whether this articles meets the GAC or not, but I will state again for the record that the original GAR did not provide detailed enough analysis (with reference to source material) as to why this fails NPOV at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Are stability-based GARs appropriate?

I was reading through the WP:GAR page, and came across the following in both the Individual and Community "When to use this process" sections: You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war. If it's true that GARs should only be used when there aren't ongoing disputes/wars, why are we even here, and how was the original reassessment allowed to proceed at all?

It turns out that the basic idea comes down from a May/June 2009 RfC on the subject of stability reassessments. The discussion can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4#RfC: Reassessment of an "Unstable" Article. Consensus that something should be added to the GAR guidelines on their advisability resulted in this addition to the Community section (the feeling I get from the RfC is that individual assessments weren't appropriate, but it wasn't discussed enough for consensus): Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment; if significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered. The reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target phrase was removed by Aircorn in October 2012, and the current wording and expansion to all reassessments dates from March 2016. These last edits strike me as overreach, but it's interesting how many GAR nominators ignore this and many other portions of the GAR guidelines.

To answer my own question, and absent a new consensus, I'd say generally not, and delisting for stability reasons is a controversial enough practice that it should be only done as a community reassessment. Otherwise, you have editors who, as in this case, have decided the article needs to be delisted immediately, and GAR is the tailor-made process to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not a regular here, and Iam only going to comment on one issue: an unstable article , should not be listed as a GA. I do not see why it should be controversial.It implies a disagreement over appropriate content, and an article with such disagreement is not a GA until agreement is reached. I do not know the background of the 2009 RfC in issue, but it seems to have reached no conclusion at all. (I'm rather skeptical on the appropriateness of deciding things by 10 yr old RfCs in general) . DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This is probably a discussion for the talk page as it covers more than just this article. This case does highlight the issue though. From practical purposes I have closed the vast majority of community reassessments and I don't recall once delisting one for stability. In most cases they are brought here by an editor failing to get their version approved, edit warring and then claiming it can't be "Good" because of the so called edit war. We have various means to deal with content disputes and this place should not be one of them. If we take the stability criteria as including heavily edited articles or ones where content is disputed most Good Articles on current BLPs (sports personalities, politicians, etc) controversial topics (take your pick of any fringe topic) or even popular interest topics like (various sciences, countries etc) would fail it at some point. In fact even some pretty mundane articles go through periods of contentious editing. Also the aim of a reassessment is to fix an article and we fix unstablity by dealing with the root cause, either through an RFC, protection or if necessary blocks. Delisting it does not fix those issues. And then if the article stabilises do we have to have another reassessment to promote it again because it is now stable. AIRcorn (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If stability was not an issue, it would not be one of our 6 criteria. I agree that GAR is not the place to deal with content issues, and yes, that discussion belongs on the article TP so that editors can fix the problems. When reviewing a GA, we do not edit the article, and when reassessing to delist a GA we do not edit the article, so why even bring it up? All cases are different so there is no concrete rule that applies here. We are talking about an article that was initially promoted 12 years ago when it was a fraction of the size it is now. Hopefully the process has evolved since then, and so have our standards. It is not a good article, it is not well-written, it is unwieldy in its trivia and hard to read, it is overly promotional, has neutrality issues, and more. Instability is a symptom of other issues - I refer back to the list of reasons in the highlighted section above. There are 5 reasons listed - all valid and easily spotted by an experienced reviewer/editor. In the first GA3 delist, an editor pointed out the need for a sourcing review because of neutrality concerns, and I agree. I recently attempted to recruit 2 admins to help me address Awilley's comments above because the goal is to improve the article so it will once again pass a GA review. I think BD2412 summed it up correctly in his succinct response when he politely turned down my invitation. I agree with him. It doesn't take much to see why the article was delisted, and why leaving it as a GA is a terrible reflection on the process. In the state it is in today, it is certainly not what we want representing WP's GAs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn, the thing is that Atsme listed five reasons and the article RIGHT NOWis failing for those five reasons. There is just too much back and forth, and content disputing going on. The article is not neutral, the article is not stable. It just isn't a GOOD ARTICLE. It's just as simple as that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Five reasons without context and some even without examples, is not five reasons at all. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you visit the talk page, you can see all the examples you need. It is clear as day that the article is not a GA candidate. What was in 2009 is not the same article. I don't get the urgency of keeping it. Delist, wait a few months and relist once everything settles. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I could literally say the same thing about not understanding the urgency to delist, considering the onus is actually on those that brought this 'GAR to delist' on in the first place. Secondly, "visit the talk page, you can see all the examples" is clearly unhelpful. This is a GAR, the examples are supposed to be brought up here and discussed (especially when asked). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It just makes it sound more and more like this process is being used to settle a talk page dispute. AIRcorn (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage a wider discussion on this point at WT:GA. To the extent that this section is a question of policy, I agree with the 2009 consensus. We discourage edit wars because it harms the collaborative spirit by inflaming tensions between editors. Similarly, turning the GAR process into a venue for editors in a content dispute to complain about how the article is on The Wrong Version is not a good idea since it will most likely inflame tensions without leading to actual improvements. As an example, what meaningful improvement has come from this discussion, and how has this discussion fostered a spirit of collaboration among editors of the article? As with the 2009 discussion, I think the best procedure is to not have a GAR until after a content dispute is resolved, and if the consensus version does not comply with the GA standards, using GAR to figure out what improvements ought to be made at that point. The alternative—delisting any article in the middle of a content dispute or update—places bureaucratic nitpickery over maintaining an encyclopedia and risks editors using the GAR process to make an end run around our normal consensus building processes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

One exception might be if the article clearly fails the criteria before the edit war occurred. I don't think a content dispute should be a reason to have a GAR, but by the same token it should not be a reason not to have one if there were already serious flaws with the article. Although thinking about it as I type this it could be gamed quite easily so maybe better just to not have GARs during content disputes period. There is really no rush to delist articles, some sit here for months anyway before they are closed let alone the hundreds that have unresolved tags. Agree that this needs to be decided at a talk page not during a specific reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I totally disagree. We don't keep GAs for the same reason we fail them. When I delisted that article, there was not an ongoing content dispute or edit war - the RfC resolved that dispute (on the side I supported actually), and the edit warring had stopped. We don't keep GAs because of edit warring and instability. The article fails on 5 counts right out of the box. Instability is one of them, noncompliance with NPOV is another, MOS failings, yet another. I was not involved in any of the edit warring, I couldn't care less about what's going on at that article except for the fact that it clearly does not deserve GA status, and that is where my focus is and always has been. Nowhere in our GA guideline does it say you can simply overturn a delist - there needs to be more respect shown for that process. The article has already been through an initial GA3 and delisting was supported as it has been supported here. The only option that aligns with our GAR guideline is to renominate the article after the issues have been resolved and allow it to properly go through a complete GA review because of its expansion and the fact that it is not even close to the same article that was passed 12 years ago. It is going to need an experienced reviewer, and my top choices would be CaroleHenson or The Rambling Man, if they would oblige. It will not be an easy undertaking because of its unwieldy size, promotional nature and NPOV issues. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

With due respect, several users have raised issues with your closure of GA3 (including that it should not have been raised as an individual review to begin with)—but you have not responded to this concern, nor have you responded to the requests for examples of NPOV violations. You continue to assert NPOV and MOS violations without providing examples. Please do not try to move the goalposts of this discussion into needing a new GA review when it was clearly raised as a continuation of the GA3. userdude 22:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Experienced GA reviewers have already provided the information, and if you can't see where the problems are after multiple veteran editors have pointed them out, including an Arb, there is nothing more I need to say here except Happy Editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

UserDude I'd argue Atsme's conduct as it relates to this article's GA smacks of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; when pressed on specifics, the editor has repeatedly chosen to either not respond or respond without diffs/examples. If you're going to open a GAR, delist an article, be prepared to actually answer questions and back up your rationale. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Appeal to authority much. Being an arb doesn't automatically give you specialised knowledge into the GA process. If we are going by experienced reviewers look at this page here User:GA bot/Stats. I have five times the number of reviews as all the editors advocating delist here combined and I have still yet to see anyone provide a set of actionable reasons why this fails. If you still need more evidence of experience then look through the closed reassessments (221 vs 5) The only other person here who could be classed as a regular is BlueMoonset who has commented on 73. These claims of experienced GA reviewers are as specious as the evidence you are providing here on how this fails the criteria. Please look at how other reassessments are conducted as you clearly do not understand the process. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Re Atsme (edit conflict) But that's my whole point about placing bureaucratic nitpickery over maintaining an encyclopedia. Yes the rules might say to do X, but depending on the context, doing X may actually cause more harm than good. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not play cop over a green circle, which is why I and others have been stressing the point that GARs are collaborations to improve articles rather than a place to resolve a content dispute. So yes, you've brought up other points besides stability, but the title of this section is "Are stability-based GARs appropriate?" and so Aircorn and I are discussing that specific question; should criterion 5 apply to reassessments? I think no. GARs during and in response to content disputes are an c2:AntiPattern like edit warring. The process turns into a WP:BATTLEGROUND to gain leverage in the content dispute, and the superordinate goal of improving the article and encyclopedia take a back seat to winning an argument. The encyclopedia isn't better off because an article has or does not have a green circle in the top corner, it is better off when people work through issues and collaborate to build stuff.

With that said, I want to address your argument more directly, because I think it further exemplifies why GARs during content disputes go badly. In your opening and closing comments at Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 you cite edit warring as reasons to delist the article. In your 21:41, 16 April 2020 comment on that page, you say there is edit warring and controversy surrounding it. If it ever settles down, it can be renominated., and on this page, your second reason for delisting the article is, in bold, This article is plagued by edit warring. Your argument in this thread is that When I delisted that article, there was not an ongoing content dispute or edit war, but it seems like that is directly contradicted by your previous comment here and elsewhere. Not only are these arguments internally inconsistent, they provide no direction for how to improve an article. We have tools to resolve stability concerns, but when we use those tools that is also brought up as a reason to delist the article (argument 1: The article is currently under PP, DS with a 1RR restriction which is a clear indication that it is a locus of chaos). Stability concerns are set up like a catch-22; if the article is unstable, delist it, if administrators try to stabilize an article, that's evidence of instability and we should delist it. How is the GAR process supposed to work when the discussion is structured to force a particular outcome? I don't really care whether Joe Biden, or any article, has a green circle; I do care that the GAR process is used to build an encyclopedia and that our policies and standards reflect that goal. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please...sorry, but no. To begin, I find your comment "not play cop over a green circle" disrespectful to the process. In my eyes it is not just a "green circle". I will not indulge further in this unwarranted trial because it appears too much like wikilawyering. Apply the arguments you presented to me to yourselves because it works both ways with one exception - I hold that green circle and what it stands for in high regard, so please proceed with your suggestions to fix and improve the article which is the whole purpose in reassessing and renominating. But please, don't attempt to improve the article here - do it at the article TP where such discussion belongs. It is good to know that your focus is on fixing the problems and stabilizing it, and that the delisting and removal of the "green circle" is not where the focus should be. I feel that I have done my job here as a GA/FA reviewer/promoter in upholding the integrity of the process. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read User:Wugapodes/Good article status is no big deal to understand why I don't care about whether I'm disrespecting a process that has no feelings, and why I do care that GARs are more than an up-or-down vote. I've reviewed over 50 good articles nomination, written 5, and improved two of those to FA status, so I think my opinions on the process developed over the years are more than simply wikilawyering. If you would like to see the article improved, we get to the question of how to improve it? If you are such a stickler for The Process, why are you ignoring the GAR guidelines which state Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it by saying don't attempt to improve the article here? People have asked you for specifics; you provided a list of points; other editors responded to those points; in 5 days you haven't responded to any of those comments. Your only comments since then have been to argue with people who question whether this is a good use of our time or within the spirit of the process. You're free to not participate in the community reassessment, but as the one who undertook the individual reassessment, you are not immune from having your decision and reasoning scrutinized. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You might want to read this article to get an idea of how things are being viewed by media. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think this conversation isn't going anywhere fast on this page. Might I suggest that this be recapitulated in a neutral way on the GA talk page? It will get more people in the discussion and from a wider audience. Having this discussion only in the context of Joe Biden seems to be cause for discontent. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Find it preposterous that an article that has grown 3-4 fold since it was unilaterally promoted to GA like forever ago and has had a history of recent edit warring issues, suffers recentism issues, has POV issues, has NPOV issues (all evidenced by sometimes heated discussions at the article talkpage), has maintenance tag issues as clearly mentioned repeatedly and ignored by filibustering demands to provide specifics that are not even necessary since these issues alone fail this for GAC outright. If this article was presented to me for review I would immediately fail it. As I mentioned previously but apparently no one is reading...until this article is stable it should not be a GA but once it IS stable, then perhaps renominate it for GAC and see if someone passes it. I sure wouldn't in this current state, but I won't review it. I am amazed that the very criteria that would be an immediate fail at GAC are being simply ignored. These criteria are posted at the top of the GAC criteria page...if you're going to ignore that criteria then put that page up for Mfd.--MONGO (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

+1. You basically hit the nail on the head for the issues here or lack there of. PackMecEng (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This highlights the problem I mention in my comment. You have never conducted a GA review in your 15 years editing here, yet state with absolute certainty that you would immediately fail this one. AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Based on the posted criteria. Maybe my 30 FA level article contributions of which I was the primary on more than a dozen? Maybe based on my experience doing peer reviews and FAC reviews? I recognize GA and FA are vastly different but one can read the criteria, so since you seem to want to ignore that criteria then may as well throw it to Mfd.--MONGO (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am only ignoring the stability one for reasons I have elaborated on about half a dozen pages now. The rest are fair game. The thing is we don't just say it fails a criteria we explain how it does. I don't doubt your FA credentials, but like you say this is a vastly different beast. I wouldn't show up at FA and insist I knew how it should operate if that flew in the face of how experienced editors there say it operates. AIRcorn (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to be rude but you are welcome to try and change the criteria. You do not get to ignore it though. PackMecEng (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"You do not get to ignore it though" said with such confidence! I must say that is quite funny considering how those arguing to delist have "ignored" simple questions asking for specifics. Like examples of the supposed NPOV breaches. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The consensus as described at the start of this section is not to delist based on instability. It applies if we are nominating an article for GA, but doesn't if we are delisting one. AIRcorn (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we are seeing different consensus, because I am seeing consensus to follow policy. Which would delist based on instability. Specifically per WP:GAR, The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. PackMecEng (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you don't get to close this one anymore than I could close the GA3 and not be challenged. You are involved as the OP. A third party closer completely independent of GA needs to close this discussion. Some good closers who have been acknowledged as good closers would be SilkTork, Emir of Wikipedia, GRuban and the like - impartial, experienced and nonpolitical. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, I agree with Vanamonde's statement above: "...(the GAR was within-process, in any case; this discussion, as far as I can see, cannot overturn it; that would need a new GA review),.... I hope participation in this GAR has incentivized editors to participate in (a) improving the GAR process and (b) helping to fix the problems at the delisted article to make it worthy of GA status. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Strictly within the language of WP:GAR Vanamonde93's statement seems to be correct. As far as I can tell, GAN is the only GAR review process. Also strictly within the language of WP:GAR, I could open thousands of GARs en masse, assert neutrality violations, not respond to requests for specifics, and unilaterally decide that consensus is heavily in favor of delisting. I assert this is equivalent to Atsme's GA3, thus the delist result of GA3 should not be considered final and this community GAR should be seen as a continuation of GA3. userdude 17:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

GA3 formal close

As a formality - upon the thoughtful suggestion of Vanamonde93 yesterday, I concluded the independent reassessment Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 by providing a more formal close. It appears a few editors were confused or lacked a clear understanding of the reason behind the independent reassessment; therefore, the formal close brings further clarity without anyone having to spend a great deal of time actually reading the more detailed explanations in the lengthy discussions. I am dismayed by some of the allegations in the GAR and in this community reassessment that were used as part of the basis for challenging the first GAR, such as political motivation and a bit of back and forth regarding a lack of experience with the GA process by some of the participants. Of the 6 editors who have supported the delist (MONGO, Mz7, CaptainEek, DGG, PackMecEng, and myself), all but PME are experienced reviewers in either the GA or FA process and/or as qualified reviewers per WP:GOOD, including a few with experience in the reassessment process, so I'm not quite sure what the OP is referring to when he calls out inexperience. Furthermore, the allegation that the delist action was politically motivated is absurd, the absurdity of which is evidenced in some of the oppose statements, not to mention that the primary purpose of a reassessment is to improve an article. I see no correlation with politics unless there is a motive to use GA status as a means of assuring readers that everything in the article is factually accurate and represents a NPOV which is what an article's stability represents and why we attach a GA symbol. Granted, the AP topic area can be rather toxic which helps explain why so few editors want to spend any time there, and why I don't edit those articles. My main focus on WP has always been to promote/review and participate in article improvement and to help build the encyclopedia by attending WikiConferences, and becoming a member of several WikiProjects, including the Lead Improvement Team. I am also a qualified reviewer at NPP/AfC, and have 17 GAs and 8 FAs to my credit as either a nom or reviewer. The one editor of the 6 who supported delisting qualifies as a GA reviewer but I am not aware if their qualifications have yet been put to use, except for this reassessment. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You brought experience into this when you said Experienced GA reviewers have already provided the information. I was pointing out the relative experiences of the reviewers as it seemed to be being used as a reason to delist the article without actually providing any substance. The lack of experience is not really the issue anyway, it is the lack of listening to editors with the experience. You have been involved in three community reassessments including this one. In the other two you display the same battleground behaviour you are displaying here. When editors that have been involved in many times more try and explain how Good Article reassessments should be conducted it is generally a good idea to listen to them instead of doubling down that you are right. Myself and BlueMoonset are probably the two most active editors here and we have both tried to explain how things work. Vandemonde and Wugapodes (each with over 50 reviews to their name) have also questioned the way the process was used to conduct your reassessment. By contrast the six you mention as being experienced reviewers have 0,8,3,0,0, and 10 reviews to there names respectively (as recorded by User:GA bot/Stats, which while not perfect is the best we have at keeping track of such things). Their input is more than welcome and can be valuable, but lets keep it in context. AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn:, I just came across this. You say you have much experience with GA, is it normal for an editor who initiates a review saying this fails GA is also the same editor to perform an Independent close of the review? I'm quite shocked. starship.paint (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Starship.paint: Sorry been away for a bit. If you are talking about Talk:Joe Biden/GA3, then that is how it is supposed to work. There are individual reassessments and community ones. That was an individual one so it is expected for the initiated to close it. This one here however is a community one so it will need an independent closer. AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Closing this discussion

@Aircorn and Atsme: It's been 3 weeks since the last comment here. Should this discussion be closed? Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has changed - the same issues that resulted in the original GAR3 delist still exist with more occurring. The article fails WP:GAR: The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. In a nutshell, it does not meet GA criteria. The article continues to be unstable, it is constantly changing, there are serious issues involving NPOV that are not being addressed, particularly in the lead as well as several issues in the body. See my most recent comment regarding those issues wherein I basically point to NPOV, (DUE & BALANCE). Read Talk:Joe Biden - read the lead of the article. There is nothing in the lead about any controversy, as if none exists, including his inappropriate behavior which dates back to his Senate days - nothing about the sexual abuse allegation per WP:LEAD which also refers back to NPOV & DUE. There is nothing about the Ukrainian investigation, despite coverage by WaPo, AP, etc. There is an attempt to keep his racist comment out of the article despite WP:PUBLICFIGURE: ...which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The article still has maintenance banners and would have more if they were not being reverted. Read the GAR3 discussion, and reassessment of the reassessment which resulted in no improvement of the article because, quite simply, it is unstable and because of PP, DS, and various edit restrictions it is unlikely to be stable, much less comply with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The best way is to request a close either at the WT:GAN page or the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. There are still a few open reassessments above this so if someone wants to close those it will bump this one further up the queue. AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There are currently no fewer than three Biden-related requests for closure at the administrators' noticeboard (permanent link). One of these was just recently closed, while the other two have been archived without a formal closure. I believe that occasionally RfCs are formally closed after they have been moved to archives.

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#RfC: "... alleged that Biden ..."

(Initiated 1463 days ago on 25 April 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 15:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 11#RfC: Should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation, under a heading 'Corroborating statements', 'Witness statements', or similar?

(Initiated 1457 days ago on 1 May 2020) Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 10#RfC: Should we use the word "corroborate" to describe accounts that align with parts of the allegation?

(Initiated 1450 days ago on 8 May 2020)

Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

These requests for closure certainly lend credence to the assertions that the article has not been stable for an extended period of time. wbm1058 (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's easy to miss that the three discussions I boxed above are about the content of the sub-article Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, and thus are not directly applicable to the GAR of this article, the main bio. However, the discussion linked below,

Talk:Joe Biden#RFC: "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header, is applicable, and has not been closed yet. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

There is also another open RfC "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" header which was started 22 May 2020. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have read through this discussion and have formulated a rough closure in my head. I'm working on getting the close keyboarded and expect to post my close later today. This will be my first-ever close of a Good article (re-)assessment. Normally I would defer to a more experienced closer for such a high-profile case as this, but I see that the most active GAR participants are involved in the discussion and this project doesn't have that many active administrators closing discussions – hence I am stepping up. I have posted three comments to this discussion, but this can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators; editors are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.) I did not contribute to Talk:Joe Biden/GA3 except in the post-close comments. More than four weeks have passed since the reassessment was opened on 22 April 2020‎.

19 editors have contributed to this discussion 12 of 19 also participated in the individual reasssessmet

16 editors contributed to the individual reassessment 12 of 16 also contributed to the community reassessment

23 editiors contributed to one or both of these discussions. Consensus is determined by weight of argument rather than counting votes, but given that, to ensure that I've accounted for everyone's arguments, my rough count is:

* Keep (2): Coffeeandcrumbs, MelbourneStar

* Delist (9): Atsme, CaptainEek, ConstantPlancks, DGG, MONGO, Mz7, PackMecEng, Sir Joseph, Vfrickey

* Neutral or unclear (10): Aircorn, Awilley, BlueMoonset, Starship.paint, UserDude, Username6892, Vanamonde93, Wasted Time R, Wbm1058, Wugapodes

* Technical edits only (2): MrX, SNUGGUMS

The line between neutral and keep is a bit fuzzy. I have the sense that several "neutral" editors would like to find a way to keep, but generally these editors are more concerned with process than the outcome. The "delist" voters have more conviction. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Doing... wbm1058 (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

First things to look for: "Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check that the article does not have cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags." Given this, after two (individual and community) reviews, I was surprised to find some of these unaddressed issues:

• remove from Category:Pages with reference errors by restoring references that were removed by the edit 04:36, 6 June 2020
• Remove {{better source}} tag which was added without explanation at 12:55, 2 May 2019 by Tobby72. How can you improve on a primary source which is a video of the man speaking himself? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1j0FS0Z6ho
• clarify statement about net worth

Remaining are a few dated statement categorizations, as old as "Articles containing potentially dated statements from September 2015". I'll assume it isn't expected to try to update these for GA status to be maintained. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria. Most GARs don't include this ({{subst:GATable}}), but, as a first-time reviewer/closer I thought it would be a useful exercise:

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I've just finished reading the article and have clarified the prose and corrected grammar in a few places. Apparently this was not done by earlier reviewers in this community review. wbm1058 (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section was reviewed for compliance in this discussion. As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs; the lead now has five, so it's pushing the length limits, but not yet so far as to cause a fail here (this issue wasn't raised in the discussion). While assertions were made about trivia in the body, I didn't see any suggestions for removal of specific text from the lead. The lead should summarize any prominent controversies. wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article appears to be well referenced. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The sources appear to be reliable. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No evidence of OR has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No evidence has been presented. I have not done a thorough review for this. wbm1058 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The Wikipedia:Out of scope essay says "Use the most general scope for each article you can. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's supposed to summarise essentially all knowledge. Hence accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible.", which appears to discourage exclusion of "trivia", which seems counter to the advice of the next requirement (3b) to not go into unnecessary detail. wbm1058 (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Hey! "focused on the topic" links to Wikipedia:Article size – and Wikipedia:Summary style is all about splitting to subtopics. So, not so fast about that stuff being out-of-scope for GA reviews. A split was proposed on 24 April 2020 which quickly gained consensus in support. Vice presidency of Joe Biden was created on 30 April 2020‎ and United States Senate career of Joe Biden was created on 1 May 2020‎, but as discussed on 18 May this work has yet to be finished. In contrast with the longish lead of this article (1b above) the leads of Vice presidency of Joe Biden and United States Senate career of Joe Biden are each just one short paragraph, making it difficult to summarize those sections here. This article cannot be recertified as a Good Article until after this work is done. wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This is such a subjective criterion that I feel that it can only be determined by consensus in a community discussion. What I mostly see in this discussion is an assertion that the article is not neutral responded to by mostly unanswered requests for specifics, and some acknowledgement(s) of "good faith claims that the article lacks neutrality". This criterion feels somewhat redundant to me. I think an article that passes all other criteria, particularly stability, is unlikely to fail on just this one. In any event the discussion hasn't sufficiently specifically addressed this criterion for me to make a call. wbm1058 (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	As indicated above 9 !voters were leaning to delist based on instability. This was a borderline "no consensus" discussion, but regardless the outcome is the same. See additional comments below.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All 39 images in the article are tagged; most as public domain or creative commons. wbm1058 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All 39 images in the article are relevant and captioned. wbm1058 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Neutrality and stability

Items 4 and 5 are the "elephant in the room" around which this GAR revolves. I view these criteria as very much connected because the crux of the stability issues revolve around disputes over neutrality. Indeed § Are stability-based GARs appropriate? discusses this.

I noticed a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, "List of Wikipedians by number of Good articles?" and volunteered to work on producing such a list (after I finish closing this). I think such a list for the "content creators" would nicely balance out the "gnomes list". Based on the algorithm for producing that list, I see that Wasted Time R would get credit for this GA. Indeed this seems to be a good measure based on the XTools report which gives them a significant margin over other editors in authorship, number of edits, and added text.

A point of contention in this GAR is whether an article can be delisted based on the Immediate failures criteria. It was asserted that "there is no such thing as an immediate fail at GAR" and the "immediate" part only applies to new GA nominations. But GAR determines whether an article that is listed as good article still merits its GA status according to the good article criteria. There are no separate "review criteria", so I find that the "immediate" part does apply. However, the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment "When to use this process" guideline says "Use the individual reassessment process if You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war and "Requesting (community) reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." So, following the guideline, a GAR may only fail based on the "immediate" part after waiting at least two weeks to confirm persistent instability and obtaining a very clear consensus for an immediate fail from at least five editors in a community discussion. In fairness to Atsme, until I made this uncontested reversion, the guidelines were contradictory on stability-based reviews, so I can't fault her for starting an individual GAR. Editors are advised that in the future stability-based reassessments should only be done by the community process. This is to ensure fairness to editors like Wasted Time R who've put in a lot of work to get the article up to the GA standard. In any event, this review has gone on long enough that it is way past being able to be called an "immediate" review. - wbm1058 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Wbm1058 for noticing my past role, it is appreciated. But during 2015–16 I retired from working on this and other current political articles, so regardless of how much work I put into it in the past, I have accepted having no part in what happens to it going forward. I will say, as I mentioned previously in these GAR discussions, that I don't see stability per se as a barrier to GA/FA, since between 2008 and 2016 five of the six major party presidential candidate articles were FA at the time of the November elections (and some had been GA before that) and all of those may have looked on the surface like they had stability issues. But in reality the vast bulk of each article changed little from day to day and the value each article presented to the reader remained consistently high. That can be done here as well. Anyway, good luck with doing the rest of this close, you have taken on a pretty thankless task ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Precedents. Criterion 5 is open to interpretation: "it does not change significantly from day to day". The footnote to that provides some clarification: "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold." The key word open to interpretation is "significant". This word may be ambiguous in some situations. "Having a noticeable or major effect." "Reasonably large in number or amount." An article "undergoing rapid expansion or being rewritten" is undergoing significant change, but what about the addition of a single sentence to an already lengthy article? If that single sentence mentions allegations of sexual misconduct not previously mentioned in the article, that single sentence arguably has a noticeable or major effect. Edit-warring over the addition of that sentence may reasonably be interpreted as evidence that the addition had a noticeable effect; if it didn't, in my view an edit war is much less likely to develop.

I have heard the appeals to precedents. Wikipedia doesn't have any policies or guidelines on this. Although precedents are not required to be followed, I am sympathetic with the Wikipedia:Precedents essay. With that in mind, I searched the archives and found a nearly 14-year old discussion titled "Dealing with Bad Faith objections on controversial topics". While the debate that led to this was over religion, it seems relevant given the separation of church and state, but can religion and politics really be separated?

The dispute was over the Creation-evolution controversy article, which has since moved to Rejection of evolution by religious groups. The article was delisted per this GAR as explained by the reviewer HERE and on the revewer's talk. The {{Article history}} on Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups shows that the article was listed on January 22, 2006, delisted on October 4, 2006, and apparently no attempts have been made to relist it after that.

I noticed that Result: 6 delist to 4 keep, no consensus was added by another editor (not the reviewer) when they archived the discussion. I'm not sure whether the reviewer counted votes, but this edit demonstrates the view that no consensus in a GAR results in delisting rather than maintaining the status quo, which is counter to the view expressed by some in this GAR. I think that's right; Good Article Reviews simply confirm that an article still passes the criteria. If a first time assessment would fail criterion 5 if there was no consensus, then I don't see how a reassessment should have a different outcome with no consensus. I haven't seen anything in the instructions supporting that view.

I'll make a quick search now for more, confirming precedents. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I just confirmed that the stability criterion hasn't substantially changed since March 2006 so the above precedent still seems relevant.

Another point of contention in the discussion revolves around the Wikipedia:Stable version supplement to the page protection policy. An argument was made that you can not get more stable than a fully protected article, which was rejected by another participant with the rationale that if an article so poorly failed to meet the stability criterion that an administrator had to forcibly cause it to be stable, then it isn't truly stable. I concur with this latter view. If one should wait at least two weeks to confirm an article's instability, arguably most high-profile articles will always pass the criterion because administrators will not allow instability to persist for that long before protecting the article. It makes no sense to have a criterion that can never fail. The rationale for protection should be examined. If it's protected due to vandalism, then it's still stable for GAR purposes. But if it's protected due to edit warring, then it's not. Per Wikipedia:Stable version § Inappropriate usage it is inappropriate usage to invoke this argument to avoid a delisting for instability. An open request for comment over a proposed "significant" change in content, i.e. a change that will have a "noticeable or major effect" on the article, should be viewed as a sign of instability for as long as the RfC remains open.

I realize this is problematic for articles of this type. A possible solution might be to introduce the concept of a "last good version" or a new indicator showing that the good article "may be outdated and is currently undergoing review of possible content changes". wbm1058 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

I suppose the sections below may be considered as equivalent to the workshop page of an Arbitration Committee case. LOL wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary-style split

For 3b, I'd like to point out that I did propose a split which ended up happening, but discussion about the prose to keep in the article went nowhere. It's been brought up again, but that discussion also went nowhere. As much as I want to help, I realize that I have almost no splitting/summarizing experience and I'm terrible at summarizing things. Username⁶⁸⁹² 02:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

• 1b fails - it is a campaign speech with all controversy omitted and reads like a whitewashed presentation by a candidate during an election year. Remove some of the cruft and candidate marketing from the lead, add the most notable controversies per MOS, otherwise it clearly fails 1b. MOSLEAD states (my bold underline): 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. I will also note that tags regarding NPOV were wrongfully removed from this article, and I was not going to get into an edit war over it. It is not a neutral article for the reasons I have already mentioned, and it is highly protected - again another fail. Also, the independent reassessment involved community input so I don't see any difference between the independent community reassessment and the community reassessment except for a difference in the two editors who called for comments. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing much support for failing 1b from the !voters. Most of the "delist" sentiment I see is based on failing 5, and perhaps 4. Let's address your two relevant points separately. wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Length

The lead now has five paragraphs; the manual of style suggests reducing this to four. What would you remove? Feel free to either strike through words to omit using <s>...</s> tags or rewrite it below. wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Username6892's opinion for removals, Removals Username6892 is less sure about, Username6892's opinion for additions

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˌrɒbɪˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who served as the 47th vice president of the United States from 2009 to 2017 and represented Delaware in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2009. A member of the Democratic Party, Biden is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States in the 2020 election. This is Biden’s third run for president after he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination in 1988 and 2008.

Biden was raised in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and New Castle County, Delaware. He studied at the University of Delaware before receiving his law degree from Syracuse University. He became a lawyer in 1969 and was elected to the New Castle County Council in 1970. He was elected to the U.S. Senate from Delaware in 1972 when he became the sixth-youngest senator in American history. Biden was reelected six times and was the fourth-most senior senator when he resigned to assume the vice presidency in 2009.

As a senator, Biden was a longtime member and eventually chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He opposed the Gulf War in 1991 but advocated for U.S. and NATO intervention in the Bosnian War in 1994 and 1995, expanding NATO in the 1990s, and the 1999 bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo War. He argued and voted for the resolution authorizing the Iraq War in 2002 but opposed the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. He has also served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dealing with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties, as well as the contentious U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden led the efforts to pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Violence Against Women Act.

In 2008, Biden was the running mate of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. As vice president, he oversaw infrastructure spending to counteract the Great Recession and helped formulate U.S. policy toward Iraq through the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2011. His negotiations with congressional Republicans helped the Obama administration pass legislation including the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which resolved a taxation deadlock; the Budget Control Act of 2011, which resolved that year's debt ceiling crisis; and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which addressed the impending fiscal cliff. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Biden led the Gun Violence Task Force, created to address the causes of gun violence in the United States. Obama and Biden were reelected in 2012.

In October 2015, after months of speculation, Biden announced he would not seek the presidency in the 2016 election. In January 2017, Obama awarded Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom with distinction. After completing his second term as vice president, Biden joined the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was named the Benjamin Franklin Professor of Presidential Practice. He announced his 2020 candidacy for president on April 25, 2019, joining a large field of Democratic candidates pursuing the party nomination. Throughout 2019, he was widely regarded as the party's frontrunner. After briefly falling behind Bernie Sanders after poor showings in the first three state contests, Biden won the South Carolina primary decisively, and, several center-left moderate candidates dropped out of the race and endorsed him before Super Tuesday. Biden went on to win 18 of the next 26 contests. With the suspension of Sanders's campaign on April 8, 2020, Biden became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the presidential election. On June 9, 2020, Biden met the 1,991-delegate threshold needed in order to secure the party's nomination.

References

References

References

Prominent controversies

What specific controversies should be mentioned in the lead? These should be controversies that are already covered in the article body.

There is no consensus for including a specific statement in the lead of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. If attempts to add controversies to the lead of this article have been reverted, a similar discussion should be initiated to get a consensus to include them. wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Response to Wbm1058 and (1b) regarding controversies:

1. the Tara Reade RfC close states: this RfC is about how much detail about that allegation to give in the lead. A consensus has not been reached as to how much so the dispute is ongoing. Regardless, that is not the only controversy as the following will evidence:
2. Politico and other RS have published Biden's controversial ‘you ain’t black’ comment, which belongs in the lead per MOS;
3. the Vox article about Joe Biden’s controversial comments about segregationists and wealthy donors, explained;
4. the NYTimes article, Biden’s ‘Breakfast Club’ Controversy Shows What His Rivals Already Knew;
5. Time article,

Top 10 Joe Biden Gaffes - Throughout his decades of public service, the former Senator and current Vice President has earned a reputation for often saying the wrong thing at the wrong time;

• And there are many more. Not even one notable controversy is mentioned in the lead, few are in the body text, and there should be several. Sorry, but it FAILS NPOV on many counts. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but the word "gaffes" makes it sound pro-Trump. Other editors may or may not think so, but that's just what I think. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Even Bushisms, with their own article, didn't make it to George W. Bush's lead. I don't think Biden's gaffes are more significant. starship.paint (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Atsme:, a very recent RfC discussion (which you participated in) resulted in consensus not to have "you ain't black" in the body. You are free to start a another RfC for a new consensus, but to plainly assert that it belongs in the lead is simply ignoring the current consensus. starship.paint (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: Just for clarification that is not a RFC. That was a discussion that was open about a week and a half. PackMecEng (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: - you're absolutely right. I apologize for my error. Thank you for the correction, I have edited my post accordingly. starship.paint (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Crusader states

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

Result: Delisted Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I emphasize that I have not thoroughly reviewed the article. I only quickly read it and found the following issues:

GA criteria 1b. ("it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation"):

• The first sentence of the article is not verified in the main text. (Actually, it contradicts the main text, which says that the crusader states were established as a consequence of the First Crusade).

• I am really happy that the fourth attempt to fix the principal problem in the text was successful. The previous three attempts ([8], [9], [10]) prove that the article needs attention from an expert who do not need external assistance to write of the topic. Borsoka (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria 3a. ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"):

• The article does not mention the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia and the Near East, which gave rise to the Byzantines' demand for Western European mercenary forces and established the conditions of the quick conquest of the Outremer by the crusaders. [Asbridge (2012), pp. 21–22; Housley (2006), pp. 36–37]

 Done—raised further issues below Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• In the meantime, an attempt was made to include the Seljuk conquest ([11]). The attempt shows that the article needs attention from an expert who do not need external assistance to write of the topic. Now, about half of the section Background is dedicated to the Turks. Yes, the Turks were important actors, because 1. their conquest of Anatolia/Asia Minor forced Alexios I to ask for Western mercenaries and 2. their arrival contributed to the total fragmentation of the Muslim world, enabling the relatively easy conquest of Syria and Palestina by the crusaders. The new text provides extensive information about the Turks, with little connection to the Outremer, but the principal consequences of the arrival of the Turks in the context are not emphasized for readers. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It was good call on your behalf on the lack of content on the Seljuks. In fact it should have gone further to differentiate between the polities of the Great Seljuk Empire and the Sultanate of Rum. Also missing was the other Turkic groups that had an impact on the Outremer such as the Danishmendids, the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) and Mamluks in general. Hopefully this gap in the article is now filled. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that the information on the Turks now dominates the Background section, but it does not make clear what was their role in the establishment and development of the crusader states. We can read unnecessary information about the waves of Turkish migrations, about the names of Turkish dynasties with no connection with the crusades, but we are not informed, for instance, about the important institution of atabeg (a Seljuk tradition contributing the disintegration of the Seljuk empire and enabling the crusades to dominate the political life of Syria and Palestine for decades). Furthermore, the Background section does not mentions the Armenians, the Ismaelites, the Italian merchants cities. The expansion of the Background section did not solve the previously mentioned problems either, but it created a new one: WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Armenians, Ishmaelites, Italians, and cities all added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done. The term "Armenian" is mentioned several times, but they are not introduced in context. While we are informed about the multiple waves of Turkish migrations, we are not informed about the Armenians' arrival, although alliance with the Armenians was at least as important in the formation of the crusader states, than the fragmentary nature of the Turkish states. There are also random references to Armenian warlords - do you really think this is a proper background? The University of Wisconsin Press's classical 6-volumed monography of the crusades dedicates whole sections to the Ismaelites and the Italian city states. Do you really think a "Background" dominated by irrelevant pieces of information on the Turks, but with almost no reference to the Armenians, Italian merchant communities and Ismaelites is fully in line with WP:DUE? Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There were more causes for the First Crusade than the invasions of Anatolia. Once underway the crusade the pilgrimage to Jerusalem beacme the primary objective. This brought the Crusaders into contact with other Turkish groups that should be explained. Indeed, after 1099 Anatolia was a minor intersect with the Crusader States Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Do you know anybody who have whenever challenged the above statement? Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

There was a paragraph on this, I have moved to make more obvious to you. I don'y think you read all the changes. The history of the Christian kingdom of Lesser Armenia followed a similar pattern to the crusader states. Located to the north-west of Syria it was established on former Muslim territory that had been retaken, in this case by the Byzantines in the 10th century. It was populated with immigrant Armenians from between Lake Van and the Caucasus. When the Byzantine frontier collapsed after the battle at Manzikert in 1071 they dominated Cilicia and territory reaching east to the Euphrates. During the first crusade they gave support and assistance to the crusaders. After a long contest for supremacy between two families, the Rubenids and the Hethumids Leo I, King of Armenia was crowned the kingdom was formally established. The two families intermarried with each other and then with that of Antioch. The kingdom submitted to the Mongols in the 13th century before finally succumbing to the Egyptian Mamluks in 1375. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You seemed to have also missed this paragraph on the maritime republics. One Frankish weakness was the lack of sea-power. This was addressed by the purchase of naval resources from the Italian maritime republics of Pisa, Venice and Genoa. These republics were enthuisastic crusaders from the early 11th century whose commercial wealth secured the finacial base of the Franks. In return these cities, and others such as Amalfi, Barcelona and Marseilles, received commericial rights and access to Eastern markets. Over time this developed into colonial communities with property and jurisdictionial rights. I have moved it to make it more obvious. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And this on the Ishmaelites Ismāʿīlist branch of Shia Islam of which the Fatamids were members. A group that had been founded by the Persian missionary Hassan-i Sabbah broke away and founded the Nizari Ismaili state in Alamut, Iran. This organisation known as the New Preaching also developed in Syria became known in western historiography as the Order of Assassins. They used targeted murder to compensate for their lack of military power. Nizam al-Mulk was their first victim. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done—as per above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE: lengthy sentences about the Turks with almost no relevance vs. sporadic info on the Ismailites. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article almost makes no mention of women and if a woman is mentioned, she is a queen.

 Done paragraph added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Do you really think about two sentences is enough to describe the life of about 50% of the population? Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Again we must agree to disagree. As Tyerman notes Gender Studies in the Crusades is a realtive new area of research, more a question for Historiography. There are no authoritive works and this is also picked up in the body of the article so no need for specificity e.g. woman were governed in the same way, were part of the same economy, religions etc, lived in the same demography. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There are at least two specialized works on women's role in the crusader states. Hodgson's Women, Drusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative and the Gendering the Crusades by Edgington and Lambert. Do you really think that women can be ignored? Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article does not describe the commoners' everyday life in the Outremer. Where did they live? What did they produce and eat? What did they pay for their lords? How did they resist?

 Not done not convinced this is pertinent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you really think that a country, a region, a town can be properly presented without mentioning the everyday life of common people? We are not here to write romantic novels about knights, kings, fair ladies, and castles to teenage boys, but we are here to provide a full picture of crusader societies. Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree in the absence of a third opinion. It is covered in appropriate detail without giving it undue weight. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article does not write of the international relations of the Crusader states.

What is actually meant by this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• You can read plenty of specialized literature about the relationship between the crusader states and their neighbors (Byzantines, Muslims, Armenians, Italians). Borsoka (talk)

I assume this means there is nothing specifically missing. Venice is mentioned 3 times, Genoa 3, Amalfi twice, the Byzantines 33 times, Aremnians 16, Maritime republics twice, Italians 27 times, Turks 17 times, Arabs 15 times and Muslims 32 times. It is not accurate to say the article does not include details on relations. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article does not write of the differences between the Crusader States.

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why do you think it is done. Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A number of paragraphs were added in the new Foundation section. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The results of archaeological researches are not mentioned, although archaeology is an important source of everyday life in the Outremer.

 Not done what value would this add?

• You are ignoring the results of a well established branch of science. Read Jotischky's remarks about the importance of archaeological research in developing views about crusader societies. [Jotischky (2017), pp. 18, 161]

GA criteria 3b. ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"):

• The article contains lengthy text about the history of the Knights Hospitaller after the fall of the Outremer.

Trimmed this and moved to legacy where it probably warrants a mention? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• The last edit indeed improved the article. Thank you for it. However, the section still suggests that the Hospitallers were the first military order, and we are informed about the principal reason of the formation of the military orders in the third paragraph. Sorry, I must say that an article needs to be close to meet GA criteria before its nomination, because a GA review or a GA reassessment process is not destined to write an article. This article does not meet GA criteria and significant work is needed to improve it. Please also use the "Preview" bottom before saving your edits. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The section is in chronological sequence, so as the the Hospitiliers were active from the 1080smand the Templars commenced after the First Crusade this is correct. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I know that the Hospitallers were active from the 1080s, but it was not a military order - it only transformed into a military order after the establishment of the Knights Templar, adopting their example. If you write of the military orders and want to follow a chronological order, you should begin the text with the Templars. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

On the matter of the article's GA status, I fundamentally disagree. This article only recently went through a GAR and passed. On that basis the majority view is the article meets the GA criteria. You don't agree, which is fine, but that is not consensus. I am taking your suggestions in good faith as they do allow the article to improve but that does not mean I agree with your evaluation, because I don't. You have written yourself that you don't want to review in this topic area at present, I suggest this reassessment withdrawn, we wait until the move debate is resolved, I take time to reconsider your feedback, update the article and then if you still believe it is not at GA standard we resubmit for reassessment or even to get the expert view you believe the article needs submit for a Milhist A class review. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

As my brief comments show for weeks, the article did not (and does not) meet major GA criteria. For the article should have been completed before its GAN, I cannot withdraw the reassessment process. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Chronological order changed as suggested Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this version is much better. I tried to fix your typos - I suggest you should read the text again because even a non-native speaker could easily find 5-6 typos in your relatively short text. I also added some templates to sign where you obviously misinterpreted your sources or failed to explain the relevance of the sentence. ([12]) If all problems are addressed, I think we can conclude that this section reached the level of an average GA. I would consider deleting the Latin names of the two orders, because 1. this is the English version of WP and only people who do not have chance to regularly meet Latin terms think that their use is elegant; 2. the Latin names of the two other military orders are not mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done. We should make it clear what happened at the Council of Troyes. (I know that Asbridge says that the Templars were recognized by the Latin Church at the council, but actually the order's recognition was a lengthy procedure: first the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem recognized the order in 1120, next a synod of the French Church sanctioned their rule and finally the pope granted them privileges.) I fixed some more typos. I also tried to clarify that not only the common name, but the names of the Knights Templares derived from the association of the Al Aksa with Solomon's Temple. ([13])

 Done—added rule, and now using TyermanNorfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Sorry, I must say you still do not understand what happened when. Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well perhaps we have to agree to disagree. The article matches two different respected sources (Asbridge & Tyerman), it is only your pedantry that disagrees Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria 4. (it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each):

• The article contains the following text: "The barons of Jerusalem in the 13th century have been poorly regarded by both contemporary and modern commentators: James of Vitry was disgusted by their superficial rhetoric; the historian Jonathan Riley-Smith writes of their pedantry and the use of spurious legal justification for political action." Jotischky (who is cited in the article) on the subject: "The barons of the kingdom of Jerusalem in the thirteenth century have not, on the whole, had much sympathy from historians. ... It is tempting to view them as argumentative and lacking the breadth of vision to suspend their constitutional jealousies for the greater good of the kingdom. ... But it was this very quality of legal expertise and the ability to plead a case in court that the barons themselves prized. Ralph of Tiberias, for example, became a heroic figure among the thirteenth-century baronage for the constitutional grasp he showed in his resistance to Almeric II in 1198."

Not really sure of the point here? By Ralph, I assume that Jotischky is referring to Raoul of Saint Omer. A relatively minor figure that many sources do not even mention. His story rather illustrates the point made in the article. He made his case, the king rejected it and he was exiled anyway. If he was a legal hero it didn't do him any good. Adding this wouldn't really inform the lay reader of anything, in fact he would distract from the argument that Riley-Smith made that Jotischky was referring to. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article is mainly based on books about the crusades not on books about the crusader states, so the sources of the article concentrate on the military actions, not on the principal characteristics of the crusader states. Please read Riley-Smith's following remarks about Raoul of Saint Omer (whom you describe as "a relatively minor figure"): "...a man every bit as remarkable as [King Aimery of Cyprus and Jerusalem] ... Ralph, Lord of Tiberias ... evolved a method of defending himself in which the main themes of the later interpretation of the Assise sur la ligece can already be discerned: the argument that the law underlined the absolute necessity for a judgement in court in a case concerning the relationship between a lord and his vassal" (Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1973). The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174-1277. Macmillan. pp. 156–157. ISBN 9781349154982.) Your above remark shows that you did not understand my principal concern. The problem is that the article does not presents PoVs neutrally. Have you whenever read the adjective "spurious" in connection with the demand to be judged by peers? Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen spurious used, and so have you, on the same page of Jotischky as you quote above. He refers to terminology, the article uses justification, the meaning I think is the same. The article doesn't conflate this with the principle of judgement by peers at all, it has just one sentence on the barons reputation and behaviour summarised by a reputable historian and based on the same source as yourself—Riley-Smith's The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

No, none of the sources cited use the term in connection with Ralph's claim to be judged by peers. You picked up the negative statements about 13th-century barons from Jotischky's book ignoring the context: the monarchs' arbitrary actions. Borsoka (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither does the article, you have made this conflation. The context is fine, Jotischky is using the Ralph example to make a totally different point, that the Barons valued legal sophistry. Nowhere is judgement by peers mentioned, you raised this. What is mentioned in this single sentence is attributed comments, both modern and contemporary, on the behaviours and actions of the Barons, used in context and cited to reputable sources.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Would you please address my point? The article is not neutral and it does not properly summarize Jotischky's allegedly cited sentence: he summarizes both negative and positive views of the barons, but you only picked the negative remarks from his text. 2. He explicitly refers to Ralph. I tried to explain to you why this reference is relevant quoting Riley-Smith (who is mentioned in Jotischky's text): Ralph was the hero of the barons' because of his resistance to King Aimery's arbitrary action and his insistance on trial by peers. 3. If we want to provide a fair and neutral picture of the barons of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, we cannot insist on repeating the views of a 13th-century jurist and Riley-Smith of 13th-century barons, because the Kingdom of Jerusalem had existed already in the 12th century. 4. Furthermore, if we want to provide a full picture, we should present the movements of the Jerusalemite barons against their monarchs in a wider context: similar movements existed in 13th-century southern France, England, Hungary, Aragon. An encyclopedia cannot be built on texts randomly picked up from here and there. Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous reply and suggest you read the paragraph in its entirety (I have added a sentence to say the barons themselves valued legal expertise. Magnates—such as Raynald of Châtillon, Lord of Oultrejordain, and Raymond III, Count of Tripoli, Prince of Galilee—often acted as autonomous rulers. Royal powers were abrogated and effectively governance was undertaken within the feudatories. What central control remained was exercised at the Haute Cour—High Court, in English. Only the 13th century jurists of Jerusalem used this term, curia regis was more common in Europe. These were meetings between the king and his tenants in chief. Over time the duty of the vassal to give counsel developed into a privilege and ultimately the legitimacy of the monarch depended on the agreement of the court. The barons of Jerusalem in the 13th century have been poorly regarded by both contemporary and modern commentators: James of Vitry was disgusted by their superficial rhetoric; the historian Jonathan Riley-Smith writes of their pedantry and the use of spurious legal justification for political action. Although the Baron's themselves highly valued the ability to make a legal case. You would be hard put to find any reputable historian who believes the Barons behaviour was admirable. Their love of the law and the work of the jurists is respected but that is not what is referred to here. Jotischky uses Raplh as one example, many sources do not mention him at all (e.g. Prawar in his 500 page+ work on the kingdom). This puts his importance into perspective. Furthermore this paragraph is about the Barons in the second kingdom, that is 13th century barons. Lastly as Prawar puts it, governance in Jersulem went on a journey in the opposite direction to France & England who created a centralised bureaucracy that controlled the barons. Whereas in Jerusalem centralised control decayed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

1. James Clark Holt, in his monography dedicated to the Magna Carta, emphasizes that the idea that the great vassals cannot be deprived of their fiefs without their peers' judgement spread in Europe-and also in Jerusalem in the 11th-12th centuries; he also writes that the great vassals' right to withdraw their support from arbitrary monarchs was enacted in several countries in Europe-and also in Jerusalem-in the 13th century. This is a quite obvious reference to parallel development in Jerusalem and Europe. However, this is not mentioned in the article. [Holt, James Clark (2003) [1992]. Magna Carta. Cambridge University Press. pp. 76–80. ISBN 0-521-27778-7.] 2. Yes, I know you believe that Germany was centralized during Emperor Frederick II's reign, se decentralization of the Jerusalemite monarchy is unprecedented in 13th-century Europe. Sorry, I do not want to comment your belief. 3. Please read literature proving that the empoverished Jerusalemite barons were relatively weak against the monarchs (Steven Tibble [14], Gury Perry [15]). Borsoka (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we may be debating at cross purposes here, let me try and help. Firstly, in the 12th century it remained lawful for the king to conficate fiefs. Prawar writes An Assize that probably goes back to the time of Baldwin III (1143-62) who hardly made innovations in this field, assured the king the right to confiscate fiefs from his great tenants-in-chiefs without trial for a variety of reasons. (p 105) Whether this continued into the 13th century is rather a mute point as Frederick's Italian army and a 15 year civil war, the War of the Lombards, the battle of La Forbie and the rapid decline of the kingdom made this largely academic. Very much in the way that although Magna Carta paved the way for Anglo common law it was quickly repudiated and English monarchs at the very least were able to deal harshly with their Barons for several more centuries. Futhermore Prawar also comments Compared with contemporary developments, the position of the Crown seems to have followed a course in the opposite direction. So opposite, not parallel. He goes on The kings of Jerusalem possessed far more power in theory and practice. Conversely, by the middle of the thirteenth century, when Western Europe was dominated by powerful rulers as Frederick II, St Louis and Edward I the Crown of Jerusalem was but a shadow.(p103-104) He further expands this argument Starting from similar conditions, during the twelth century European courts had developed a machinary that could be adapted to the centralising tendencies of the crown......This did not happen in the Latin kingdom. The centralised machinary fossilised [around 1125]....At the end of the First Kingdom (1187) this machinary was already anachronistic and during the Second Kingdom it proved completely obsolete. {p112). So what happened instead. Just after the middle of the twelth century the nobility, or more exactlt the great magnates, became the dominant element in the government of the country.....the main functions of government were thus exercised within feudal subdivisions...this left little scope for the development of a central administration.(p113) As Prawar writes the Haute Cour never became a parliament but was a meeting place for the different power factors in society, The jurists argued that The competences of the Haute Cour not merely included the right to sit in judgement over the king's vassals, but over the king himself but this is the theory of pure feudalism not a new legal innovation. Furthermore, In reality, we find no such instance in the kingdom's history .(p120) This pretty much reflects what the article contains, and supports Riley-Smith's evaluation of the 13th century Baraons. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I try to be as simple as I can, because you obviously do not understand my concerns. 1. We cannot summarize with a sentence from a book about the 13th-century barons the development of the complex relationship between Crown and barons from 1100 to 1291. 2. We cannot present Prawer's view about the High Court as a fact describing the 200-year-long constitutional history of Jerusalem. 3. We cannot assume that whenever a scholar mentions Frederick II, he or she refers to Germany, because Frederick II was the monarch of mutiple kingdoms (including the centralized Regno in Southern Italy). Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you being simple. Firstly, it is not one sentence but two paragraphs that cover this topic. I think you should read the article again. Prawar is possible the leading 20th century expert on the subject. You are mistaken on the source it is Jotischky. Again you are conflating what is written about Frederick with Germany, nowhere in the article is this connection made (or in fact would be made, the topic is the machinary of government. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I read the article. I did not change my mind: the article does not present the development of the political life of the crusader states neutrally and in context; the article's reference to a strong Frederick ruling Germany as a contrast to the Jerusalemite barons' fractionalism is hilarious. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue. Let other editors decide whether this is a GA. I think the issue is clear, the article has not been significantly improved. Borsoka (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

 DoneI have tweaked the comment on Frederick to clarify the article was referring administrative bureaucracy and link it closer to Prawer. I think the confusion arrises from the difference between Frederick's German territories and his Italian, particularly Sicily. It is worth noting that the article never mentioned Germany in this regard, that is your assumption. On that basis this is  Done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and attention. I agree it is better for other editors to decide whether this article remains at GA. It had passed GAR only a few weeks ago and your attention has improved it further, so it is reasonable to believe it is a GA. The name debate has yet to conclude, when it does the article could still do with further improvement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I again emphasize that the above findings are results of a quick review. Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• You make some reasonable points Borsoka. You are a well read Wikipedian, it would be more Wikipedian to use that knowledge to improve the article rather than use it for a reasessment that no one has asked for maybe? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The article should have been completed before its GAN. You may remember I spent more than a month reviewing an article about the crusades in December and January. It was also edited by you, it contained almost identical errors. For the time being, I do not want to review articles about the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka. Just on your last comment, I am missing your point. The quote you give seems to reinforce the wording of the article rather than contradict it. Maybe something from this could be worked into the article, but I don't see that it is an unfair viewpoint. Lawyers have always been self congratulational and widely disliked. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. Yes, the article presents the PoV of the 13th-century barons' opponents and of some modern historians. However, as Jotischky emphasizes, this approach ignores the barons' own position: they were convinced that a monarch could not seize their property or expel them from the country arbitrarily, that is without a judgement by their peers. I think this is a quite familiar concept to most of us. Jotischky refers to this when writing of Ralph of Tiberias. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ironically, the example of Ralph rather proves the point of what was written in the article. Ralph requested judgement by his peers, Aimery refused and Ralph was exiled for the rest of the reign. The nobles may have grumbled and withdrawn their feudal service, which at this point was nugatory but the outcome remained the same. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Which part of your above summary is reflected in the following sentence quoted above: "The barons of Jerusalem in the 13th century have been poorly regarded by both contemporary and modern commentators: James of Vitry was disgusted by their superficial rhetoric; the historian Jonathan Riley-Smith writes of their pedantry and the use of spurious legal justification for political action"? I am not a native speaker of English, but I have never read the adjective "spurious" in connection with a claim to be judged by peers. Borsoka (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:, I kindly ask you to decide which book do you cite. Holt's allegedly cited work was first published in 2004. Borsoka (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Borsoka—The Age Of The Crusades-The Near East from the eleventh century to 1517 by P.M. Holt, published by Longman in 1986 ISBN 0-049302-1 according to the publishing details. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• https://www.bookdepository.com/Age-Crusades-P-M-Holt/9780582493025 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, you did not read the titles in the bibliography before the article's GAN ([16]). Borsoka (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done well it is all resolved now, thank you Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• If the tags atop the article cannot be quickly resolved, then it should be delisted. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Srnec This needs some kind of dispute resolution or third party view. It has only just passed GA. The tags were added by one editor, who has then initiated a community reassessment himself and then wrote he doesn't have time to review. I would remove the tags as unwarranted, but I am reluctant to do this without consensus. I have suggested the this review is stopped until the community decide what the article is actually called (in the ongoing move debate), any required improvements are made and then if it is still required it is brought back for reassessment then. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, Iazyges—You took this through a CE and the first GAR respectively. Do you have a view on this, please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If a user initiates a community review by themselves, that review usually dies when they stop posting; I'm not necessarily saying we should close this now, but good odds that it will go without much activity and eventually be closed. I don't think any of the issues truly required the tagging and reassessment instead of just working through it on in the talk page, but whatever. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish, Iazyges, Gog the Mild, and Srnec:, I wanted to start a thorough review of the article. After the second sentence I decided to stop the review, because it contains original research: [17]. The very first sentence of the article was not verified when the article was assessed as GA. The main text still contains original research. Original research, neutrality issues, factual accuracy: I kindly ask you to relist the article. Whatever you decide, I am convinced the article should be rewritten. Borsoka (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed this on the article's talk page which is probably the most appropriate place to this —https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusader_states&diff=953870944&oldid=953641243&diffmode=source. I think your efforts would be better served, Borsoka, using your knowledge to add to and improve this article particularly in the areas you raise of the lifestyle of the inhabitants, women and archeology rather than arguing and tagging. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Arguing and tagging is a normal way of editing. Yes, I decided to rewrite the article based on books dedicated to the crusader states. Thank you for reminding me that I use the newest edition of Jotischky's book, so page numbers in your older version are different. Nevertheless, the sentence in the article does not properly summarize Jotischky's statements: [18]. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I will look forward to seeing the results of that. One point, you may not agree with Jotischky but article 100% matches what he wrote on page 40 of the 2004 edition. See Talk and exact quotes. It is the only edition I have. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have never challenged Jotischky - I have only challenged your selective use of his book. Borsoka (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

I've only read through the lede and some of the early sections. There's too much detail in the lede and I don't think that it's well written. There's massive overlinking and there are lots of style problems like inconsistent capitalizations, etc. I do not agree with all of Borsoka's comments, in particular his demand for daily life/lifestyle of the inhabitants, as I think that's outside of the scope of an article at this level, but I don't think that this is GA quality yet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate links addressed. What capitalisation inconsistenties have issues? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The one that I remember most was first crusade vs First Crusade.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the old proper noun conumdrum. I have worked round this, now only two mentions, both proper nouns, both capitalised Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, now start trimming and reworking the lede. The entire second and third paragraphs should be reduced to a sentence or two apiece with the bulk of the material incorporated into the main body. You've covered the establishment of the Crusader States, but have nothing on their gradual disintegration under Muslim pressure or much on their history after their foundation. Remember that the lede is supposed to summarize the entire article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, made a start on the trimming Sturmvogel 66, I guess it will need a bit more but what do you think so far Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a start, although it's hard to know what to cover, which is why I almost always leave the lede for the last bit. So I'd suggest working on the various sections first before trying to summarize it all. Plus it doesn't really help that I'm only passingly familiar with the area in this period and don't know the scholarship hardly at all. I'd suggest reorganizing the lede to expand the political coverage (in summary form as the individual battles don't necessarily need to be mentioned) to include the infighting amongst themselves and the various wars and alliances with the surrounding powers. Since the art really didn't change during the Christian occupation, I'd drop that from the lede, although a mention of how the returning crusaders influenced Western art, architecture, fashion, etc. would probably be worthwhile.

Just be advised I don't have a lot of time to devote to this GAR, especially considering its size. So don't necessarily count on detailed responses from me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Taken your advice on art, ce down to Background so far, thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Article far from stable. Srnec (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Delist. Article is being totally rewritten, and I say that as the major contributor to the article that passes GAR at the beginning of April. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Falun Gong outside mainland China

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

Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 13:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added this to the article's talk page, but the convenience of reassessors, I'll go ahead and add this here as well:

Looking at this article, it's clear that this article would look very different if it were rewritten in 2020 with reliable secondary sources. This is so much so the case that anyone looking at this article after 2016 with familiarity with be quite confused—or mistake it as another piece from one of the organization's many propaganda arms. Here's some recent coverage of the activities of the new religious group exterior to mainland China:

• Braslow, Samuel. 2020. "Inside the Shadowy World of Shen Yun and Its Secret Pro-Trump Ties". Los Angeles Magazine. March 9, 2020. Online.

Quote:

Among other pronouncements, [Falung Gong founder and leader Hongzhi] Li has claimed that aliens started invading human minds in the beginning of the 20th century, leading to mass corruption and the invention of computers. He has also denounced feminism and homosexuality and claimed he can walk through walls and levitate. But the central tenet of the group’s wide-ranging belief system is its fierce opposition to communism.

In 2000, Li founded Epoch Times to disseminate Falun Gong talking points to American readers. Six years later he launched Shen Yun as another vehicle to promote his teachings to mainstream Western audiences. Over the years Shen Yun and Epoch Times, while nominally separate organizations, have operated in tandem in Falun Gong’s ongoing PR campaign against the Chinese government, taking directions from Li.

Relatively unknown before 2016, Epoch Times enjoyed a surge in traffic after the presidential election thanks to stridently pro-Trump content. NBC News reported in 2017 that the site was drawing millions of visitors a year, more than The New York Times and CNN combined. But Falun Gong didn’t restrict its pro-Trump stance to the paper.

This article discusses a shift that occured in 2017, and, indeed, from that time the vast majority of sources start popping up. It appears coverage has only snowballed since, a risk the organization seems willing to take to continue to wield political influence. Let's continue digging through media coverage:

• Roose, Kevin. 2020. Epoch Times, Punished by Facebook, Gets a New Megaphone on YouTube. The New York Times, Feb. 5, 2020. Online.

Quote:

Little is known about The Epoch Times’s finances and organizational structure. The nonprofit Epoch Times Association, which operates it, reported $8.1 million in revenue and $7.2 million in expenses on its 2017 public tax filings. An investigation by NBC News last summer found ties between the outlet and other Falun Gong-affiliated organizations, such as the Shen Yun dance performance series and the video broadcaster [New Tang Dynasty, New Tang Dynasty Television ], and said the organizations 'appear to share missions, money and executives.' ... Three former Epoch Times employees, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from the organization .. described its staff as primarily Falun Gong practitioners, many of whom had little previous experience in journalism. Editorial employees, they said, were encouraged to attend weekly “Fa study” sessions outside work hours, during which they would gather to study the teachings of Falun Gong’s spiritual leader, Li Hongzhi. ... The Epoch Times has long denied having direct ties to Falun Gong. Mr. Gregory said that the organization was primarily funded through subscriptions and ads, and that "donations are a small part of our income."

Hmm, alright. Let's take a look at the NBC article that this entry mentions:

• Collins, Zadrozny & Ben Collins. 2019. "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". NBC News. August 20, 2019. Online.

Quote:

Despite its growing reach and power, little is publicly known about the precise ownership, origins or influences of The Epoch Times.

The outlet’s opacity makes it difficult to determine an overall structure, but it is loosely organized into several regional tax-free nonprofits. The Epoch Times operates alongside the video production company, NTD, under the umbrella of The Epoch Media Group, a private news and entertainment company whose owner executives have declined to name, citing concerns of "pressure" that could follow.

The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong, a relatively new spiritual practice that combines ancient Chinese meditative exercises, mysticism and often ultraconservative cultural worldviews. Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as “our media,” and the group’s practice heavily informs The Epoch Times’ coverage, according to former employees who spoke with NBC News.

... In 2009, the founder and leader of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, came to speak at The Epoch Times' offices in Manhattan. Li came with a clear directive for the Falun Gong volunteers who comprised the company’s staff: “Become regular media.”

And more straightforward discussion from MSNBC, reporting on an NBC article discussed below:

• Ruhle, Stephanie. 2019. "Pro-Trump news outlet The Epoch Times funded by Chinese spiritual group". August 20, 2019. MSNBC. Online.

Caption quote:

NBC News has exclusively learned that the popular conservative news site The Epoch Times is funded by a Chinese spiritual community called Falun Gong, which hopes to take down the Chinese government.

The NBC article refers to an article by The New Yorker:

• Tolentino, Jia. 2019. "Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling, World of Shen Yun". The New Yorker. Online.

Quote:

Falun Gong also has its own media outlet, a newspaper called the Epoch Times, which was founded in 2000. (The chairman of the newspaper’s board has said that it is “not a Falun Gong newspaper,” because “Falun Gong is a question of an individual’s belief.”) The paper skews conservative: among its recent pieces are stories headlined “Why We Should Embrace President Trump’s Nationalism,” “Government Welfare: A Cancer Known as Communism,” and “President Trump, Build the Wall.” It also is the world’s foremost purveyor of Shen Yun content, publishing such stories as “Excited Fans Welcome Shen Yun at Taiwanese Airport,” “The Vivid Storytelling of Shen Yun Symphony Orchestra,” and “Shen Yun Audiences Already Waiting for Next Year."

And a few years back, here in Germany, referring to the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD):

• Busvine, Douglas. 2018. "German far right far ahead in use of social media". Reuters. September 13, 2018. Online.

Quote:

Instead, the researchers found that AfD supporters amplified the reach of media coverage of stories that the AfD posted or commented on. Social media users sympathetic to the party often tweeted links to stories in Die Welt, a conservative daily, but also to right-wing media outlets.

These included news sites such as Junge Freiheit and the German edition of the Epoch Times, which is part of a media group set up by Chinese-American members of the Falun Gong sect and focuses on the same immigration issues at the heart of the AfD platform.

There are many, many, many more sources out there discussing these topics—thousands—and in fact we can and should dig further into these topics. Additionally, this does not take into account the various other extensions of the organization, such as the Society of Classical Poets, which fly a little further under the radar but with aligned goals.

This article needs reassessment and, frankly, a total rewrite. I've tagging it for NPOV and a total rewrite in the mean time. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Asexuality

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: Speedy closed (kept), per what everyone except the nominator has said below, and my closing comment below. -sche (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

---

My rationale is that this article doesn't meet criteria of good article criteria:

• It has no Verifiable references. All provided references and references to research papers either directly or indirectly refer back to AVEN with attempt to circumvent criteria of Verifiable references;
• It doesn't satisfy criteria of Broad in its coverage. It goes in unnecessary details like describing particular natural person personal website i.e. AVEN;
• It doesn't satisfy criteria of being Neutral. Article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website;
• It is not Stable. The evidence is that the Article has semi-protected status, which means there are ongoing editorial wars.

The whole my point is not to remove the Article itself, but to:

• delist it first, because editors affiliated with AVEN use GA as an argument to state that AVEN is Verifiable resource trying to circumvent Wikipedia policies and rules. The article couldn't be improved by providing Verifiable references to the claims made, because Verifiable references simply do not exist and claims made in article are not correct.
• When there would be no argument that AVEN is Verifiable source it would be possible to proceed to change the claims in Article to correct ones with references to Verifiable sources like Oxford University Press, which is the most authoritative and most reliable source for definitions, lexicography and words usage with most recent developments in English language taken into account, which is a concern of the Article. In fact AVEN itself has no even its own article, which makes it unreliable in the first place and in fact reflects definition of Questionable source.
• The Article will be nominated for GA again when claims stated in Article will be changed and referenced to Verifiable sources.

Unfortunately, without these 3 steps process there is no way to fix Article to satisfy GA criteria as editors affiliated with AVEN are using GA status argument to circumvent Wikipedia rules and policies on Verifiable sources. AceRebel (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the article shows this nomination to be patently absurd and conspiratorial in its rambling about AVEN. I also note that this user (or I should say, account) has a grand total of 23 edits. CU would be a good idea. This should be speedily closed. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, you are making serious allegations without providing any proof. You attempt to discredit me on the basis of my account statistic, doesn't make any sense as you do not address any points I made, but trying to divert conversation from the good article criteria discussion. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No type of solid rationale provided for this "reassessment." Seems to be retaliatory for Crossroads reverting the editor here. The editor was also reverted by Adam9007. Although AceRebel is being disruptive like a newbie, it's clear that AceRebel is not a newbie. Not sure what AceRebel is trying to achieve except for trying to get the article delisted because of their views on AVEN (and possibly due to other personal feelings). Close this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Flyer22 Frozen, please stop engaging in misleading technics and address points I made that article do not satisfy good article criteria. If you have no argument just attempts to divert the topic of the discussion, then your irrelevant argument makes no sense. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This user also accused me of being affiliated with AVEN. I didn't realise that being asexual (or creating the related article Discrimination against asexual people) automatically affiliates you with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, please stop engaging in misleading technics and address points I made that article do not satisfy good article criteria. If you have no argument just attempts to divert the topic of the discussion, then your irrelevant argument makes no sense. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how this article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website? Adam9007 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain what point of my argument are you looking to address? AceRebel (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you haven't at all explained your argument that this article is somehow affiliated with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, your rephrased statement makes no sense to me. In my Community reassessment request I'm challenging four criteria, specifically: Verifiable, Broad in its coverage, Neutral and Stable. What challenges are you addressing? AceRebel (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that this Article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website makes no sense whatsoever. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, please, specify explicitly criteria you are talking about. I will help you. Are you talking about Neutrality? Am I correct? To be efficient in our discussion we have to focus on specific criteria, rather then trying to delude the conversation talking about something in general. Please, specify the context of your question. I will not be able to address your question until you will specify the criteria you are talking about. Are you talking about Neutrality? AceRebel (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You haven't at all explained how this article isn't neutral, or how it's affiliated with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Great. Now let's move on to the next step. We have to agree on the definition of word affiliated. When I wrote my contention the definition I was using was as follows: closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position. Do you agree with this definition? AceRebel (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I was going by the Oxford English Dictionary's definition: officially attached or connected to an organization. No Wikipedia article is officially associated with another entity. The fact that this Wikipedia article happens to mention AVEN a lot doesn't make it associated with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You see? It was a good idea to agree on the definition of affiliated, before moving on. Because I was the author of contention and I was choosing words to describe the problem we should stick to my version of definition, because this is what was on my mind at the time of writing. I added link to definition of word affiliated I was using in my initial text to prevent confusion. Does it sounds reasonable? AceRebel (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Both definitions are pretty much the same. How is this article "closely associated" (your definition) with AVEN? Adam9007 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Word associated means related or connected. Let's take last sentence of the first paragraph: "It may also be categorized more widely to include a broad spectrum of asexual sub-identities." If you open this source and scroll to the "Methods" section, you will see the statement: "To undertake this objective, I recruited participants from asexuality.org, also known as the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network, (AVEN) [...]". Therefore, this "source" is connected (closely associated) to AVEN, i.e. biased. Shell I continue about other sources? Those sources either connected to AVEN, i.e. biased (not Neutral) or not Verifiable. AceRebel (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You said the article itself is biased, not its sources. Sources are allowed to be biased (if you can call that biased). Adam9007 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The familiarity of this "new" editor with GAR processes is rather ducklike, the opening of the request right after their edit regarding AVEN was reverted has led editors above to speculate that the request was retaliatory, and the editor has refused to substantiate their belief that all of the article's hundred-plus sources are a conspiracy linked to AVEN, despite being repeatedly prompted to do so. As suggested by multiple users above, I am speedy closing this. If anyone would like to CU the nominator, as also suggested above, that's up to them (and the CU policies). -sche (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

Two-level utilitarianism

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

Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 16:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Rather poorly sourced, doesn't seem to be comprehensive. A google search returns many papers and analysis that aren't incorporated into this article and should be. I'm willing to conduct a more full review if a user indicates a willingness to respond to them. Otherwise, as it stands this article should be de-listed. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel ceiling

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

Result: Delisted—major issues identified by the Eddie891 have not been fixed, and no one is volunteering to fix them (t · c) buidhe 15:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This article has extensive citation needed and other maintenance tags. There's a lot of discussion about quality on the talk page, but work on the article itself has largely ceased since 8 April. Until the tags can be resolved, this article should not be listed as a GA, as it fails criteria #2. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm amazed the rambling nature of the article and its chronic lack of sourcing ever merited the term "good article". It also contains bizarre OR, like an idiosyncratic translation of the book of Joel, which has amusingly been there so long it's been plagiarized and published into (non-reliable) published sources, including some vaguely repsectible(-lookin) ones. GPinkerton (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The current messed-about state of the article, including the wierd disfiguring style of cn tags, is very largely the fault of User:GPinkerton, who has driven the longstanding main editor into retirement, at least for the moment (here was just a spill-over from their rows at Gothic architecture). He has removed a lot he doesn't like & added a load he does. Once he chased the main editor off, he stopped working on the article. His views should not be taken into account. For a 2007 GA the referencing is actually pretty good. Personally I think it still meets the low standards of a GA - there are thousands much worse. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I removed some outright OR and added some cited sources on the history of the ceiling. I removed only what was both unsourced and untrue. Why should your views be taken into account, especially your ridiculous views on who gets to be "main editor"? What work have you done to improve matters, beside partisan attacks on me? The messed-about state of the article existed long before I arrived and the tags are an improvement and an exhortation, apparently unheard, to do something about it. Are you suggesting that because you claim policy was different in former times, this article somehow still meets policy as it exists in the present decade and that makes all my views on the matter invalid? Not acceptable! GPinkerton (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've had very little involvement in the article over the years, and am uninvolved. You are most certainly not. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am the editor who has found it necessary to bow out because of the senseless changes to several articles by a couple of persistent editors who do indeed know how to format references, but who do not know their subject matter, and who write a mish-mash of unintelligible rubbish!

Amongst the important articles that I have felt forced to abandon are both this one and Gothic architecture.

If Wikipedia actually values itself as an encyclopedia, rather than a repository for unrelated chunks of information, then I could consider returning, if asked politely, and if not continually plagued by interference and the insertion of massive slabs of irrelevant stuff into the article upon which I am working..

I am going to make this point yet again, a knowledge of the subject about which one is writing, is a very useful thing.

In its present state the article is not GA by any means.

The first section of the body of the text, essential for understanding the history, is absolutely unintelligible.

Amandajm (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Michel Jarre

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

Result: Delisted. While dead links or poorly formatted citations are not a reason to delist, unreliable sources and unsourced content in particular are an unresolved issue. Feel free to bring this article back to GAN after improving it. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Somehow a great Electronic music pioneer deserved to have a good article. Jean-Michel Jarre has done several inventive and innovative things as an electronic musician, and he even earned a Guinness World Record for largest concert attendance ever. I'm an electronic music fan, I really love Jean-Michel Jarre. Parrot of Doom has done a great job at this article. However, someone else requested a GAR on this thing because it's becoming less fresh as of now. I read this article recently and found that currently, this article has gained issues. The quality is degrading, I want to upgrade it. The prose isn't in a decent shape like in the past, some of the references are dead links and/or not using "cite" templates or something like that, the sections could've been rearranged more, at least it seems like it from this point. Also, some red links are present (some of them have links to foreign-language versions of Wikipedia articles), I am suspicious that some parts need citation integrity, and some refs are unreliable... Well, the current version of the Jean-Michel Jarre article as of writing has to be rewritten entirely to comply with the current GA criteria. Potentially, this must remain a GA in the future. ias:postb□x 12:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the writing from the 2000s section and beyond that could be way better. With bad GAs too, the reliable sourcing usually falls off from there. Some instances of his touring could be spun off into a separate article, while his artistry could be elaborated in a different section, readers may like to know who influenced him and such. Edit: Correction, I saw his influences but I still wish to see article arranged more properly. 웃OO 21:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I consider making a special sandbox for this article, where I'll make those ideas you suggested. ias:postb□x 00:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been over 10 days since the last time I commented in this GAR here, and hardly anything's happened except for an IP edit making a 2020s section with external hyperlinks and no referential cite templates, and then on that same day a bot reverted it because it's link additions not listed as sources at the bottom of the article. -iaspostb□x+ 01:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)

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

Result: Delist; no one's responding since I took over this GAR review, meaning the plethora of issues wasn't removed because of a lack of attention to the article. Should someone return E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) to GA status, then the issues should be removed before such nomination. -iaspostb□x+ 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Article has not been reassessed for GA status since 2009. In the decade since, there's been a lot of unsourced information added. Some if it may be true, but qualifies as Original Research, while other bits and pieces are flat-out incorrect. Article needs a lot of cleanup to regain GA status, in my opinion. However, since I have edited the article a bit recently, I think others should do the reassessment so there's no conflict. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So this article about one of the worst 2600 games ever made is now one of the worst 80's video game GAs, essentially. iaspostb□x 14:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's around a week since I last commented here and little improvement has been done. I'm sure you edited the article well though. -iaspostb□x+ 07:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Honestly, it's beyond my ability to get this article up to GA status. If you would like to do the review and revoke the GA based on the myriad of problems, I would have no problem with that, and frankly, I would welcome it. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess I could try. -iaspostb□x+ 01:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I spotted an unsourced statement!: "The game offers diverse difficulty settings that affect the number and speed of humans present, and the conditions needed to accomplish the objective." -iaspostb□x+ 02:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Now I've found 2 1 two-sentences-long paragraphs!:

1. "On May 28, 2013, the Alamogordo City Commission approved Fuel Industries, an Ottawa-based entertainment company, for six months of landfill access both to create a documentary about the legend and to excavate the burial site.[3] On April 26, 2014, remnants of E.T. and other Atari games were discovered in the early hours of the excavation.[5][72]"
2. "In December 2014, the Smithsonian Institution added an excavated cartridge of E.T. to their collection.[73][74] In 2015, The Henry Ford museum added several excavated cartridges and a video touchpad, a sample of landfill dirt taken from the site of the burial, and items of clothing worn by the excavation team to their collection. A selection of these items are on permanent display.[75][76]" (Never mind, it was a three-sentence paragraph.)

This is getting crazy! -iaspostb□x+ 04:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The Reception section (and especially the Critical response part) doesn't have a {{Video game reviews}} template, it badly needs one. -iaspostb□x+ 07:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There's information in the lead that isn't even carried over to other sections, namely this one:

"In April 2014, diggers hired to investigate the claim confirmed that the Alamogordo landfill contained many E.T. cartridges, among other games.[3][4][5] James Heller, the former Atari manager who was in charge of the burial, was at the excavation and admitted to the Associated Press that 728,000 cartridges of various games were buried.[6]"

I'm scratching my head as to why this statement even isn't in Legacy#Atari video game burial. -iaspostb□x+ 07:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I wish the references listed in the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) article's talk page would be incorporated into the article. Correct me if there's any one or more of such references in the article already before I came here. -iaspostb□x+ 07:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a reference used in the lead that isn't used anywhere in any of the headings listed in the table of contents:

"Warshaw intended the game to be an innovative adaptation of the film, and Atari thought it would achieve high sales figures based on the international box office success of the film. Negotiations to secure the rights to make the game ended in late July 1982, giving Warshaw five and a half weeks to develop the game in time for the 1982 Christmas season.[2]"

Reference 2 should've been in the Development section. -iaspostb□x+ 05:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the text with "giving Warshaw five and a half weeks to develop the game in time for the 1982 Christmas season" in it isn't in the Development section either. -iaspostb□x+ 05:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The Critical response section has too many quotes. -iaspostb□x+ 17:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The prose isn't even like a modern GA, it must become one. -iaspostb□x+ 06:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There hasn't been any edits since July 18, 2020 to the article, I doubt that the GA could remain in its current class unless a significant rework is about to take place. -iaspostb□x+ 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There's several more features about the E.T. game adaption than what this article uses. It has features, but it needs more. -iaspostb□x+ 20:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

United States

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

Result: Delisted Some improvements have been made through this reassessment, but there is still a lot of work to do in order to meet the focus criteria. There are also still a bunch of citation needed tags throughout the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United States/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Considering there are two issues:

• It is too long to navigate comfortably
• Excessive amount of detail

I would like to re-asses the good article status, because those issues violates 1a and 3b of the good article criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streepjescode (talk • contribs)

• Hi Streepjescode. Country articles tend to be quite long due to there nature, but I do agree that this one could make better use of daughter articles and summary style. I have dropped a note at the Wikiproject informing them of this reassessment, sorry if you had already done so. AIRcorn (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this might be better for a community assessment so I'm posting it there as well. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support delisting if no improvements are made: the article is currently 111 kB when the absolute maximum article size is 100kb. It would really benefit from more aggressive summary style, hopefully cutting it down to around 80kb or less. buidhe 13:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Significant progress has been made, but there are still uncited statements and excessive images breaking across sections. (t · c) buidhe 13:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support delisting. The length is egregious, the lead has references not used anywhere else suggesting information there may not be in the rest of the article (eg. worker productivity), there are numerous single sentence paragraphs and numerous tiny sections (the table of contents is very long), and there are areas missing citations. The article thus fails the first 3 GA Criteria. CMD (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support delisting. In particular, the Demographics section is pretty excessive considering that most of its subheadings have their own articles. I think cutting down that section by even 50% would be helpful. Ovinus Real (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose delisting. While this article is very long, the United States is a topic that generates a very long article. It could be reduced, but it is still at overall GA quality. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Many topics generate very long articles, that is why we have WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and related guidelines. I would suggest it's a decent enough bet that the United States has more subarticles than any other country. I would also add that in addition to the concerns raised above about 1a and 3b, I have concerns on this article relating to 1b and 2c, so I don't see the article as having an overall GA quality at all. CMD (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm going to do some copy editing and taking a look at sources/citations over the next week or two. Not going to touch the lede because I haven't edited this article much and I'm not yet comfortable messing with stuff there, but I'll be working on making things more succinct in the rest of the article. I'll also be on the lookout for MOS violations and fix them as I see them. CJK09 (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Don't have time for this atm. Too much else on my plate. CJK09 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Over the past couple days I have reorganized sections of this article and tried to remove excessive detail. Over the coming days I'll probably whittle it down a bit more and do some copy editing. I think it's a bit easier to navigate now though. Any suggestions are welcome (please ping me) Ovinus (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Hi Ovinus, regarding navigation, a significant issue is the number of sections and subsections in the article (54). Some of this is due to the sheer length of the article, but some are very short, which is discouraged by MOS:BODY. Examples include Wildlife (2 sentences), Conservation (2 short paragraphs), Population (2 sentences), Major population areas (2 short paragraphs), etc. There are also 3 sections named "Statistics", and 4 sections named "Trends", which is explicitly instructed against by MOS:HEAD, due to how it impedes navigation. CMD (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Ovinus Real has been doing a lot of summarizing and has brought this article down from 400kb to around 350kb. This is a major improvement, but the article is still too long. I support delisting unless the article is cut down to around 250kb or less, and the excessive detail is removed. CrazyBoy826 16:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You have lots of over data that can be moved....language chart with stats about less then 1 percent of the population could be made to prose text. Do we need "State flags and statehood dates" templates that in mobile view are always expanded...this could be a simple link. Section on "Water supply and sanitation" is so general that is contains zero informative information and could be removed. "Income, poverty and wealth" is so detailed that non Americans are lost by all the numbers and how they compare to other countries.--Moxy 🍁 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree, the language table is not helpful. Your other changes would also be beneficial. (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
      • This is a discussion on the length and manageability of the "United States" article—nothing else. A cursory comment on this particular page ("I agree the language table is not helpful") is not sufficient basis for wholesale deletion of a table present in the article for 10 years. No consensus has been reached on this. Go to the *main* Talk page. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Mason.Jones, WP:ONUS says that the onus to keep disputed content rests with the editors seeking to keep it. I don't see any such consensus. (t · c) buidhe 16:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
          • You deleted major content without discussion on the main Talk page, and with no edit summary (other than a cursory acronym). Moreover, discussion on this same issue (the ACS language table) already existed on the main Talk page with the same poster above (Moxy). No consensus was reached. Shooting the breeze with posters on this talk page re length/navigation issues i s not consensus either. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Mason.Jones again you're missing the point. You need consensus to KEEP this content, according to WP:ONUS. Consensus is not necessary to DELETE content because the burden of proof (that the content is WP:DUE) is on those seeking to keep it in the article. (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
              • You've made mass deletions of statistical data, edits "embedded" in sweeping global fixes without proper edit summaries. Other editors have to go to a talk page related to GA4/navigation issues (not the main Talk page, which deals with content), then figure out what you changed and, worse, why. This is underhanded editing and definitely not in good faith. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Are we done yet? The result of the reassessment has been pending for nearly six months, and most seem to be in favor of delisting. jackchango talk 10:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a repost of Talk:United States/GA4. Please comment there. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Cortana

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

Result: Delist the lead is inadequate and some of the sourcing is questionable. The biggest (hardest to easily fix) issue is the lack of a reception section. This fails the broadness criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think this article meets the good article criteria. Some sections and paragraphs are only a single sentence long, the article contains some vaguely promotional content (like the "by the numbers" section), the article cites sources which don't seem to be reliable or particularly reputable (KontentPort, Eye on Windows, Ubergizmo, etc.), and even the lead is a bit too short for my liking. This article feels more like a C class to me, not a GA. I've never brought an article to reassessment before, so apologies if I've done something wrong. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment One of the purposes of a GAR is to see if an article can be fixed to return it to GA status. In this case, comparing the article to the Oct. 8, 2016 version that was declared a GA [19], I seem some added material in the current version, but not too many deletions. So I guess the first thing to do is to figure out is if your criticisms come from a degraded article, and potentially fixable without too much effort, or if you would assign 'C' status to the original GA article. If the latter, that is a bigger problem. Could you take a took at the 2016 version? Thanks, --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ​Hi. I think that that version also fell short of being a GA; it the same problems with sourcing in that version too, and I forgot to mention that there's barely any mention of the reception Cortana received in either versions of the article, thought a Engadgenet reviewer's impression is oddly included in the "Cortana in other services" section. Prose is mediocre in both versions of the article, too. So, I would also say that version was a C. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look and clarifying the issues. So it seems as if there would be no quick fixes here. It is too much for me to take on at present. We'll see what others think. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ken Anderson (wrestler)

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

Result: Kept Agreement that it should be kept AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC).

The article has several problems. One, has huge parts unsourced, like both Independent Circuit section or the TNA final feuds. Some titles are unsourced to. Needs an uptade about his NWA work. Also, the prose can be improved, it's like "on Day 1, he had a match. On day 2, he had a match." Lead can be improved. No mention of his work as box announcer. Missing style and persona(not obligatory, buy helpful) Also, minor In-Universe problems ("he put Shaw into a van heading for a psychiatric facility for intervention.") --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I copyedited the WWE section, the rest still needs to be done. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I got everything now, let me know what you think. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The article has improved a lot. The main issue, unsourced sections, are sources. Just one tiny thing, Online World of Wrestling isn't reliable. Maybe, prose sections can be improved, TNA section has a lot of weekly details and some "in-universe", like the sam shaw storyline. But I think just the change of OWOW source would be enough. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I think the missing Professional wrestling style and persona would be very helpful. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, after some days working on the article, I think meets GA criteria again. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep - All, I've had a quick read of the post-2008 content (which was added after the GA review), and made a couple of copyedits. Sourcing is sufficient, although a source is needed about his video game character. The prose is adequate, but could do with more tweaking to be encyclopaedic. As it stands, however, I think this can stay as a GA. L150 19:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

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

Result: Delist This went off on a tangent, but the original complaint and presence of multiple tags is enough to have this delisted. This is not the right place to decide who should or shouldn't be categorised as a denier. That is on the talk pager, accompanied with some pretty good sources. I did read the Nolte section and it needs some work either way (flirt with an Italian Holocaust denier?). Not sure the bullet points in the lead fit our MOS guidelines either, but that is a minor point. AIRcorn (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned that the article does not meet the GA criteria. In particular, not all the content is verifiable to "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented", as required by WP:NOR, and the article contains excessive material on tangentially related aspects that are not extensively treated on reliable sources on the subject, failing GA criteria 3 (focus). See talk page for further discussion. buidhe 01:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree. In my opinion the article has many other problematic issues. This one for example: Eisenhower is quoted with this accompanying text: "Eisenhower, upon finding the victims of the death camps, ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead." The problem with this statement is that Eisenhower NEVER, EVER visited what is now regarded as a "death camp" as those camps are all in Poland. Eisenhower had visited Ohrdruf concentration camp, which was a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp in Germany. Both of which are now acknowledged to NOT have been "death camps" or "extermination camps". So what has his visit and statement in Ohrdruf got to do with what later came to be unanimously called 'the Holocaust'? Especially when that nomenclature didn't become widely used and accepted until the mid-60's. I.e. what has a misappropriation of a quote by Eisenhower got to do with "denial" of a narrative that didn't appear as we now accept it and refer to it, until nearly two decades later? Here is another example: Norman Finkelstein has been called a 'holocaust denier'. Yet both his parents were interned in concentration camps for being Jewish. His mother survived the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and the Maijdanek concentration camp. Yet he is regarded by some people as a holocaust denier for critical statements he has made, particularly his book called 'the Holocaust industry'. He fits the following categorisation of denier in this wiki article. Because his book can and has been regarded as promoting the idea of a "Jewish conspiracy designed to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other people. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic". Yet he is not mentioned in the article. Nor is DAVID COLE another person who is both Jewish and considered a 'denier'. But Professor Nolte is mentioned AND in great detail. Yet it is acknowledged that he was NOT a 'denier'???? So why has he a whole sub-section about him? And he is curiously described as "operating on the borderlines of Holocaust denial". Borderline??? Can somebody be a borderline 'denier'? Surely, either you deny something or you don't. Such a description of Professor Nolte I believe demonstrates the vague and imprecise nature and usage of the perjorative term upon which this wiki article is based. Etc., etc., etc. So I agree, the article does not meet the GA criteria.Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier, and it is not correct that the article says that "a deliberate Jewish conspiracy designed to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other people" indicates Holocaust denial. You have it backwards: Holocaust deniers claim that the Holocaust is a deliberate conspiracy. Putting Finkelstein in the article would be a serious BLP violation. Otherwise I agree with your comments. Zero^talk 12:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zero. You say Norman isn't. Others say he is. This is the problem with this wiki article, and with defining the correct usage of term or the accusation, as there is no consistent criteria. See here where Norman relates how he can't get any job: ‘Mr. Finkelstein told The Jewish Week, a local newspaper, that he doubted he could get even a job teaching high school. “The way they do background checks is to Google your name,” he said. “With me, they would get 30,000 Web sites, one-third of them saying I am a Holocaust denier...” https://www.chronicle.com/article/Closed-Out-Norman/41272 Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't use Google counts as a reliable source, thankfully, so we won't have this rubbish in the article. Zero^talk 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me saying that I think your last comment may have obfuscated the point, Zero. Finkelstein HAS been categorised as a 'holocaust denier', so he DOES fit the subject of this wiki article. His book 'The holocaust industry' DOES meet the criteria included in this article for designating someone a 'denier'. All that DOES therefore prove that particular criteria to be invalid, the justification for deeming someone fitting it an 'anti-semite' to be false, and thus the article to be very seriously flawed. There are other problematical aspects also. I can explain them, but is anyone else agreeing so far? If so, what shall we do if there is a consensus that the article — in its entirety — is agreed to be not fitting GA criteria? Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source for these outlandish claims or strike them per WP:BLPTALK. buidhe 19:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Which do you regard as "outlandish claims"? Eisenhower WAS at Ohrdruf, not a "death camp". The article does have the problematic criteria I quoted by which Finkelstein classifies as both a 'denier' and an 'anti-semite. And both those classifications in his case I suggest ARE ludicrous. Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The meaning of "Holocaust denial" in the article is given by the three bullet-points at the beginning. Finkelstein does not fit any of them. Rather than arguing for fewer Holocaust victims, Finkelstein argues that the "Holocaust industry" plays into the hands of deniers by exaggerating the number of survivors. It is the opposite of Holocaust denial. He also argues that hardly anyone would have even heard of Holocaust denial were it not for those opponents who keep it in the public attention for their own purposes. These are Finkelstein's opinions; as this is not a forum I will not state mine. He is not a Holocaust denier and does not belong in this article. Zero^talk 05:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Our personal opinions don't count. Finkelstein HAS been smeared as a 'holocaust denier'. This article as it currently exists reinforces that ludicrous smear. Which demonstrates just one of the problematical issues with it that I previously outlined. Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The intro states this: “Most Holocaust deniers claim, either explicitly or implicitly, that the Holocaust is a hoax — or an exaggeration — arising from a deliberate Jewish conspiracy designed to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other people. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic conspiracy theory”.

There are so many secondary sources that ascribe all of that to Finkelstein's book. Here is just one of many: “A central thesis to his work is that the Holocaust is exaggerated and exploited by American Jews for financial gain and to defend Israel”. [20]

If we can agree that Finkelstein does NOT meet the criteria of Holocaust denier, nor an anti-semite and does NOT merit a mention in this article, then that criteria needs to be amended. And this also supports my suggestion that others should also not be smeared by inclusion here and by association with this damaging, misused, perjorative term, e.g. Prof Nolte (see reasoning above). Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Dano-Swedish War (1658–1660)

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

Result: Delisted Consensus here to delist AIRcorn (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This article was promoted back in 2009 and now there are multiple tags on the page. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 19:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delist significant unreferenced text and it seems no one is interested in fixing it. However, I hope that someone will step up and do so, as it looks completely fixable. buidhe 19:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur, this needs addressing the citaitions neeeded tags, but it does not seem like it would be that tough - if only somebody would care. Ping User:Hawkeye7 and User:Henrik. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Delist Months later, still major swaths of uncited text. Fails the verifiability criteria. I'm also not a fan of the organization of the article, with over 80% of the text being stuck under the vague heading of "events".Resowithrae (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Panzer Aces/1]]

Greenlandic language

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

Result: Delisted, as issues with verifiability have been identified and no efforts to fix them have been made. Thanks for bringing this to GAR. Hopefully someone will take the time to improve the article and get it up to standard. (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Greenlandic language is a good article with several noticeable problems:

• The example is required to demonstrate that Greenlandic treats (i.e. case-marks) the argument ("subject") of an intransitive verb like the object of a transitive verb, but distinctly from the agent ("subject") of a transitive verb.
• The "derivation" section is 100% unsourced.
• The "indicative and interrogative moods" and "orthography" sections contain unsourced materials.

Overall, this good article fails the GA criteria of verifiability. Therefore, I suggest to delist this article. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Why the hell don't you contact the main author and nominator of the GA before delisting? These queries are ridiculosu since all those things are sourced in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• User:Buidhe - this article was proposed for delisting as a drive-by a now banned account who did not contact any of the editors who had originally worked on the article before proposing it. I am the main author and didn't know of the delist proposal, before it was delisted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Maunus, before I delisted this article I checked it, and I did find content that did not have a clear source where I could verify it. Checking back, I see that is still the case. For example in the section "Indicative and interrogative moods", I find a paragraph starting "The table below shows". In the paragraph and the table it's referring to, there are no inline citations nor references where I could verify the information. Even if there were some error in delisting, this reassessment was closed almost three years ago so I would recommend resubmitting to GAN if you think it meets the criteria. (t · c) buidhe 02:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sheffield Rules

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

Result: Delisted: outstanding maintenance tags, no progress in fixing for over a month. Please fix up this article and bring it back to GAN! (t · c) buidhe 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Two major maintenance tags outstanding. I'm not too familiar with the content, but those issues should be resolved before the article can stay as a GA.

Demote. Hello, Eddie, and thanks for the notification. I agree with you as I placed the two tags. If this was a GAN now, it would certainly fail because it is not well written and badly lacks sources. Two of the worst aspects are, first, that it doesn't adequately explain the concept of the rules (and the various revisions) so that someone unfamiliar with football terminology could understand them; secondly, the excessive use of bullet point lists. It is by no means a good article and should be demoted. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Chester station (Toronto)

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

Result: Delisted: no improvements, more than a month since deficiencies in the GA criteria were identified. Please improve this article and bring back to GAN! (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am bringing this article to GAR because:

• The Communities served section is full of OR which has existed since the article became a GA. (2b)
• There is a lack of lead coverage of parts of the article. (1b)
• Another user mentioned that the article lacks clarity or assumes a local knowledge in some parts. (1a)

This is my first GAR, so I apologize if I made any mistakes here. There may also be some problems I have not mentioned (I think the Facilities section may have an unnecessary detail (3b) problem, but I'm not sure). Username⁶⁸⁹² 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Kingsif

I'll add comments when I see things. Something to consider is that this is a short article, and how does it compare to similar ones. Not every station in North America is going to have or warrant the level of coverage of Grand Central Terminal, but it's currently comparable size-wise with the English Moncloa (Madrid Metro) article, something you'd expect to have far less. Without being an expert, I would do some research on the Chester station myself to see if the level of coverage reflected media coverage (and will do if nobody beats me to it!) Kingsif (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

Here are some things I noticed.

• The lead is too short. (criterion 1B)
• The lead is also disorganized. For instance, the fact that WiFi is available here comes before the fact that this station has one exit. (3A)
• The "facilities" section probably needs to be more detailed, e.g. describe how many tracks and platforms are in the station. That's pretty important info, yet the only mention of this is in the infobox, where it is not sourced. (3A)
• And the description of the tiles may be too detailed. (3B)
• It's optional, but I think the exits may be combined under one header.
• The "communities served" section is not really detailed. As an outsider I wouldn't know where these communities are. Some context may be needed for this. (3A)
• This is the only station in Toronto with no TTC bus service during the day. - This seems to be trivia, particularly the first part. epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Communist Party of China

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

Result: Delisted. No progress for more than 2 months after editors identified deficiencies vs. the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 18:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is primarily authored by a single editor, who is now ex-communicated for POV-pushing, edit-warring, socking, incivility, etc.

The article is marred by its insistence to always let the CCP have the final word, only allowing for the most superficial criticism of the party. There is next to nothing about its draconian anti-insurgency measures or violent crackdown on political dissidents, let alone its Orwellian surveillance apparatuses and concentration camps in Xinjiang. We don't have the luxury to allow such an important article to completely lose its track and spiral away in abstract MLM-theory and bureaucratic jargon. Nutez (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the scope of this article. The activities of the CPC you describe are quite extensively covered in other articles, such as Xinjiang re-education camps, Government of China, China, Human rights in China, Cultural genocide of Uyghurs, et cetera. The article should, and is, about the structure, history, ideology, members, and governance of the CPC.

Similarly, I'm not sure of the basis of your apparent fears that the article spiral away in abstract MLM-theory and bureaucratic jargon, considering the article necessarily must use both, by nature of its subject. Jargon can certainly be explained and minimised, but to criticise an article for too much MLM theory when it is about a MLM party is absurd. One last question: when you say The article is marred by its insistence to always let the CCP have the final word, only allowing for the most superficial criticism of the party, could you give some examples? This is an important criticism and I would be grateful to hear it in detail. Danke. Acalycine (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say the article as currently written doesn't qualify as GA and might be disruptive, I searched for Shuanggui and its only to be found in the CCP template so we have a big problem here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive in what way? What parts of the original review are flawed exactly? Are you saying Shanggui should be included in the article too? Acalycine (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If Shuanggui isnt included it doesnt pass 3a. Thats a core topic. The GA assessment was also in 2014, there have been thousands of edits to the page since. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing the edit history it appears that User:Trust Is All You Need edited the page for a number of years in a manner contrary to WP:OWN. I see prolonged disputes with at least a dozen different editors which Trust Is All You Need gets their way by staying in the game longer not having the stronger argument. Trust Is All You Need is blocked for extreme disruptive editing and quotes such as this one "I will destroy it, and I will get my version on that fucking article.” They have authorship of 59.8% of the current article. Thats a massive problem, we probably need a rewrite. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Trust Is All You Need also appears to be the reason the article is currently a GA, they appear to have bullied MrWooHoo (who is no longer active) into changing their original review. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like the article is too centered around the party's theoretical ideology (e.g. lede, para. 3:'the Party is committed to communism') and doesn't give enough weight to the concrete applications and consequences of the ideology or to CCP actions that don't follow propaganda points. No GA Doanri (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we already have Ideology of the Communist Party of China etc to cover ideology. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I would heavily disagree with parts of these criticisms, but agree with some. The previous editor does in-fact look problematic, but this of course does not entail an automatic deranking of the article. I have preceded that par 3. line with Officially, it seemed quite biased. However, I don't think that the 'theoretical ideology' of the Party is too central in the article. We do have Ideology of the Communist Party of China, but this does not mean this article should not include a smaller summary of the ideology, which it does. Regarding Shuanggui, I would agree that it should be included here, but I wouldn't necessarily say this precludes the article from meeting 3a - I don't see how a party disciplinary process is core in this sense. We should include it in Governance/Organisation. Regarding the weight of 'concrete applications' and 'consequences', what are some subject areas that we think should have greater weight? Using the same reasoning as Horse Eye Jack's criticisms of ideology being central, I would say that we already have articles on subjects such as Mao's Cultural Revolution and other policies. In saying that, the History section does seem heavily focused on the post-Mao period, which is a drawback. Also, in reference to CCP actions that don't follow propaganda points, can you provide some examples? This would definitely be a cause of concern. Can we have some more references to the original review's criteria and how the current content of the article differs from it? Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Jason Beghe

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

Result: Delisted. In addition to the issues indentified by Sdkb, there is also MOS issues (MOS:IMAGELOC). I trimmed excessive links from the EL farm (t · c) buidhe 18:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been a GA since 2008, and has not been assessed since then, but I'm not sure it meets the 2020 standards. When I just came across it, it was entirely missing Beghe's college education apart from the category. It also has a very short lead, and I'm guessing there may be other issues. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Skylon (spacecraft)

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

Result: Delisted: more than a month, no progress after the review was opened. (t · c) buidhe 18:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Article with outdated statements. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}}). I suggest delisting this article. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree Flaws I found include "After securing additional funding in the 1990s, Reaction Engine's initial design underwent radical revision," which has no source; "As of 2017, an engine test facility was being built at Westcott," which needs update; a red link in See also; and that in a lot of sentences such as "The currently proposed Skylon model D1 is a large vehicle, possessing a length of 83.13 metres (272 ft 9 in) and a diameter of 6.30 metres (20 ft 8 in)," the citations was retrieved in 2010, and may be very outdated. This does not represent a good article, at least for me. GeraldWL 06:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Chester station (Toronto)

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

Result: Delisted: no improvements, more than a month since deficiencies in the GA criteria were identified. Please improve this article and bring back to GAN! (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am bringing this article to GAR because:

• The Communities served section is full of OR which has existed since the article became a GA. (2b)
• There is a lack of lead coverage of parts of the article. (1b)
• Another user mentioned that the article lacks clarity or assumes a local knowledge in some parts. (1a)

This is my first GAR, so I apologize if I made any mistakes here. There may also be some problems I have not mentioned (I think the Facilities section may have an unnecessary detail (3b) problem, but I'm not sure). Username⁶⁸⁹² 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Kingsif

I'll add comments when I see things. Something to consider is that this is a short article, and how does it compare to similar ones. Not every station in North America is going to have or warrant the level of coverage of Grand Central Terminal, but it's currently comparable size-wise with the English Moncloa (Madrid Metro) article, something you'd expect to have far less. Without being an expert, I would do some research on the Chester station myself to see if the level of coverage reflected media coverage (and will do if nobody beats me to it!) Kingsif (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

Here are some things I noticed.

• The lead is too short. (criterion 1B)
• The lead is also disorganized. For instance, the fact that WiFi is available here comes before the fact that this station has one exit. (3A)
• The "facilities" section probably needs to be more detailed, e.g. describe how many tracks and platforms are in the station. That's pretty important info, yet the only mention of this is in the infobox, where it is not sourced. (3A)
• And the description of the tiles may be too detailed. (3B)
• It's optional, but I think the exits may be combined under one header.
• The "communities served" section is not really detailed. As an outsider I wouldn't know where these communities are. Some context may be needed for this. (3A)
• This is the only station in Toronto with no TTC bus service during the day. - This seems to be trivia, particularly the first part. epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Virat Kohli

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

Result: Delisted: see below, no progress for over a month. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It is nearly five years since this became a GA and its history since then indicates a considerable input of trivial, unsourced information with consequent impact upon quality and sourcing. It was wrongly presented to FAC in April this year and effectively rubbished there because of, in the main, poor sourcing. In essence, the problem is the amount of attention the article has received from the subject's "fans" in recent times.

In terms of WP:GACR, I think #1 is okay on the whole although a reviewer would certainly list numerous points for quick resolution. It would fail on #2, especially #2b and with the possibility of #2c arising. It is generally okay on #3 though, again, a reviewer would almost certainly raise queries and require removal of trivia like non-noteworthy awards. GACR #4 is frequently compromised by the fan inputs but, to be fair, the cricket project seem to be reverting those in good time. The fan inputs don't really constitute a threat to stability so #5 is okay, and I'd be happy with #6 as there don't seem to be any imagery issues.

I think the article would probably fail a GAR, subject to anyone being able to quickly resolve its problems if put on hold for a week. I recommend that it is delisted so that necessary work can be done to restore quality and ensure good sourcing throughout. It could then be renominated at GAN. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There has been no movement on this GAR for three weeks now and the article has continued to be hit by inappropriate edits which are swiftly reverted. I recommend that this GAR is closed due to lack of interest and the article is demoted to class=start (I don't think it is worth B or C until someone does a thorough proofread and copyedit). Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Midge (Barbie)

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

Result: Delisted—no contestation that the article is not verifiable to reliable sources, no improvements after 2 weeks. (t · c) buidhe 11:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia:V, I have concerns about the unsourced text in this article. About a quarter of the text is without citations. Furthermore, the sources that do exist include very little real scholarship. It relies pretty heavily on a small number of unpublished websites. I ask the community to determine if this article is still a GA.Tikisim (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms

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

Result: Delist: 2 months without activity. Please improve this article and bring it back to GAN! (t · c) buidhe 11:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is clear that since it was accepted as a Good Article in 2009, Wikipedia standards have changed. The article is full of fictional cruft, with "The World" section being largely in-universe. Much of the "History" section is also just a timeline of releases rather than putting things in context. It strikes me as C-class at most and would need a significant amount of work to reach modern Good Article standards._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sariel Xilo and I have been working on improving the article; we will see what we can do with it. BOZ (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a careful read of the article last night and it satisfies the good article criteria in that it is:

1. Well written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated

If an editor is going to call for a reassessment then one would think it would be incumbent on that editor to specify which criteria the article does not meet, and why. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. 38 of the 77 references in the article—just under half—are primary sources: rulebooks, storefronts, product databases, interviews, and so on. Those sources also tend to get used repeatedly. Plenty of sentences and entire paragraphs, particularly about in-universe subjects and product releases, are entirely unreferenced. This article should be overhauled and based primarily on what reliable, third-party published sources have written about the subject. It's fine to fill in some minor non-controversial details with primary sources, but right now this is more of a Wikia fan page than a Wikipedia Good Article. Woodroar (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed a few of the primary sources that were redundant to non-primary sources, and will try to find some non-primary sources to add to what is already there and/or replace more of the primary sources. I also removed some of the unsourced information, particularly the basic listings of products without context. I will see what else I can do with it this morning. BOZ (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Some work has gone into the article over the past month. Does anyone have any suggestions on what else needs to be done as far as improvements? BOZ (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

There are still huge sections of text in the Creative origins and Settings sections supported largely by primary sources, and much of the Publication history section is supported by industry sources. I also see a handful of "academic" sources that are cited here but essentially nowhere else online, including by other reliable sources. Are there actually so few truly independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough; I accept that this one is probably beyond my ability to fix at this time or in the foreseeable future. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a bummer, to be sure. I've loved the setting ever since I got the 1987 "Grey Box" a few years after its release. I've been looking for sources and it seems like the renaissance we're in has improved mainstream coverage of the game itself, but it's all surface-level coverage that ignores the settings. Woodroar (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)

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

Result: Kept (t · c) buidhe 11:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The article failed it's most recent FAC, with one of the detractors (Laser brain) saying he would reject it for GA status, proving how terrible the article is. 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) 09:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'll leave notes here as I go through the article; if I make any copyedits you disagree with please feel free to revert them.

• What is a "mock tea party"?
• Krishnamurthy's acquaintance Ramanathan persuades him to drink alcohol: it's apparent from the rest of the plot that it Krishnamurthy's later consumption of alcohol that's the problem, so does Ramanathan persuade Krishnamurthy that he should no longer abstain from alcohol? So that he starts to drink from that point on?
• Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector. "Collaborator" doesn't have the right connotations for a partner in crime. "Accomplice" might work, but it would help to know why we're using the word. Does Rangiah do anything at the party to help persuade Krishnamurthy? Or is this only a reference to the later plot elements? Does Krishnamurthy's infatuation with Mohanangi start at the party? Is it because of his drinking, or is it instigated by Ramanathan or Rangiah?

The English plot doesn't get into detail. But I've written that Rangiah was Ramanathan's accomplice since the Wiktionary definition of the word reflects what happens in the plot. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• sinking Krishnamurthy deeper in debt: we haven't said he was in debt; presumably he doesn't have the money he promises to Mohanangi? Or he goes into debt to get it?
• Why does Krishnamurthy return to Madras, knowing he's likely to be arrested? To see his family? If he tries to do so surreptitiously I think it would be worth saying.

More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The complete plot in both English and Tamil is here, free for access. You may do proofreading if you need to. Though the Tamil plot is more detailed, I haven't added much from it, except the revelation that the killed man was the servant, and the killer was Ramanathan who framed Krishnamurthy. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll look this evening. That's a beautiful first page! I assume it's under copyright and we can't use it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is copyrighted in India per Template:PD-India. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Up to you but I think it would look good in the infobox; you could move the theatrical poster further down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Re the plot: I see we're hampered by the limitations of what the source gives us. If we can't explain what a "mock tea party" is we should either put in a footnote saying so or remove the phrase. Currently the lead says Ramanathan teaches Krishnamurthy to drink at the party, which I don't think is explicit in the source. "Accomplice" is fine since it's clear that Rangiah and Ramanathan planned Krishnamurthy's downfall before the party. How about this as a rewrite of the first paragraph of the lead: "Krishnamurthy is a wealthy man who lives in Madras with his wife Leelavathi and their daughter Lakshmi. Ramananathan, a friend of Krishnamurthy's, and Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector, plot together to ruin Krishnamurthy. Persuaded by Ramanathan, Krishnamurthy begins to drink alcohol, and becomes infatuated with Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman, promising to pay her ₹50,000 (about US$18,700 in 1936)." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mike Christie, wrote exactly this way. Only, I wrote the correct spelling of Ramanathan, not "Ramananathan". Kailash29792 (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

More:

• I'm interested by the division of three "Comedians" from the rest of the cast. Is this standard in cast lists of the era?

I'm not too sure about that, but I do know that male actors and female actors were divided in Indian film credits even in 1966 (eg: Anbe Vaa). But I've divided based on the pressbook that I shared above. Even Gone with the Wind divides it's cast into multiple columns. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Struck; I was curious to know if there's a reason for separating the comedians, but since the source does it that way it's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Pathi Bhakthi, a Tamil play dealing with alcohol abuse and its effects on family life, was written by Te. Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar during the early 1930s: the source for this says "It was in the early 1930s that a play titled Pathi Bhakti enjoyed a long run on the stage. A play about the evils of drinking, it had been written by a well-known playwright, Te.Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar." which only says the play was successful in the early 1930s, not that that's when it was written. Per this source it was published in March 1931, though I'm relying on Google Translate there and may be misinterpreting.

  Looking at Guy, I think a couple of changes would be worth making. Guy doesn't contradict the March 1931 date from the other source, so we can use that. It's also apparent from Guy that the rewrite for MOBC is just for the run in Madras itself, at the Wall Tax Theatre. (And I wonder if the Wall Tax Theatre is worth a red link? It seems to have been famous.) So saying "this production was also successful" is slightly misleading; the production was just part of the overall success of the play in the Madras Presidency; it's singled out because that's the troupe that got involved in producing the play. When Chettiar found out that MOBC was working on a film version, he talked to Mudaliar who directed him to Vasan. It's a pity about the contradictory sources on who was making the other film, since that makes it harder to make it clear to the reader what the sequence was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar: I don't have access to Guy (1997), so can you just confirm that it says Mudaliar rewrote the play for MOBC? The other source seems to imply it was the original play.

Here is access to select pages from Guy's book, free for viewing, and all pages containing Sathi Leelavathi are in it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's very helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• The film was Dungan's directorial debut, and was later listed in the Limca Book of Records as the first Indian film to be directed by a foreigner: I copyedited this slightly, but on reflection I think it might be better to just make it "The film was Dungan's directorial debut, and was the first Indian film to be directed by a foreigner". I take it the Limca Book of Records is a reliable source? If so we can just cite the statement to it.

Do as you please. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The case was resolved when Vasan testified that both Pathi Bhakthi and the novel Sathi Leelavathi were based on Ellen Wood's 1860 novel Danesbury House, therefore neither party could claim originality.: I've copyedited this a bit but I an wondering if the last clause would be worth expanding. It's an interesting point because perhaps one could say that both Pathi Bhakthi and Vasan's novel were plagiarized, if neither is original. Does the source give more details about Vasan's testimony or the reasoning of the court in dismissing the case?

Nope. And I'm not sure even the Madras High Court would have documents related to the case. But since I have no future FA plans for this article, I don't this case needs further digging, right? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Struck; if the source doesn't discuss it that's fine. Re plans for FA: I'm not commenting with FAC in mind, just trying to identify places where we might be able to improve the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• in particular the plight of Tamil Nadu labourers in Ceylon's tea estates: I'm not sure about this, but just a suggestion: the plot summary only mentions this in passing, but it appears that some commentary on the film regards this as an important aspect of the film. Would it be worth expanding the brief mention of this in the plot a little?

It appears this was shown on film to a larger extent than what was shown in the pressbook's English synopsis. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest adding the character names to the caption of the still from the film, or at least making it clear it's a still (or is it from a poster?).
• Ramachandran appeared in Pathi Bhakthi as the antagonist's henchman Veeramuthu: might be worth making it clear this is the MOBC stage version we're talking about, since the reader might well assume it's the film version until the second half of the sentence.
• He later approached Mudaliar for a role in Sathi Leelavathi because he felt his role in Pathi Bhakthi offered him "no room to shine". I don't see the connection here; perhaps understanding the timing better would help. I assumed that the stage run of Pathi Bhakthi was over by the time the film was being made; were both going on at the same time? I see from another source that the timing was pretty quick -- Vasan's novel comes out in early 1934 and shooting on both it and the film version of Pathi Bhakthi starts in 1934. The delay in release till 1936 is just because of the lawsuit, I gather. So was Ramachandran acting in both at the same time? It's a minor point if the sources don't say but it wasn't till I looked closely at it that I realized how quickly it was all happening.

I don't think shooting started in 1934, since Dungan came to India in 1935 and Chettiar bought the film rights to the novel the same year. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This source says shooting on both films started in 1934, but I don't know how reliable that source is for that sort of detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

More later, probably tonight or tomorrow morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll get back to this but I've been asked to have a look at FAC and will do that next as it's time-sensitive. I should be able to get back to this this weekend, possibly even today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Continuing:

• Perhaps not an issue for the article, but why does Guy refer to Krishnamurthy as Radhakrishnan?

Simply put, a mistake. Not using the Radhakrishnan name (it was Radha's real name though). --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is it "Pasaruraman" or "Parasuraman"? Looks like the latter, but you have one instance of the former spelling.

Typo corrected. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ellis Dungan's autobiography is listed as 2001, but our article on him lists it as 2002. A quick look on the web supports 2002; can you check the copy you have to confirm the date?
• I've copyedited the section on acting a little but I think that paragraph could be reorganized -- the sentence about the actors freezing comes between two sentences about the effects of being theatre actors. How about this: "Most of the cast were theatre actors and Dungan later recalled that he had to tell them to soften their voices and tone down their facial expressions. This included Ramachandran, who according to Dungan did not initially understand the nuances of film acting and performed aggressively as though he was on stage until Dungan convinced him to deliver his lines naturally. Dungan also recalled the actors freezing and forgetting their lines in front of the camera, which frightened them."

Looks good to me. But I don't think the actors forgot their lines, as Dungan said in his autobiography, "Also some of the actors had never appeared in front of a motion picture camera before and it frightened them, whereupon they would often ‘freeze’ and couldn’t speak". --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about "Most of the cast were theatre actors and Dungan later recalled that he had to tell them to soften their voices and tone down their facial expressions. This included Ramachandran, who according to Dungan did not initially understand the nuances of film acting and performed aggressively as though he was on stage until Dungan convinced him to deliver his lines naturally. Some of the actors were scared of the camera, and Dungan recalled them freezing in front of it, unable to speak." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrote exactly this way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• With this film, Dungan introduced many features to Tamil cinema such as a lack of on-screen stage influences, the "cabaret dance" or the "club dance", strict discipline, filming by schedule and camera mobility. Could this sentence be expanded a little to give more details? I've no idea what a cabaret dance or club dance is, for example, or what is meant by "strict discipline". Some of these sound like significant points in the evolution of Tamil cinema and a bit more space would be worth it.
• It was not until I read the last chapter of "Filming" that I realized there were songs in the movie, but I see from the "Music" section that there were about a dozen. That makes them a significant part of the movie; shouldn't the songs be mentioned in the lead? Did all Tamil movies of the day include songs as a matter of course?

More than 90% of Indian films have songs in them, most not relevant to the plot. And I don't think music was a defining point of the film. I read somewhere else that the film was praised for having fewer songs than other Tamil films of the time. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought I recalled something like that. I agree no special mention should be made, but on the basis that the lead is a summary of the article, a short sentence in the lead seems appropriate. How about just mentioning who the lyricist was, and that it was his debut in cinema? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The melody of "Theyila Thottathle" (also spelt "Theyilai Thottatile") is based on Subramania Bharati's poem "Karumbu Thottathile". I don't follow this; how do you base a melody on a poem? Did "Karumbu Thottathile" have a melody associated with it?
• While the poem is about the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji, the songs's lyrics follow the problems of tea-plantation workers in Ceylon. Did Bhagavathar adapt the lyrics -- that is, just change a few words to make them refer to Ceylon -- or did he write completely new lyrics?

Not sure. Though I'm a native speaker of Tamil, I did not live in Tamil Nadu for most of my life. Hence, I am unsure of how Subramania Bharati's poems have "official" melody versions. This source says, "The poet had composed ‘Karumbu Thottathile’ which was on the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji. This was changed to ‘Theyilai Thottatile,’ depicting the problems of the tea plantation workers in Ceylon." --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The source ([21]), in Google Translate, refers to "songs" not "poems"; is it just that the translation should be "song"? The source talks about Bharati's songs being sung on stage, and the melodies being popular, so "poem" seems wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no error by Google Translate, the source indeed describes "Karumbu Thottathile" as a song. Written likewise. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sathi Leelavathi had a "trade show" debut in Madras on 1 February 1936, and was theatrically released on 28 March that year. A trade show is a showing of a film to people in the trade, usually so reviewers and critics can get an early look. I think we could write this more naturally as "Sathi Leelavathi had a trade screening [with a footnote if you think it needs explanation] in Madras on 1 February 1936...". We'd need a source for the definition and a quick look doesn't find one in Google Books, so if you want to make this change I'll look a little further. Also, I see that this source, which you cite for the trade showing, says the picture was release on February 1; the trade show must have been the day before, or earlier, and I think we should mention, perhaps in a footnote, that a contemporary source says it went on release on February 1, not March 28.

I pondered over this for a long time, but kept quiet due to lack of sources. It remains a mystery how the film released on March 28, almost two months after the trade show. But based on the Indian Express article, I guess we can ditch the March 28 release info altogether and agree that February 1 is the official release date. What do you say? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good enough source -- it's scarcely even a future prediction; the release happened the day the paper came out, and pre-screenings were often just one day before public release, in order to get reviews into the papers for the day of release. You could link "trade show" to Film_screening#Critic_screenings. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• At the time of its initial release, critics praised most aspects of the production, including the direction, photography, sound design, and writing. This doesn't seem well-sourced. One source is the press book; the other just says "The photography and recording are sound and the acting is generally satisfactory"; this is hardly "praise". (The same comment applies to the source for "The acting performances also received generally positive response from critics."). The press book does include positive comments, and I don't think we have any reason to doubt that they're accurate transcriptions, but the press book would exclude any negative comments so we can't use it to say the response was positive -- that would have to come from a source like Guy. Would any of the original sources be available from a library? It would be great to obtain the original reviews of any of these, though I imagine that's unlikely to be possible.

The critical reception summaries, which were not added by me but Numerounovedant, may be removed since I agree with you that there seems to be some form of censorship, given that the pressbook seems like WP:PRIMARYSOURCE (please don't say the pressbook should be outright removed). I think The Hindu's original review remains, as a snippet from it is mentioned here. But I'm not sure if they took that from the pressbook. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The pressbook is fine, we just need to make sure that the reader understands that the review information we have comes from PR for the film. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Stopping there for now; should be able to finish this pass later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, they are greatly appreciated. While FA is not a possibility, this article maintaining GA status with acceptable prose and zero blatant factual errors is enough for me. If you feel statements attributed to Memories of Madras (Guy, 2016) need proofreading, here are the pages free for viewing. But much of the content is the same as in Starlight Starbright. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, I've been reflexively reviewing this article with the same rigour that I would at FAC -- probably because that's where I started looking at the article. However, this is GAR, not FAC, and I should let you know what I think the status is according to the GAR requirements. The only remaining point that I think needs to be addressed for GA is to make it clear to the reader that the press opinions are taken from PR material and so cannot be assumed to be representative.

I think this is only the second of your articles I've reviewed at FAC; I hadn't realized you were working on early Tamil cinema. It's an interesting topic. If you plan to bring any other articles to FAC, and would like me to comment before the FAC, let me know and I'll try to find time. I think this article could easily make it to FA too, though it sounds like you're no longer interested in pursuing that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm still watching this; just to repeat myself, are you really only interested in having this reassessed for GA? If so just make it clear about the pressbook and I'll pass it. I'm happy to provide more feedback if you want, but it's not necessary just to retain GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Mike Christie, after reading your comments, I reconsidered. An FAC might still be possible, but I intend to solve Laser brain's comments before that (seen here and here). While I'm not sure if he is still active, do you think his comments have been solved and this can go straight to FAC? If they have been solved, I'd say yes, only the "Reception" part needs restructuring. Can the section be restored to as it was here, before Numerounovedant edited it? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear you want to go back to FAC. I'm out of time this morning, but I might be able to look at the reception section again tonight. I gather Laser brain is limited in his ability to edit by the COVID pandemic; I'll take a look through his comments when I can and give you my opinion but it would be good to get him to look through again too. In the meantime I'll go back through my comments above and strike everything that you've dealt with. I think there are some points you haven't yet responded to above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the edit to the reception section, and I think that section still needs work. I'd be willing to have a go at rewriting it, but I don't think I should do that during a GAR. I suggest you add to the top of the reception section a simple statement such as "All known contemporary reviews are from a press book advertising the film. There may have been negative reviews, but if so they have not survived." That warns the reader sufficiently. Then I'll pass this as surviving GAR, and we can resume work on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Mike Christie, sorry for the delayed response. I have added your suggestion – not in the main text, but as a hidden comment because it sounds opinionated. When you have time, can you re-review the article and say if the GAR can be closed? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think what's needed is to let the reader know that the surviving reviews may not be representative, so a hidden comment, while helpful to editors, isn't really enough. Is there another wording you'd be OK with? This is the only thing holding up the GAR from my point of view. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, just checking in -- I've been working on Manilal Dwivedi so haven't looked in here in a week or so, but it looks like there'll be a pause in activity on that article so I can come back here if you still are interested in working on the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, your opinion is welcome here, given your expertise in keeping/removing critical reception summaries. Once that is settled, the GAR may close. Mike Christie, once the GAR closes, you'll help me solve Laser brain's comments? One of them is reading the offline English sources which I can give you for free. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I should be able to help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This is maybe a bit beyond my area of expertise. We typically don't include disclaimers, but there might be a way to incorporate something that explains the situation without sounding so disclaim-y. My recommendation is to ask at WikiProject Film to see what they'd recommend. Something like: "I'm writing about a film from 1936 and want to get it to GA/FA level. While there I haven't been able to find a lot of press coverage that summarises overall critical response or that even presents a selection of good/bad reviews, I have found some review excerpts published in the film's press book. Naturally, these are probably cherrypicked for their bright hue. Any tips on how these could be used while still maintaining a neutral point of view? Should some language at the top of the critical response section be included, to the effect of: 'All known contemporary reviews are from a press book advertising the film. There may have been negative reviews, but if so they have not survived'? Should I do something else? Thanks." (Cynic's pro-tip: Try not not to mention India right off the bat or nobody will respond...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Kailash29792, I decided to go ahead with a slightly modified version of the suggested sentence, and will go ahead and close the GAR. I have a couple of other reviewing obligations but if you're still interested in taking this back to FAC I would be willing to work with you on it when I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Passing GAR; article retains GA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry (Madonna song)

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

Result: Delist, reasonable concerns with the GA criteria not actioned within a reasonable timeframe. Please fix the article up and bring back to GAN! (t · c) buidhe 11:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There are several issues with the article which impacts its GA status, and its FT status by extension. Just by reading through WP:GAFAIL, the article immediately fails criteria 3, which contains a cleanup banner for a single WP:USERGEN source which has not been addressed in over 2 years. According to WP:GACR, there are a significant number of requirements which had not been thoroughly addressed in the previous review while skimming through the article:

• GA1a: There are quite a few copyediting issues in each section which could be addressed at WP:GOCE.
• GA1b: The lead section does not include any citations unless the information could be challenged per WP:LEAD. It is also not concise, with information about the remix and Madonna's greatest hits album not necessary for inclusion. The genres in the infobox are unsourced and need to be stated in the composition section; citations are also not used in the infobox and should instead be expanded in the above section.
• GA2a: Ref [1] does not list Virgin as a publisher in the parameter; source is also not archived. The Credits and personnel section is also unsourced.
• GA2b: Ref [4] is from Madonna's own website, while ref [63] is from a Madonna fan site, which is an WP:ELNO.
• GA2c: Ref [45] uses MTV as a source to describe the plot of the music video, which is considered WP:OR. The source also redirects to the main page.
• GA3a: The Background section seems a bit bare compared to the other sections; maybe use the liner notes from Madonna's album to write about the recording year, as the infobox parameter is unsourced.
• GA4: The song seems to be placed in a positive light with the lead sentence, "Sorry" received positive reviews from contemporary critics, who declared the track the strongest song on Confessions on a Dance Floor, which is only supported by a single source. Are there no mixed to negative reviews about the song?
• GA6a: There is no reason why the audio sample and music video screenshot should be included in the article, given that there is no specific commentary or purpose expanding the reader's understanding of the topic. This fails WP:NFCC#8.

Overall, there are far too many issues with the article which would take over a week to address, considering the original user is indefinitely blocked. In addition, after looking at several articles at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Confessions on a Dance Floor, there are several unsourced track listing sections in each song article. I am asking for a community reassessment, as I have only briefly skimmed the article without checking every source's validity, considering the main editor was blocked for fabricating information. As much as I would like the FT to remain, the majority of articles need to be reassessed. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I was the original GA reviewer (2009). As one reviewer to another, I recommend applying the criteria only insofar as they are stated for the purposes of determining pass/fail. Several of the above points exceed the GA criteria. The scope of GA1a is "clear, concise" prose with correct spelling/grammar. If there is a sentence that is not understandable, it would be appropriate to highlight it here and to see if someone can figure it out. However, getting a copyedit from GOCE is not a requisite of achieving or maintaining GA status. Similarly, the GA3a threshhold is "broad", not comprehensive. What "main aspects of the topic" do you believe is missing? Also, on GA2b, the Madonna source is being used to reference a quote from Madonna so I'm not following how that is a violation of inline citations must be from reliable sources. And on GA2c, WP:OR is about referencing WP material with your own research or providing subjective analysis that is not in the cited reference (e.g. this tune is catchy), but describing the video (e.g. Madonna standing in front of neon lighted screen) is in line with MOS:PLOT. I'm not following your point on GA4...are you asking us or telling us this article is purposefully ignoring mixed to negative reviews? If there is negative criticism, please bring it forward so it can be included. Can you clarify what infobox parameter is not backed up in the Reference section? Thanks. maclean (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

In accordance to GA1a, sentences such as Musically, "Sorry" is an uptempo dance song containing layers of beats and strong vocal on the chorus, The song talks about personal empowerment and self-sufficiency, and Alexis Petridis from The Guardian called the song as triumphant. Kitty Empire from the same publication said that "'Sorry' sees Madonna taking a lover to task over an insistent dance-pop rush." could be reworded. The last sentence in particular could be combined into one sentence, considering that both authors write for the same publication, which would be easier to understand. I have not thoroughly gone through the article in great detail in comparison to other GA reviewers, so they may have more feedback to address that I have not caught on to. I am aware that articles do not need to go through WP:GOCE to become a GA, but it is expected that the prose is clear, concise. In response to GA3a, the lead section contains information about the personnel and release date which is not acknowledged in the Background section. The 2005 recording date in the infobox is also not acknowledged anywhere in the article, considering that she could have recorded it prior to that year. Maybe it is best to remove it, as it may be considered WP:OR. In regards to GA2b, the first Madonna source is acceptable as long as there are no other reliable secondary sources that could be used instead, while the second source has been addressed. For GA2c, I am perfectly content with the synopsis following WP:PLOT, but not with each sentence being directly cited by the MTV source, considering that the link is broken and is WP:REPCITE. If possible, I recommend that the section be split into two subsections; Background and Synopsis, so that it would be easier to navigate for readers. GA4 was just a question regarding whether the song has received any criticism, as I have only seen one mixed review in the critical reception section. The lead sentence, "Sorry" received positive reviews from contemporary critics, who declared the track the strongest song on Confessions on a Dance Floor. has only been attributed to the MTV News article, and may be considered WP:SYNTH. Discogs is a WP:USERGEN source that should not be cited for any track listing. Preferably use Template:Cite AV media to find appropriate listings and add any missing formats to the infobox parameter "formats", which I have not seen for the 12-inch vinyl. CD promos are also not used in the section, as they are not "commercial releases" of the song. Finally, both the sample and screenshot should be removed unless there is thorough information that cannot be supported by text alone. Neither explain why both mediums should be included in the article, considering the former does not refer specifically to "synthesized" beats. While some of my above points may barely pass GAC, the articles displayed in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Confessions on a Dance Floor at first glance seem to not be GA worthy, especially Get Together (Madonna song), where the GA review was essentially barren, given that there are more problems there that are glaringly noticeable while scrolling the article, particularly in the music video section which the majority of information sourced is from a fansite, as well as the unsourced track listing and personnel section. Considering that every article was GA'd in four months before being made a FT, and the reason for the nominator's indefinite block makes me doubt the integrity of some sources. While my comments may seem harsh for a GA reassessment, other reviewers at WP:GAN#SONG have made thorough reviews to ensure that each citation style and information in each section is sourced properly. As stated earlier, I have not searched any sources to check WP:INTEGRITY or fix citation parameter improvements, so this article was deliberately placed in community reassessment for other reviewers to discuss. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Jesper Fast

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

Result: delist Footlessmouse (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Jesper Fast article lacks details about Fast's career after the 2014-15 NHL season.

Agreed it does need updating; it would be a shame for it lose its status. Main contributor was @Hunter Kahn:, they might be interested in updates. L150 18:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping Lizzy150, yes I would like to update it. Is there a time limit on when those update could be made now that this GAR has begun? — Hunter Kahn 19:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Hunter Kahn: GAR can be open as long as necessary while improvements are ongoing. buidhe 02:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok, excellent. It's been a little harder for me to find free time for Wikipedia in recent days, but I have every intention to bring this article up to date as quickly as possible. — Hunter Kahn 13:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Apologies for my lack of activity on this; personal circumstances have kept me off of Wikipedia in recent weeks. But I do plan to start working on this in the upcoming days. — Hunter Kahn 20:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Hunter Kahn: I am looking at closing some of these. It has been a while and no progress has been made that I can tell on this article. It will be delisted as it currently stands unless some work is done on it soon. AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies that time has just not permitted me to work on this right now. I asked some time ago if anyone at WikiProject Ice Hockey could jump in, but got no response. Given that, it's certainly understandable for Aircorn to delist it, and maybe someday in the future I can update this and renominate it for GA... — Hunter Kahn 12:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support delist, but regretfully. The type of sourcing needed to bring this up to date seems to be more work than one editor can put into it over a weekend. On the upside, if what is missing is added in a way that remains consistent with what's already there, it should be a shoo-in for GA status later on. Updating this article should be a high priority for the related Wikiprojects. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• I wasn't gonna say it, but this needs delisted now that it's here. I have a keen interest in the content area and have noticed this article's status and current state, but I was going to stay quiet because I didn't want to be pained to remove a hockey article from GA. But an article missing five seasons' worth of content warrants a delist, now that it's open. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am closing this review as delist, as there is consensus for it and no meaningful attempts to fix problems from July have been made. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wales

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

Result: Kept This has been here six months and undergone a lot of trimming and sourcing in line with the reasons for delisting. I still feel there is more progress to be made with reducing the sections, but as it stands it I feel the Focus criteria is met. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page a week ago, "There's a considerable amount of unsourced text (fails WP:V), MOS:IMAGELOC issues, and needs significant trimming per summary style as it nearly 100K readable prose (focus)." buidhe 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A week is not very long, is it? I made a start but other editors need to be given a chance to comment and edit. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to close this reassessment unless you list the specific statements on this page that are unsourced. If you feel there is a problem then the onus is on you to point out what it is and not expect other editors to second guess you. With regards to the article size and placement of images, you've linked to guidelines, not policies. These are superceded by consensus and common sense. If the location of the images are a problem in your eyes, move them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The article as it stands does not meet the GA criteria. GA reassesments must be open at least a week and may only be closed by an uninvolved editor. You are welcome to voice your opinion which will be taken into account by the closer, but you are not uninvolved. buidhe 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(a) It wasn't a week, it was six days. (b) Triggering a formal reassessment with so little warning causes much more work (not to mention aggravation) than giving those interested time to bring the article up to scratch. Re-assess the article if you think that is the right path. Simply tagging unsourced paragraphs (and threatening loss of GA status on the project page) will not do. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Reassesment can be open as long as necessary as long as improvements are being made. It isn't intended as a threat but as a process of improvement. buidhe 21:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the "inline" part of the relevance template used. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In what way am I invloved?Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You expressed your personal opinion that the article should not be delisted. That's equivalent to !voting keep in an AfD and then closing the AfD as keep, which is not allowed. buidhe 12:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Catfish did express the opinion that the article should not be delisted. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No I didn't. I'm a little concerned about the interpretation of WP:INVOLVED here and suggest Buidhe reads it again. However, I see the article is being improved as we speak so I'm going to step back. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi all. Just a process note at this stage. I might get around to looking at the article at a later date. There is no guidelines on how long to wait before bringing an article up for reassessment. In my experience leaving a note at the talk page and waiting any length of time is the exception rather than the rule. Also I would not worry about the deadline. We require at least a week, but in practice these are left open much longer. As long as editors re working to get the article up to standard I don't see anyone closing it. The aim of everyone here is to improve it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comments: As noted above, this article is far longer than our guidelines recommend. There are some obvious areas that can be cut, for example there is no need for historiography on such a high-level article. The section headering in History is also quite excessive. There are other areas throughout the article with headers covering a single paragraph of even a single sentence. "Cities" is a level 2 header that could be literally just a sentence in Demographics. There are also many tiny paragraphs throughout the article, which are discouraged by MOS. The Culture section lacks any sort of cohesive focus. There's nothing that tells the reader facts about Welsh culture, merely a series of sections with various specific examples. Lastly, there are various citation needed tags scattered throughout the article which should be fixed. CMD (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we are clear now what is wrong with the article, and that probably doesn't need repeating. I just hope there are some editors willing to come and put it right so it can retain GA status. Sorry if this sounds grumpy (it probably is), but there are more than 900 editors watching this article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added some cites to the Transport and Music sections, which I think deals with the remaining Citation Needed and Failed Verification tags. Is the outstanding concern broadly about the length of the article? Wales's population puts it around the Albania/Puerto Rico mark, both of which have substantially longer articles, 245,347 bytes and 322,351 bytes compared with 209,487 bytes for Wales. I know that's a bit of an "Other stuff exists" argument, but it doesn't seem unduly long to me. That said, I'm sure there's some trimming/combining that could usefully be done. KJP1 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is not over-long by some standards, I agree, though some of the topics that have a main article could be reduced a little as some do "go on" a bit. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've had a go at combining some of the very short para.s and will have a look at doing some judicious trimming particularly, as you suggest, where's there's a corresponding Main article. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There are specific guidelines regarding length and style, Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size, which are included in the GA criteria. Wales is currently 40% longer than the 60kB of prose probably should be divided threshold. There's room for variation, but given country articles naturally come with numerous subpages, they have easy routes to become more concise.

Regarding citations, there's no tags, but there's clearly areas which lack sourcing. For example, over half of the Music section is currently unsourced. CMD (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

“probably should be divided threshold”? Not getting what you mean there. KJP1 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry, on re-reading, I think you’re saying it’s 40% over the threshold at which it should probably be divided. Don’t think I’d agree that it should be trimmed by 40%, nor do I think it infringes the GA criteria by not being. An article on an entire country will likely be longer than an article on a rather more circumscribed topic. As for sourcing, I think you’re probably closer to FA criteria requirements than GA. As a comparison, the USA, another country GA, is a third as long again, with about a third more sources. But there are clearly areas that can be tightened, and more strongly sourced, so we’ll crack on with those. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The most recent featured country article, Bulgaria, is currently at 53kB of prose, so that may be a good example of a country article which meets GA Criteria 3. As for sourcing, GA Criteria 2 is "Verifiable with no original research". CMD (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: United States is also undergoing GAR, with multiple editors commenting that its length is an issue. (t · c) buidhe 16:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tony Holkham - Not entirely clear as to how community consensus is reached in GAR but wanted to note that there doesn't appear to be consensus here. The criticism had two limbs - uncited material and length. In my view, the first has been addressed, certainly to GA standards. The second is a matter of opinion, but I think it is clear that two editors, Tony and myself, both of whom contribute extensively to Welsh topics, are not of the view that it is overlong. I've pinged Tony in case I'm not representing his view accurately. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is too long, given that sections with main articles could be cut (even more). Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing has improved in my view. On size, criteria 3b points to specific guidelines on the matter. The length is probably related to some minor MOS:OVERSECTIONing in the article. CMD (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Was going to close this as keep as while it is still a bit lengthy it probably just meets our requirements. I did make some edits to the article though and after another reading through again have a few more suggestions so thought I would put them here.
  • Shouldn't the Medieval Wales, Norman conquest and Annexation to England sections in history be combined. They cover the same era and fit under the same daughter article. They could then be reduced and summerised better.
  • Modern Wales is a bit too long. It smacks a bit of recentism and doesn't have a main article. I would suggest creating a main article and moving most of the info there.
  • I think the same could be done with climate. There is no main and things like the highest recorded temperature and other misc stats would fit in better if there was one.
  • The culture section is probably a bit bloated. I know it is hard to choose which ones are worth mentioning and everyone has different tastes they want to highlight, but there are main articles for each one so they can be trimmed without any real loss. I am not Welsh so it is hard for me to say what should be featured and what not. I do know a bit about sport and a whole paragraph on rugby and another on football are probably a bit excessive relative to the scope of the article (it also mentions hosting the World Cup twice). Cricket probably doesn't warrant two sentences and Tony Farrs mention seems disproportionate too.
• Overall I would say as it stands it meets the GA criteria, it could just be fine tuned a bit more. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn - Very much appreciate the interest and the helpful comments. I like the suggestions a lot and will look to action them over the next few days. The culture section is tricky, as it is hard to make value judgements on notability between different musicians etc. Just one point of difference - a mere paragraph on rugby is hardly sufficient! Football I know nothing about, but I shall ask Kossack. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. If we can get away with a couple of sentences I am sure Wales could too. I don't know if it needs the four professional sides mentioned or the competitions outside the world cup and six nations. Also documenting a two year period of league being professional doesn't seem that relevant. You get a lot of if X is mentioned then we should mention Y. Sometimes it is better to not mention too much of either if we are trying to keep it overviewish (for example I am not sure any sporting person should get explicit mention unless they are extremely famous). For comparison Wales mentions 25 sportsmen (Gareth Edwards doesn't make the cut) while NZ mentions just Hillary. I am not suggesting that this is the blueprint for a country Good Article, it just happens to be the country article I am most familiar with. AIRcorn (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Alfred Dunhill

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

Result: Kept AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This article lacks referencing and makes unvalidated statements, for example that Alfred Dunhill married his mistress on the death of his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenoaks27 (talk • contribs)

• Keep The article is fully sourced with inline citations. (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - The only citations issue I can find is ref 14 is to "Royal Society of Arts archives", which is far from specific enough to be considered verifiable. Looks like it needs a light copy edit, but I don't see anything glaring from a quick glance. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Can't find a mention of this anywhere. There are 27,000 of them so it is not really that notable in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The referencing looks fine. And although the page is a bit short, it's comprehensive. In fact, I don't see why this reassessment needs to be kept open. epicgenius (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• keep and close - aside from a few refs I can't read, all seems to be in order. Certainly not GAR level. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• 'Keep and close per Lee Vilenski. I could probably find a few things to harp about if I were so inclined, but this is a GA-level article. It's time to close this thing. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yūjirō Motora

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

Result: Consensus to keep (t · c) buidhe 08:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This article does not have adequate sources to qualify as a GA, it's infobox can be majorly expanded, it's last section fails WP:SURVIVEDBY. Not all statements are reliable, with certain paragraphs only having 1 or 2 sources. The article has violations of WP:TEXTBOOK and WP:OR (Sources variously credit Motora or his student, Matatarō Matsumoto, with setting up the lab. At the very least, Motora consulted with Matsumoto on the setup of the lab.). Some sources credit him as having set up the first psychological laboratory in Japan, WP:SYNTH and MOS:WEASEL. A practitioner of Zen meditation, Motora contributed ideas on the subject that influenced psychological thought in Japan, seems to start veering to break WP:NPOV, putting him in good light; perhaps WP:FANPOV. At the very least, Motora consulted with Matsumoto on the setup of the lab breaks WP:SYNTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrely (talk • contribs)

I did a copyedit just now, and I'll take a look at the OR/NPOV issues. Ovinus (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My impression after reading the article again is that it uses some flowery language, for example Even as a child, Motora was interested.... I think with some work it can be up to GA standard, and I'll take a look at the prose again after/if changes have been made. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by No Great Shaker

Retain GA status. I carried out the GA review and, other than the need for a few minor amendments, I considered it to be a good article and promoted it accordingly. In my opinion, the complaints raised here are unsubstantiated. The worst of it is the accusation of WP:OR which is unfounded and out of order. The author, Larry Hockett, has written a good article and it is unacceptable that he has been subjected to an accusation of OR, especially as no adequate rationale has been provided. I'll deal with each of the points raised in turn.

First, apart from anything else, the request for reassessment needs to be presented in a readable form with paragraph breaks and indentation. This request is a mess, not even signed, and it does not in any way provide the full rationale which the edit instructions desire.

There is no requirement for any images in an article. GACR#6 is concerned with images that are present. It says: "Illustrated, if possible, by media...", not "Illustrated by media..." This point has already been challenged and removed from the above but the fact that it was ever included in the first place as a key reason for GA failure shows a lack of understanding of the GA criteria and process. The one image in the article is public domain, it is relevant and its caption is appropriate. Therefore, the article complies with GACR#6.

Where in GACR does it even mention an infobox? As with the entire article, the infobox could presumably be expanded if and when more information about the subject comes to light. Saying that the article is not GA because its infobox contains seven parameters is frankly absurd. It does not need to have an infobox. Like images, tables and lists, the infobox is a useful but optional aid to the reader. GA is essentially concerned with lead and narrative. Of course, if there is an infobox, it must be correct and tidy. This one is.

WP:SURVIVEDBY is given as a major reason for GA failure. This is not a policy like WP:V or even a rule. It is advisory and its intention is to prevent a single sentence "obituary" piece which says nothing more than: "He was survived by his wife and their five children". The death section in this article goes further by explaining that Motora died as a result of erysipelas. Yes, the "survived by" sentence could be reworded if another editor wished to do that and I see Larry has now amended it to "He and his wife had five children" which says exactly the same thing but addresses the pedantry implicit in WP:SURVIVEDBY.

"Not all statements are reliable". That is just an unsubtantiated throwaway opinion. Which statements and why? Can we have some specifics?

"Certain paragraphs only having 1 or 2 sources". Where in WP:GACR does it say that a paragraph must have more than one inline citation? GACR#2 says in practically generic terms that the content of the article (as a whole) must be verifiable with no original research. Part 2b is more precise by specifying: "all inline citations are from reliable sources", but it says nothing whatsoever about application of inline citations. For that, you need to look at WP:CITE itself: "An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote" (my italics).

You could, of course, place the same citation after all six sentences in a given paragraph but that would be both messy and unnecessary. You must, however, be aware of any quotations or opinions in the paragraph per WP:INTEXT. So, if there are six sentences and they are all derived from the same page of the same source, then only one citation is needed and placed after sentence six, the end of the paragraph. Suppose, though, that sentence two is a quotation. In that case, the citation must be placed twice – once after sentence two and again at the end of the paragraph.

"The article has violations of WP:TEXTBOOK". This is a component of WP:NOT and it rightly declares that: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples". Using specific examples, please explain how on Earth this article violates any part of WP:NOT. Where, for example, is there a leading question or a problem solution or an instruction or a definition?

WP:OR is "any statement for which no reliable, published sources exist". Which statement in this article lacks a citation (bearing in mind that some citations cover whole paragraphs) and can possibly be considered OR? It is very easy to throw an OR accusation at an author without substantiation. It is also irresponsible. Everything in the article is adequately referenced to a reliable source. I think Larry deserves a full and formal apology for this accusation which is insulting and completely out of order.

"Sources variously credit Motora or his student, Matataro Matsumoto, with setting up the lab. At the very least, Motora consulted with Matsumoto on the setup of the lab". Two sources verify the first sentence and the second is verified by one of those sources which also covers the rest of the paragraph. There is obviously a difference of opinion among the sources about who set up the lab and so, as Larry has done, it is best to say that it is an either... or... scenario. What exactly is the issue here?

"Some sources credit him as having set up the first psychological laboratory in Japan". This is in the lead and it summarises the lab source statements in the narrative per MOS:LEAD. The complaint about it seems to be "WP:SYNTH and MOS:WEASEL" without further explanation. Presumably it is contended that "some sources credit him" breaches MOS:WEASEL, but it doesn't because it is in the lead and it summarises sourced information in the narrative which expressly states that there is a difference of opinion between sources. The key point is that the sources are cited so this is not the same as "some people say" without referencing. As for WP:SYNTH, this states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". What conclusion has been reached that is not explicitly stated by one of the two relevant cited sources? Again, as with OR above, this is a case of throwing rules and guidelines around without any clear understanding of their purpose.

The essential rule that applies to difference of opinion between sources is WP:NPOV which is both a key policy and GACR#4 where it is summarised: "it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each". Please explain exactly how the "some sources" statement breaches WP:NPOV and fails GACR#4.

"A practitioner of Zen meditation, Motora contributed ideas on the subject that influenced psychological thought in Japan". The complaint is that this "seems to start veering to break NPOV, putting him in good like; perhaps WP:FANPOV". What does "putting him in good like" even mean? If you are going to criticise someone's work, please do so in a way that people can understand what you are talking about. The sentence is in the lead so it must summarise something in the narrative and it does not need a citation in the lead as long as it does that. In fact, the sentence summarises the second paragraph of the academic career section and that paragraph is sourced to Hiroki Kato so there is no breach of NPOV. In the narrative, Motora's "ideas on the subject that influenced psychological thought in Japan" are explained in terms of his theory "that Zen should be understood through personal interpretation rather than through a Zen master, and this became an influential thought in early Japanese psychology", which is referenced to Hiroki Kato, who is an authority on Zen. There is no POV there and no subjectivity to remotely suggest FANPOV.

Larry has said on his talk page that he expected to have to deal with some feedback before the article was promoted to GA, but I found that it only needed a few tweaks and, to save time, I did those myself. I admit that I could have made more amendments to the text but I was aware that Larry writes in AE style and I respect that as otherwise the article would have ended up a mixture of AE and BE. As long as a narrative makes sense, there is no need to alter something like "as well as the nation's first psychology textbook". Americans like to say "the nation" and it's fine, although the British would never say it (we might say "the country"). Ovinus has removed "the nation's" but it doesn't matter as the sentence still makes sense.

The complaints about this article are unsubstantiated and, insofar as accusations of OR and POV are concerned, completely out of order. The article is by no means a finished product because it could obviously be expanded if more information about Motora should be found. While the recent amendments by Larry and Ovinus are okay, nothing substantial has been done. I don't think it could be nominated at FAC as it stands, but it does meet the GA criteria and it is a good article. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In general I agree with No Great Shaker; I don't think the claim of OR is substantiated. The NPOV problems, which were slight, have been rectified. I think we should close this reassessment. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ovinus. Appreciate your help with the article. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I welcome almost any efforts to improve WP entries. I thought the use of GAR and the scope of the concerns were both misguided here, but I realize that the reassessment was proposed in good faith. I think some improvements have resulted from rereading the entry, even on issues not proposed by the nominator. I have cleaned up a few things, like inconsistencies in the reference format and in the university names.

I took out the part about there being a discrepancy in the credit given to Motora and Matsumoto on the first psychology lab. I only found one source that makes a big deal out of this. When other sources describe the lab in detail, they credit both men; it seems clear that Motora was the driving force, while Matsumoto helped with specific aspects (such as looking at state-of-the-art lab equipment while he was in Germany). More can be added about their specific roles in the formation of the lab, but first I'd like to address any remaining concerns that are germane to the GA criteria. Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Berrely, could you let me know if there are any outstanding concerns about how this entry squares with the GA criteria? Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 02:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel like a bit of fool, as clearly the article does justify as a GA. I just used the stereotype that "not long" "not a million sources" when I clearly shouldn't have. I genuinely apologise for the inconvenience I have caused, as clearly this GAR was made without an appropriate reason. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't feel bad. I've done worse things on Wikipedia. The GA criteria do have a level of subjectivity to them, so two editors may not have the same thoughts on whether a given entry passes GA or not. Some good things actually came of this - for example, I was prompted to look into the issue you mentioned about the credit for the first psychology lab. I suspect that if no other issues are raised, someone will come along soon enough and close this. No harm done. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Liquid fly-back booster

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

Result: Delist A little reluctantly as it appears to be a pretty decent article. One unsourced sentence in the lead, which could probably be removed. There is an orange tag on it about payload capacities. This is beyond my paygrade to fix. This along with the consensus below and the fact it has been here 6 months makes it a delist. AIRcorn (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Good article with unsourced statements. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}}). I suggest delisting this article. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Delist - No one is out to fix this article. Might as well demoted this one. GamerPro64 22:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Vivian (Paper Mario)

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

Result: Kept This proces is for assessing whether an article meets the criteria for a Good Article. Notability is not part of the criteria. There is WP:AFD for that or a merge could be conducted. Likewise the status of this article should not play a role in those two processes (i.e Keep because it is a GA are not valid !vote.) AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

While discussing notability of Mr. Game and Watch, I used Vivian as an example of what defines a fictional character as notable. Bringing this up, however, it got a couple of people to think whether or not Vivian is notable. Not in a "delete the article" way, but rather "re-asses and probably C-class" way.

The following discussion comes from the Wikiproject Video Games talk page.

=== Mr. Game and Watch and Notability (cont.) ===

So we've agreed (me too, don't worry) that Mr. Game and Watch is not notable enough for an individual article. But what about other fictional characters of the same premise? One of the best pieces of notability for him was the racial criticism, which a couple of you guys think is worthy being important to mention. Exhibit A: Vivian. So you wouldn't think an ally is notable enough for a second article, but due to the LGBT+ representation of her (she's transgender), its got an article (good job vivian, now olivia). What is the difference between these two? Mr. Game and Watch: A (kinda) notable character who's gotten criticism for racial stereotypes and existing in Smash Bros. in general. Vivian: A (kinda) notable character who's gotten praise from the LGBT community. She's also good article status, so what's the exact definition for fictional characters? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no exact definition or line in the sand Panini. Generally, the more significant coverage a character has received, and the more depth and breadth in that coverage, you can make a better case for a standalone article. Looking at the two articles, Vivian has received a healthy amount of critical discussion from various journalists saying different things, and it would be undue to keep all that at Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. I'm not seeing this problem on the G&W page. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought the section in G&W was unwieldy, but the additional content you removed kept it to a minimum. Thanks for your opinion! It would be weird if she had a big section on TTYD, even though she's just an ally.

I would like to make a comment about the game-guidy stuff that was cut. The stuff wasn't there to necessarily show his moveset, it was there to show the references to other games in his fighting style. Can we add something along the lines of "His moveset correlates to Game & Watch titles, such as (insert some example). Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes if you can find a source that says so. (FYI, an ally is someone that supports LGBTQ rights, not someone that identifies as such) TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I think he was referring to Vivian being an ally to Mario in the game. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Now I feel silly. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• There is a rule/line in the sand: If the topic's article depends upon "Top X" listicles, the subject matter is likely best covered within an existing article. If you have to cobble together brief mentions from sources, its Reception section will verge on trivia because the topic is on the outer cusp of independent notability. The Vivian article exemplifies this and would be a strong candidate for merger. czar 02:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• While I’m not particularly pushing of a merge of the Vivian article, I do wholeheartedly agree that it’s not exactly a “home run” when it comes to demonstrating notability. It’s more of a “C+” case or something. There’s much better examples out there. I’d look to WP:GA/WP:FA articles, or even ones that have survived AFD or merger discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think an article like Vivian is questionable why its good article status, but its still fine nonetheless. Unless someone is willing to re-evaluate, its a good article. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 10:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I definitely think it needs a WP:GAR. Its notability is entirely dependent on listicles, which is a red flag in my book. I try to find at least a couple articles directly about the subject before making any fictional character/item article and Vivian doesn't seem to have any of that, only trivial mentions. It's unclear if it's standalone notable at all, but at most it's C class as Sergecross stated._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Well then, should we begin Re-assessment, or is this conversation just a thought? If anything, it should be a community re-assessment, as we have our opinions and the contributors to the article have theirs. I don't think I can list it, as I'm not a main editor on the article. @TarkusAB: I want to hear what Tarkus thinks if he stops by. He was the original reviewer, after all. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 11:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

So I have taken another look at Vivian and well there are some listicles, there are some actual articles about the character. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I made this list of references, for, well, reference.

Articles that are lists - (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, possible 16, but I can't access it. 8 out of 16/50 %)

Articles with small mentions of the character - (9, 14, 15, possible 16, but I can't access it. 4 out of 16/25%)

Articles with Trivial mentions/comes from the game itself - (7, 8. 2 out of 16/12.5%)

Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason I'm creating this page is for these users to state a fleshed out opinion on the re-assessing of this article. Also, main contributors that oppose of this re-assessment to state their case as well.

Survey

• Delist. The article doesn't seem to represent Good article status of notability. The majority of the sources come from top 10 themed lists (Our favorite LGBTQ+ characters in games, 15 classic Nintendo games that had to be censored, etc.), as well as simply trivial mentions in others (Lets talk about birdo, why LGBT video game databases matter). While these count as notability, it isn't a perfect example of what a good article is. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 15:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. The article seems to be struggling with notability of Vivian as a whole character, and the notability largely hinges on a single aspect of the character that was controversial, her trans nature or censorship thereof. This same situation is why I thought Sorceress (Dragon's Crown) was also unsuitable for an article. While it can certainly be part of how the character was received, I'm not sure that alone is sufficient to mark a notable character. As said above, most of the sources are listicles or small-trivial mentions. It lacks any indepth explanations of the character. I'm not even sure the article is independently notable at all, but I think that at it's a given that it doesn't reach GA standards due to the quality of sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. While I think it would make sense if the article was merged, I don't know where in the Paper Mario articles her section would go, which is why I say we keep it, but just not good article status. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 16:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Characters in the Mario franchise I'm guessing? Either that or Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door#Characters, but it might be overkill for that section._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep. I do not really agree with that at all, that it lacks "indepth explanations." Two authors go in depth into her physical design and how they enhance her femininity (both in mannerisms and clothing); another author discusses how her role in the Shadow Sirens made an impact due to her being a younger sibling herself; a source discussing how Vivian's role in the game would make her relatable to children (these latter two having nothing to do with her being transgender); an author discussing how her role could help people better understand LGBT people. I do not agree that the discussion of her character is limited to her role in the game. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Abryn, I actually do agree that she has definitely gotten good reception, and expands outside of just being an ally in the game. However, I still believe that her reception is really all that comes with her. While the citations talk about her appearance, it comes close to just being a trivial explanation on who she is. If a source talks about her appearance, it doesn't necessarily means it calls for a bullet point, like on the back of a video game box.

• These sources talk about her appearance

• This one source talks about how she appeals to children

• These sources talk about her LGBT representation in video games

1. The three sources that talk about her appearance, don't, actually, talk about her appearance...

The only point these three articles really bring up is how she is transgender and how it was change in North America. (Except for source 3, but it only really describes her sisters, not her appearance.)

2. This source talks about how she is a good rep for children (alongside reps from the other allies) and is a good trivial mention of the character. Key word trivial mention; key word alongside reps from the other allies.

This source is a listicle in a listicle. Its a list of 6 reasons why they should play the game, Nd number 6 is a list of the morals from the allies. She, alongside the other allies in this list list, are mere trivia philosophies.

3. The main reason which this character is known is for her LGBT representation. However, I believe this could be simply a good hearty paragraph in TTYD. It makes up what seems to be 60% of the article as a whole.

While I'm all for just de-listing this article to C class, I wouldn't go against merging, as CZAR notes. The article can stay, I just don't believe its a good representation of notability and should be de-listed as so. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 02:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources explicitly relate to her appearance, discussing her manner of clothing, how she expresses her femininity, these are explicit examples of discussing her appearance and how it defines her character, particularly in relation to her sisters. I'm not at all understanding why you think it does not relate to her appearance. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Abryn, If its explicit, then there is something that I"m missing. Can you quote the articles that directly state her appearance/clothing? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 02:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The 13th source discusses Vivian's physical, feminine mannerisms, what they reflect, and her hat. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Abryn, That's what confused me. The section that talks about her appearance, are cited to 1, 2, and 3, which don't really go over her appearance, rather her transgender relationship with her sisters. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 17:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Merge, rather than re-assess. Notability is separate from the GA criteria so unless the argument is about missing breadth or something, it's possible for this to be a GA version of a topic that isn't independently notable for Wikipedia. In any event, you're probably looking to have a merge discussion, not a GA reassessment (the latter is moot in the case of the former). czar 21:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Czar:So your suggestion is that she matches the good article criterion of all sections except notability, and sense it doesn't meet this for article creation either, it should rather be merged. Is this correct? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 22:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't pass judgment on the GA criteria apart from pointing out that "notability" is not among those criteria. I think it should be merged, but that's a different discussion (WP:PAM), not a GA reassessment. czar 23:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Czar, Okay, I think I got it. You don't believe it needs a re-assessment, and it should rather be merged. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 01:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per Le Panini's reasoning. Probably B class at best. My position on the character's notability on the other hand, is that GNG is satisfied per Bryn's reasoning as her significance is not limited to her Paper Mario debut. Haleth (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Notability is not part of GA - this thread is started based on incorrect assumptions about the process. If you want to go ahead with this process, you need to bring up (actionable) concerns based on the GA criteria. (And if you think this should be merged, then this specific process is a waste of time anyway)--Alexandra^IDV 04:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep – I find it odd that this article was put up for community reassessment without prior notification on the talk page. I would want to give editors the chance to make changes to the article if it is believed that it doesn't meet Good Article criteria. Moreover, total number of sources/notability is not covered in the six Good Article criteria. If people want this article merged or redirected, please create a proper discussion for that. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It has been suggested of a merge discussion, rather than a GA re-assessment, which is now being reviewed on the talk page. If you have any comment on GA status, please put it here. If not, I will close this subject in a couple of days, and label it as "Suggested Merge". Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 11:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delist - I've complied a list of the sources used in this article, I'm interested if this really does deserve a GA. Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources

• Screen Rant - Listed as inconclusive.
• LGBTQ Video Game Archive - Status unknown.
• Nintendojo - Listed as notable.
• IGN - Listed as notable.
• Revista Tradumàtica (PDF) - Status unknown.
• inu651225 (YouTuber with roughly 700 subs) - YouTube is considered as inappropriate to source due to inappropriate content and copyright concerns, unless it's made by reliable sources in its own right.
• Quote from the game Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door - Listed as reliable.
• The official Smash website - Typically it's not usually the case to source the official company who created the article in question.
• Eurogamer - Listed as reliable.
• Liberty Voice - Status unknown.
• Inverse - Listed as inconclusive.
• Paper - Status unknown.
• Uppsala University (PDF) - Presumably reliable.
• Springer (Book: Queerness in play) - Presumably reliable.
• VG247 - Listed as reliable.
• The Average Gamer - Status unknown.
• The OutCrowd Magazine - Status unknown.

Personally, I don't think this article is worthy of a merger, it's fine staying an article. It's just its rating needs to come into question. CaptainGalaxy 20:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Notability is not a GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• You need to either start a merge discussion on the talk page or put it through AFD. AIRcorn (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This has already been made loud and clear. A discussion was started at the talk page. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 03:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Muslim women in sport

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

Result: Delisted, as issues with original research have not been addressed. This is a tough topic to address because of the question, who is a Muslim? In many majority Muslim countries, right to leave Islam is not respected[22] and many people are officially registered as Muslims even if they are not. (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The article does not meet with the "Verifiable with no original research:" criteria. I have encountered the Muslim women in sports article while I was reading the Islamic feminism page. A citation I've found on IF page caught my attention and later I've realized that athletes listed on the source, which Muslim women in sport nearly entirely relies on, was deeply flawed. I'd like to present my comment that I've left on IF talk page.

At the lead section of the article it has been stated that "In the 2016 Olympics, fourteen Muslim women won medals, participating in a wide range of sports.[7]", giving this Buzzfeed tier mic.com article as a citation. Apart from failing to mention fourteen being an horrible misrepresentation among thousands of women medalists, the article lists women from predominantly Muslim countries and immediately assumes that they are "Muslims" without any sources whatsoever. Not all athletes from Muslim majority countries are themselves Muslim, and that the article as it stands makes this assumption. For example, according to the article Mariya Stadnik, an Ukrainian Azerbaijani athlete is a Muslim, yet there are no sources or public statement from her to verify this assumption. I also cannot find any sources stating half-Russian Aliya Mustafina, Kazakh Zhazira Zhapparkul, Indonesian Sri Wahyuni Agustiani, Egyptian Sara Ahmed, Turkish Nur Tatar or Azerbaijani Patimat Abakarova among others being Muslims.

The so-called good article Muslim women in sport is an equally flawed article because of this issues. It's like claiming any sportswomen from Europe or the USA "Christian" regardless of any public statement by them. It is dreadfully reductionist and assumptive and [the statement] need to be deleted.

Thus I don't think that it should in its current form be a good article under any circumstances. The article claims to be Muslim women in sport, not Women from Muslim majority countries in sport . Are all Europeans Christians, and being Turkish or Arabic is synonyms with being Muslim? Same concerns had been voiced years ago by an anonymous user on its talk page, yet got little to no attention. Also, the article contains quite a lot of synth material. Just because a nation is a member of OIC does not make its national team Muslim, for example. --Gogolplex (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Akku Yadav

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

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 12:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead of the article has no references. The first 2 paragraphs of the Crimes section break WP:PARAGRAPH, as they are both large enough to be broken into multiple paragraphs for easier readability. WP:TONE is frequently broken, and the article reads more like a collection of anecdotes from various people than it does an encyclopedic entry. A single Guardian article is used to cite 13 different portions of the article when there should be more information cited from varied sources. There are only 2 pictures throughout the whole article (excluding the one in the infobox).

In my opinion, this article shouldn't be listed as a Good Article, and may require extensive cleanup in order to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanD100 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• I took a look at this article and the biggest problem is WP:TONE. It has been written in a very casual, informal, and non-encyclopedic manner; I'm not sure why or how this was recently passed as a GA. Here's an example of what I mean: "Meanwhile, Yadav continued to pound on the door and threaten her [...] Narayane shouted back insults, and Yadav responded with descriptions of how he would rape, burn her with acid, and murder her. Yadav and his men tried to break the door down. In response, Narayane turned on a cylinder of gas that the family used for cooking and grabbed a match. She warned that if they broke into the house, she would light the match and blow herself and all of them up. The criminals smelled the gas and left Narayane alone. [...] The neighbors heard about what Narayane had done and were now willing to go after Yadav. Soon there were many angry Dalits on the streets, and they started to pick up sticks and stones. People threw stones at Yadav's associates. His men saw the crowd's mood and fled. The Dalits marched through the slum and celebrated. On 6 August 2004, they went to Yadav's house and burned it down. Yadav now feared for his life and went to the police for protection; they arrested him for his own protection on 7 August 2004. Yadav's mother vacated his house. On 7 August, Yadav was due to appear the city district court and 500 slum residents gathered. As Yadav arrived, one of his men tried to pass him knives wrapped in a blanket; the police failed to notice this. After the women protested, the accomplice was arrested, and Yadav was taken back into custody. He threatened to return and teach every woman in the slum a lesson." Unless someone can rewrite this article, I suggest delisting it. L150 21:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 2008 GA review

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 12:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this up to GA standards. For the record, this is what the article looked like when first promoted in 2008. What I'm looking at now is unsurprisingly quite different. Details to follow. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

When going through the WP:Good article criteria, here's my assessment based on the latter diff:

• Prose: The lead fails to take into account any of Kanye's songs. Not even huge successes for him like "Gold Digger" or "Stronger" are included. Not sure why there's no mention of his 2020 Presidential campaign (even if largely perceived as a joke). Going into the article body, calling songs "hits" isn't encyclopedic language (something I see repeatedly used). Within "1996–2002: Early work and Roc-A-Fella Records", "gangsta image" from "did not portray the 'gangsta image' prominent in mainstream hip hop" should be in double-quotation marks instead of singular. I'm not sure "shooting" from "shooting to number two on the Billboard 200" under "2003–2006: The College Dropout and Late Registration" is the best tone. The use of "perhaps" in "perhaps exposed West to a wider audience" is overly speculative. I recommend splitting "However, partly because of the acclaim of The College Dropout, such sampling had been much copied by others; with that overuse, and also because West felt he had become too dependent on the technique, he decided to find a new sound" where the semi-colon is placed when this is an overly long sentence. Furthermore, "overuse" sounds like a personal opinion. Avoid using contractions unless part of a quote or title. Sections such as "2019–present: Jesus Is King and Donda: With Child", "Fashion", "Business ventures", "Architecture", "Politics", "General media", "Relationships and family", "Mother's death", and "Religious beliefs" contain overly short paragraphs that make the flow of text look choppy.

• Referencing: Not all claims are sourced, and certain references such as The Daily Beast, GigWise, Global Grind, and New York Post are subpar/questionable. Some citations also aren't formatted properly, missing publication names, authors, or dates. There should be no dead links.

• Coverage: How are things like high school grades worth including? I see no need for "industry executives' predictions that a song containing such blatant declarations of faith would never make it to radio" regarding "Jesus Walks", and also feel this goes into excessive detail on Donda's death, which doesn't warrant a separate section no matter how much it impacted the guy. Any "sales competition" between Graduation and 50 Cent's Curtis is better for those albums' individual articles.

• Neutrality: This is another big problem. Lumping controversies into one section is frowned upon within biographies (as the article currently does) because it creates undue negative weight. One would be better off interspersing controversial actions within other parts of article prose instead. Also, see my earlier comments on tone for certain bits of prose.

• Stability: Seems OK at the moment. No edit wars or major changes appear to be taking place lately.

• Media: While I don't see any copyright violations, aligning all images to the right is needlessly monotonous. It's preferable to have images of people "face" text when possible plus having some alignments towards the left helps give some diversity.

The above is not an exhaustive list of the article's problems. Given the vast amount of content present along with over 500 citations, I don't feel confident in my abilities to conduct an individual reassessment, so I opted for a community one so more sets of eyes can view the page and perhaps list other things to address. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• First of all, neat about the facing text thing, I didn't know that before. I looked at the article and found a few [citation needed] as well. There may be others not tagged. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Because West is such a controversial figure, as noted in the lead and "Legacy" section of the article, I don't mind this article having a "Controversies" section. We don't have a policy or guideline on that. What we do have is the [[]] essay, and it somewhat allows for such a section. CriticismFlyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• The essay you linked says Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Though I do realize he's stirred up lots of controversy and there are subheadings for topics within the "Controversies" section, that doesn't ease my concerns on how such sections/subsections can easily become bloated. It's almost asking for trouble. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That WP:CSECTION uses the word "normally" and the part specifically about controversies states "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word 'controversies'." It uses the word "generally." The "Approaches to presenting criticism" section includes "Controversy section" as one approach that may be used. So, again, WP:Criticism somewhat allows for such a section. Wikipedia has exceptions in a number of cases, and I see West, given his controversial nature -- which is a part of his notability/legacy -- as an exception when it comes to having a "Controversies" section. I'm certain that some people come to this article to read about a controversy West was involved in. I'm not keen on controversy sections and they can be a pain to maintain because of the bloating you mentioned. West, though, doesn't have many notable controversies. So minor stuff should be excluded per WP:Due. And if sources don't label a matter a controversy, we shouldn't either. We can also trim what is already there. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Trimming this article's section would probably help. In the meantime, feel free to point out anything else in the page you feel could be improved upon. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, where is the consensus for delisting this article? Because I'm not seeing it. What we have above is criticism by one editor and two comments by two others that don't state, "Yeah, delist." So this might as well have not even been a community review. I'm thinking of taking this to WP:Close review. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Frozen I am judging the policy-based rationales for keeping versus delisting the article. Neither you nor User:Zeke, the Mad Horrorist state that the article meets all of the GA criteria, that it should not be delisted, or counter all of SNUGGUMS' points regarding deficiencies vis-a-vis the criteria. Before closing I checked the article and noted that it still contains non-cited content, which means SNUGGUMS' points about verifiability still apply regardless of disputes about one section of the article. Since it has been open more than a month and there is no indication that anyone is working to bring it up to standard, it is entirely appropriate to close. (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I do not see where the article fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria#The six good article criteria. Certainly not all six. If I did, I would have stated so. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment states that "Unless an article's issues are extensive, consider taking the following steps before initiating a reassessment." It then lists steps that should have been followed, including by the nominator. And that nominator stated to me above, "Trimming this article's section would probably help. In the meantime, feel free to point out anything else in the page you feel could be improved upon." No time limit was given. And, again, it's not only up to others besides the nominator to fix things that are easily fixable. This reassessment was pretty much a single-person reassessment. And I really cannot stand those types of reassessments since they are based on the opinion of one person.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't need to fail all six criteria to be delisted. Instead, it must be shown to meet all criteria to remain listed. That has not been shown in this case. I believe SNUGGUMS has indicated that in their opinion, the issues with the article are indeed extensive, so the "before" steps would not apply. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not state that it must fail all six. What I did state is that Wikipedia:Good article reassessment lists steps that should have been followed. It is very clear that reassessment is supposed to be about fixing. It focuses on that explicitly. A few things are unsourced? So. Source them. As for prose, SNUGGUMS is very particular about the prose SNUGGUMS prefers. Not everyone agrees with SNUGGUMS's views on prose. You stated, "I believe SNUGGUMS has indicated that in their opinion, the issues with the article are indeed extensive, so the 'before' steps would not apply." Yeah, that's the problem -- one editor's opinion. There is nothing in that article that could not have been fixed by SNUGGUMS and in a timely fashion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I do often trust SNUGGUMS's views on what makes a good article. And I think SNUGGUMS knows that. It's just that, like I stated, I don't think that there was enough input to delist the article like that, and I think it would have been better to put more editors on notice about improving the article, and it doesn't seem to me that the issues were so extensive and something that couldn't be fixed within a day, two, or a few, that the article needed delisting. But I'll likely let this go. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Nawabs of Bengal and Murshidabad

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

Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 12:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This article seriously inherently lacks the required quality to still be listed as a GA. I had worked on this article last in 2012 and since then not only has vital information being altered with (or is missing) but good reliable sources are missing (murshidabad.net in my opinion is not a good RS). The formatting is also very sloppy. I had helped make this a GA but, as it stands now, I have no confidence in its quality for it to be continued to be listed as a GA. Tamravidhir (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Get Together (Madonna song)

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

Result: Delisted. If you think it fails GNG, please nominate for AfD. (t · c) buidhe 11:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Following the decision to remove Confessions on a Dancefloor as a featured topic here, there was consensus for "Get Together" to be re-evaluated following concerns that it contained unreliable and unsourced information, which fails GA2a and GA2b of the WP:GACR. In addition, the song sample and music video screenshot fails GA6a and GA6b, which does not have a valid fair use rationale and improve on the reader's understanding of the topic, failing WP:NFCC#8. The article also fails WP:GNG, with the majority of sources derived from album and concert reviews — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring

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

Result: The article can't be delisted because the nominator has quit and no one else is advocating delist. So it will be kept. (t · c) buidhe 13:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I am requesting a community reassessment of the Kesselring article because I wish to challenge the outcome of Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA3, completed 19 October 2020. I believe that the reviewer Lazman321 has failed to consider the points raised in the previous review at Talk:Albert Kesselring/GA2, completed 13 April 2020. Also, I'm not convinced that the reviewer has taken full account of the featured article review in December last year. The main contributor to the article is Hawkeye7 who is of course invited to take part in this GAR.

I am very doubtful about GA3 because the reviewer is a relatively new editor who lacks experience of the site and its review process. The article failed GA2 and I am unconvinced that it has been substantially improved. As I was the GA2 reviewer and am in effect a major contributor to the article, I would like to invite community input to establish a consensus on whether or not this article meets the GA criteria.

GA2 failed for two main reasons. First, a key condition of GACR#1 is "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" and the article was a long way from achieving that because, frankly, it was muddled and lacked narrative flow. Also, it had been written under the assumption that all readers would have a detailed knowledge of the history and terminology of World War II. Second, GACR#2b requires that "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged", but there were several controversial statements from an unreliable source used many times throughout and the use of that source meant that most if not all of those statements required citation (additional or replacement) from a reliable secondary source. I might add that the article was not at all well-written in terms of prose, spelling, grammar, syntax, etc. because it had not been proof-read and copyedited properly before being nominated – in the GA2 review, there was a huge stack of these issues but they alone were not a reason for immediate failure.

While GA2 attracted numerous comments, I did not bother to check what had been done to improve the article because I assumed it would be renominated in due course. In fact, it was renominated within a day or so, which led me to think the issues could not have been fully addressed. No matter, as I expected that it would be scrutinised in future by an experienced reviewer who would, as a matter of course, check that the GA2 issues had been addressed. I don't believe that has happened and so I would like a community consensus on the matter.

In GA3, Lazman says he "could read the article and understand what it is saying". It may well be that, like myself, Lazman has an extensive knowledge of WWII but my point was that the article was not understandable to a broad audience and Lazman has apparently not even considered that. By the way, although some people might object to him utilising Grammarly to help him with grammar, spelling and syntax, I do know that the product is considered "okay" within the publishing industry. I don't think that "all the MOS that need to be followed for GA status is followed in this article" is an adequate summary given all of the problems found in GA2. The question of reliable sources has not been adequately explored in the light of the GA2 findings.

I think the essential problem here is the same syndrome that was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good_articles/GAN Backlog Drives/October 2020#Reviews by SurenGrig07 in that an inexperienced editor has bitten off much more than he can chew and has produced a review of insufficient depth and standard. At the time of doing GA3, Lazman321 had made around 250 edits having been a member for six months. As was pointed out to him in this talk page discussion by both Peacemaker67 and Chris Troutman, his lack of experience should have given him cause to think twice about attempting to review such a contentious and complex article. He expressed a willingness to step down if someone else would take over, which is fair enough, but then went ahead because there were no immediate takers. Lazman had already begun the GA3 review by saying that it was part of the backlog drive but that was no reason to assume that there was any urgency because, with 285 unreviewed nominations at the end of that drive, there were plenty more nominations he could have picked up which would have been within his capabilities.

Given the similarity to the SurenGrig case, I would like to invite comments here by those who took part in that discussion: BlueMoonset, Chris Troutman, Eddie891, Harrias, Hog Farm, Kingsif, Lee Vilenski, Mccunicano, Usedtobecool, Venicescapes, Vincent60030, Wasted Time R.

Thank you for your time. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me for comments. Let me take a look at it tomorrow :D Warm regards, Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Vincent. No rush. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. While I don't agree with some of the characterisations of the state of the article by NGS and some of the reviewers at FAR, I agree that Lazman321 lacks the demonstrated experience to complete a comprehensive and appropriate GAN of this article, given its extensive review history, and particularly the controversial aspects and the need to critically evaluate some of what I consider to be fringe views expressed in the FAR. Which is why I attempted to warn Lazman321 against taking it on. The GAN had lingered at the top of the Milhist GANs for quite some time due to the complexities and controversial nature of the article and its history. The best solution to a GAN of this article is for one experienced reviewer from Milhist who has been uninvolved in the promotion and demotion reviews to undertake it, with a second opinion from an uninvolved but experienced non-Milhist GAN reviewer. In both cases, it would be preferable if they also had extensive experience reviewing at FAC as well, as I expect that if successful at GAN, it may later be renominated at FAC. It might be necessary before the GAN commences to conduct one or two RfCs to establish a solid community consensus on the use of a couple of sources that have been challenged in the FAR. A promotion (or fail) by such a team once the sources issue has been resolved should be robust enough to survive challenges from the more fringe criticisms of the article expressed by some reviewers, and reflect a solid consensus which should stick and enable a foundation for higher-level reviews. This would require the nominator to sign up for the recommended course of action, of course, which he may not wish to do. Nevertheless, I think it is probably the only way forward for this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Peacemaker67. I think these are great suggestions. We really could do with the help of someone who is well-versed in the Milhist project. I must admit I'm unfamiliar with RfC procedure but if it can be used to gain a ruling on source reliability, then that could be half the battle. Thanks very much and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation to participate in the discussion. I should point out that I am not at all versed in the topic and that I have an instinctive aversion to the historical period. So I personally found the article daunting. Regardless, I do agree with No Great Shaker that the article presumes a certain degree of expertise and familiarity with the topic and that it is not suited to a broad audience. For much of the information, the relevance is not immediately clear, and it comes across as minutiae. In many instances, it seems that the article is no longer a biography but a larger discussion on policies and strategies. It might be advisable to move some details into the notes. Independently of the article’s merits or faults, there is, in my opinion, an underlying problem. The GA2 review raised explicit concerns which do not appear to have been considered in the GA3 review. Those concerns should have been specifically addressed — either rebutted or resolved.Venicescapes (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

GA2 was conducted in bad faith. Nonetheless, all issues were addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Venicescapes. I think you've hit a few nails right on their heads there. Thanks very much and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The GA3 review was conducted thoroughly, conscientiously and well by Lazman32, who did a fine job, and is to be congratulated for taking on the task. All issues raised were addressed. The article is not difficult to read nor follow. In is not anticipated that someone without knowledge of World War II would seek out information on such an individual, so the article presumes a broad knowledge of the conflict that in any case can be obtained from reading the main article on the war. GA is a low bar, but many reviewers conduct a review as if it were FAC; this is a common problem. Generally the nominee will accept such comments in the spirit of generally improving the article, but it is unreasonable to review a GA against FAC criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm a suspicious old beast but it seems a bit too coincidental to me that Lazman made his first edit on 20 April 2020, which was only a week after GA2 was completed and six days after the article was renominated. Looking at Lazman's early contributions, he doesn't seem to have struggled too much with the complexities that this site presents to a new member – I recall that it took me quite a while to feel "on board" even though I had been a guest editor for several years beforehand – and he began as if he had "never been away". I wonder how?

When Peacemaker and Chris Troutman challenged Lazman's ability to take on this GA review he responded that "I would personally say that I do have some competence when it comes to Wikipedia". After only 250 or so edits? I recall that after that many edits I was still wondering what the bloody hell I had let myself in for! With my academic, IT and publishing background, I think I should really have hit the ground running, but this site does take some finding out. Okay, maybe I'm not so smart afer all and there are people who can just sail in and carry on as if they have already done 103,326 edits.

So, we come to the actual GA3 "review" and Lazman begins at 7:26 pm, 12 October 2020 with a "confession". An hour later, Hawkeye7 responds and Lazman is on with the review, finishing it within 24 hours although, second thoughts, he has not finished it and will do that "tomorrow" (on the 14th).

As it happens, it is not until 5:17 am on the 19th that Lazman presents his report and yet, just over one hour later, Hawkeye7 is there to make his responses and, same day, Lazman passes the review because "all issues have been taken care of". In the end, hey presto, it has sailed through apart from one minor copy issue which has ever so easily been "paraphrased".

Now, at the GAR page, Hawkeye7 says "GA2 was conducted in bad faith". Really? Do I need to defend myself against a "bad faith" accusation or did I just carry out a review and provide a rationale for my decision to reject the nomination? I even earned a barnstar for that review! He says that "GA3 was conducted thoroughly, conscientiously and well by Lazman32, who did a fine job, and is to be congratulated for taking on the task" before going on to complain that GA reviewers are utilising FAC criteria. I think GA2 is adamant that it is using the WP:GACR as when it specifies "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" within GACR#1a. The criteria checklist I used in GA2 is entirely based on WP:GACR and has no connection whatsoever with FAC.

I suggest that a sysop with checkuser functionality is needed to investigate the relationship between Hawkeye7 and Lazman, just be sure this isn't an SPI case. Or is that "bad faith"? No Great Shaker (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, No Great Shaker. Go ahead and list me in the Sockpuppet investigations list. Go ahead and have a reviewer use checkuser on me and Hawkeye7. Just ask yourself this. Why would an experienced editor with tons of featured, A-class, and good articles to his credit create a sockpuppet user a week after re-nominating Albert Kesselring and wait two months before having the sockpuppet user work on getting "Levels (Avicii song)" to GA status along with other edits before eventually reviewing Albert Kesselring and passing it. If you still believe that I am a sockpuppet user of Hawkeye7, then go ahead, No Great Shaker. Go ahead and list me in the Sockpuppet investigation list. Lazman321 (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No Great Shaker you need to pull your head in. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Hawkeye7 is using a sock. And stop comparing Hawkeye7 to Trump. As far as I am concerned, that is a personal attack. Just play the article content not the man. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This has gone off the rails. Come back please with a good service as there are severe delays now. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 07:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If the GAR is to continue, I think Hawkeye7 should provide a full rationale for his view that the GA2 review was "conducted in bad faith" because this has a direct bearing on the article and on the subsequent GA3 review. Unless anyone has a question that needs a personal response from me, I am withdrawing from this discussion. Please ping me if I'm needed. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That is hopeless, No Great Shaker. You initiate a GAR, making broad sweeping statements unsupported by any specific material or examples, and then withdraw. This should just be closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

China

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

Result: Delisted, identified issues have not been resolved after more than 2 weeks (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

While it may once have been in the GA class it no longer meets those standards, the biggest issue is the dozens of instances of unsourced text. Needs serious work to get back to GA status, at the moment its probably a C. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• The article has a huge 84 kB of prose, far above what it should be.
• The significant number of citations present only in the lead is concerning, suggesting that the lead was not written as a summary of the rest of the article as it should per WP:LEAD.
• The article puts a great deal of emphasis on the Xia dynasty, despite there being no certainty that it really existed. The lead even includes it as an uncontested fact.
• The infobox includes a whole slew of Government positions, the majority of which are minor enough to not even get a mention in the article.
• There are a number of short paragraphs and short sections scattered throughout the article.
• There's a few questionable sources, I doubt they've all been tagged.
• The images could use some pruning and organisation, although this is not required for GA.

CMD (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding size, according to WP:TOOBIG, 84kb is within the Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) category, and there's no question that the world's largest country is an exceptionally big topic. So I'd say reducing the size ought to be on our minds when editing the page, but I'm not sure the current size is an argument for delisting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The article is already divided, with a main page in place for every level2 section except Infrastructure. WP:Summary style actually notes 40kB to be the point at which extra material needs to be justified, while WP:Article Size recommends beginning to shift stuff at 50kB. CMD (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with some of the other more specific concerns like all the titles in the infobox. Many of those should be pretty easy to address (e.g. just delete the lesser titles or collapse them with {{Collapsed infobox section top}}). Having a page this important as a GA is quite an accomplishment and I hope we don't have to end up delisting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

John Cunningham (RAF officer)

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

Result: Delist Sadly. The nominator of this article has been blocked from editing it and there are outstanding citation needed tags AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The more I look at this article, the more citation issues I find, including claims not supported by sources, and sources which predate the claims they purport to support.

For example, the paragraph:

In his retirement... John Cunningham died six days shy of his 85th birthday in July 2002.

had (until I just tagged it) just one citation, placed after its final full stop: {{sfn|Golley|1999|pp=215–216}}. So that's a 1999 publication which speaks about the subject in the present tense, used to cite his 2002 death.

One 135-word paragraph is cited simply to {{sfn|Golley|1999|pp=171–199}} - that's 28 pages.

Elsewhere, we had a 23 August 2012 press article, talking about a forthcoming event, falsely cited as having a September 2012 date, and used to support a claim about the auction price paid at a September 2012 event.

Unfortunately not all of the sources cited are online, and the Internet Archive's copy of John 'Cat's Eyes' Cunningham : the aviation legend that is heavily cited is missing several of the pages cited (e.g. page 24).

Though a secondary issue, the article's prose is also clumsy; see recent edits for some fixes, but they do not address all of the issues. For example:

Attempting his usual tactic, the British crew approached from behind and below. Suddenly the Heinkel lurched into a tight left-hand turn allowing the gunners to fire a broad-side.

The listing of every crew member of a German plane shot down by the article subject is also probably not necessary.

On top of all this, attempts to rectify even minor issues have met with edit warring and abuse, as a result of which a block is currently in place.

I leave it to uninvolved editors more familiar with GA criteria to determine how to proceed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ouch! this will need someone to really check more of the citations to fix the failed verification issues. (t · c) buidhe 02:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have been able to cite the dod and the sale price of his medals. In trying to verify the bequeath of his medals to the de Havilland Aircraft Company Trust, I came across the de Havilland museum website which mentions him. There could be a potential copyvio there as the phrasing of the last paragraph of the postwar activities section is similar to the description of the museum website (although it could be because the museum copied the Wikipedia page, not the other way round). Zawed (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Do we know what the full details of Thomas 2013 and Hooton 2010 are?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  An do we have better details of the Air Pictorial reference - like a title and page range for the article - even if its a news item, it should have a title? I'm also pretty sure that Air Pictorial didn't have anything to do with the Air League of the British Empire by 1992.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  "He was promoted to wing commander (war-substantive) on 1 September 1944, serving in a series of staff positions for the remainder of the war." - while its fine to use the 26 September 1944 as a reference to Cumminiham getting promoted, it cannot be used to describe what he did for the rest of the war, after it was written. (and can someone sort out the London Gazette sfns to give a proper cite, without the &?)Nigel Ish (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've trimmed the mention of staff positions as the next section discusses his roles for the remainder of the war anyway. I also moved mention of the promotion to better put in chronological context. Zawed (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is sufficiently sourced. Everything is covered. End of story. There is no copy violation. The museum has used this article. The article has been reverted back to its original state before this nonsense started. If you have any doubts about sources, by all means question me. Dapi89 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Your claims are patent nonsense, as outlined above. Your revert has been undone, and an admin has blocked you from editing it in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

` Comment Nigel Ish I took "Thomas 2013" to be a typo, and changed it to match the other Thomas references. The Gazette issue can be cured by using the correct template ({{London Gazette}}) instead of {{sfn}}. The Hooton2010 ref is the one causing the ref error issue raised at WT:MILHIST. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Hooton2010 ref issue has now been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Siege of Damascus (634)/1]]

Elgato

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

Result: Delist Having trouble making sense of this. Some of the company has been sold and the rest renamed. This has led to a split of the content to multiple articles. I am not sure that is the best move as the history for this company still exists even if it is renamed or sold. Still that's not really a GAR issue, especially as it happened a year ago. Unfortunately as it stands now this article doesn't meet the GA requirements for broadness AIRcorn (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This article was much longer when rated GA but much of the content from its 2015 review is now missing or consolidated to the point that it shows how little the article actually has. Virtually no company history, three products mentioned and not described in much detail. Definitely not GA class by a long shot. Honestly, I'm not getting good WP:ORG vibes from this one as is. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I got an automated message notifying me of the GA reassessment. I brought this page up to Good Article status about six years ago with a disclosed conflict of interest and in compliance with WP:COI in my role at Ethical Wiki.

Sometimes editors presume the editor listed in the "Connected contributor" template is responsible for any problems with the page. Therefore, I wanted to chime in only to disclaim any connection to or responsibility for the page as it is now. It looks to have been completely re-written since the GA version I produced six years ago. I have no involvement in the current page whatsoever. CorporateM (Talk) 01:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I pinged you because the rules say I have to notify a few people. Also, it wasn't automated, that was me doing it manually. The COI is of no concern to me and I've noticed you here and there over the years; you do great work. I saw you on the original GA review page, so I figured you were one of the right people to notify (I also notified Wizardman who gave the actual review, but aside from Wikiproject Electronics I didn't notify anyone else). Perhaps you could shed some light on what's missing compared to what you wrote a few years ago? It definitely seems to have been gutted and barbecued since you got it to GA. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The major change seems to be this IP edit which split a lot of material into EyeTV. SpinningSpark 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wildfire

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

Result: Delist No response to the sourcing concerns AIRcorn (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Although there is a long section on "suppression", there does not seem to be any mention about the harmful effects of suppression. The prevention section also lacks information on the harms of overzealous suppression in terms of leading to fuel buildup -> more and worse fires. I see other issues such as uncited info in places, and lack of MOS compliance (too many images). Overall, I am concerned about referencing and NPOV. (t · c) buidhe 23:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)