Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 74

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 73)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 75) →

Edge of Darkness[edit]

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

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

Result: There is also significant uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 addition relies on many IMDB and other self-published sources, which need to be replaced. Spinixster (chat!) 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arithmetic[edit]

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

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

Result: As I pointed out at WT:GAN, the review was not in-depth and is thus invalid. Will re-open it shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this article should have been passed in the manner it did. An account with under 30 edits instant-passing a level 2 vital article? That's absurd, especially considering the editor in question came in my own review, where I asked for a second opinion, and said to fail it with no other comment than "bad". At bare minimum I believe this should be re-reviewed; it doesn't look terrible, and if this re-assessment indeed concludes that it is in line with the criteria then so be it. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator and I raised a similar problem at User_talk:ThatChemist25#GA_review_of_Arithmetic. In response, the reviewer added a minimal explanation of how they arrived at their assessment. I'm not sure that it's technically a violation of the GA review process. But as you pointed out, a level 2 vital article should get a more thorough review. It would be great if an experienced reviewer could have a look at the article and I would be happy to work with them to get any problematic points sorted out. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just veto my assessment because you didn't like how I did it. I will buff up my thing latter. Stop this now ThatChemist25 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Janina San Miguel[edit]

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs an update, with very little post-2009 information. Uncited text throughout, and unnecessary quoting from the Q&A portion of a pageant. Lede might also need an expansion. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article. Can you please be more specific which texts are unsourced? I can try finding sources. D-Flo27 (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@D-Flo27, I'm not Z1720 but I have added some "Citation needed" templates to places that need citations. Hopefully it will help. Cheers! Spinixster (chat!) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding citations. I would like to add that there are a few other problems:

Reference 11 is just a YouTube search page. I'd recommend removing the information that is being cited unless there's another reliable source to back the claim up (if you need help, WP:RSP is your friend.
Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources, Pageantopolis is not reliable.
What makes GetzMo (reference 4) reliable? The page seems to be dead.

Below are not really recommendations in order to maintain its GA status, but is still worth fixing.

The citation style is inconsistent (some websites are wikilinked, some are not, some include authors, some do not), and per WP:CITEVAR, I'd suggest making it consistent.
I would recommend expanding the lead so it would summarize the entire article. Right now, it's quite short and does not summarize the article well. WP:LEAD might help.
Reference 23 is dead; I'd recommend finding an archived or live version.

Spinixster (chat!) 06:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've made some edits based on your suggestions. However, I'm not sure how I can expand the lead without mentioning her mistakes during the Q&A portion, which has been done on previous versions of this article and was even called out in this article from a popular lifestyle magazine. So, if you have any suggestions on that, let me know. D-Flo27 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, do you mean what Z1720 has said? I think they meant the quoting in the Question and answer section was what's unnecessary. I would recommend removing the quote and stating that she had answered the question poorly instead. I don't think a quote is needed to show her mistakes. The Q&A portion can still be mentioned in the lead, since it's a prominent part of the section. Spinixster (chat!) 07:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the above D-Flo27? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, unfortunately I've been busy the past week and this week that I haven't been able to add the edits. If someone else can do add those edits for me, that would be nice. D-Flo27 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Decltype[edit]

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

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

Result: Consensus appears to be to keep. D6194c-1cc is invited to expand the article to their liking, and is reminded that "the "broad in its coverage" criterion ... allows shorter articles and articles that do not cover every major fact or detail". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too short, and it's nomination is from 2009. 79.185.137.127 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see too short being an issue here. The article is well written and covers enough information. Maybe it would need some updating since most of the information is from circa 2009, but that's all I can find. Spinixster (chat!) 02:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks information about side effects ([1], [2]) as decltype takes expression and do not evaluate it. The article just mentions that the argument is not evaluated, no details. And an example with the ++ operator would be appreciated. D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added in the body. [3] I don't believe it's necessary to include examples in the lede. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to describe side effects in the body of the article (with a wikilink). The article still doesn't mention side effects and doesn't provide details on what problems can cause misunderstanding usage of decltype, when developer doesn't expect that the state of variables won't change. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Motivation" section should be split into Motivation and History sections (history is the middle part of the section). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is missing explicit information about what has changed in the C++14 standard ([4], type deduction, decltype(auto)). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is missing a section on typical use cases ([5]). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the article is more than long enough at 1067 words. Unless there have been changes in its use which were described in WP:RS, I'm at a keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any obvious issues. There might be some information that needs to be covered and I wuld love to see some text on how decltype has inspired other languages, but overall nothing that would require a delist. Sohom (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see any serious issues either. The article is clear, readable, appears to cover the subject, and is admirably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill[edit]

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008, tagged with a GAR request since September. Aside from the boosterism template, there are 5 citation needed templates and several other unsourced information. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed three of the citation needed tags and the boosterism. The other two citation needed tags need some work to see if a source can be found; if not, that information can be removed. Robminchin (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some further citation needed tags that I think have now identified the remaining unsourced information referred to. It looks like everything should be either addressable or not a great loss if it has to be removed. Robminchin (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned these up and made some other improvements to (hopefully) bring it to modern standards for a GA. Robminchin (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the much needed improvements. I see no problems with this article now, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions before closing this GAR. Spinixster (chat!) 02:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

International System of Units[edit]

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

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

Result: Not much improvement, sadly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2013 listing was tagged with {{GAR request}} in July. There is significant amounts of uncited material, and a behemothic notes section which seems mostly irrelevant, tbh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap and XOR'easter:, I remember that you two have improved previous units-related articles back to a good standard at GAR; would you be willing to have a look at this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the John von Neumann discussion, I never want to participate in a GAR again. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a massive shame; I won't ping you again. Best of luck, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is some notes section. Not an issue by itself, but holding quite a lot of uncited text, and some notes seem to be summaries of wikilinked articles. There is unfortunately quite a lot of uncited text throughout the article. CMD (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Safari (web browser)[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article, as it stands is just a somewhat promotional summary of the features and individual release of Safari.

There isn't any discussions of privacy violations, security exploits (or even for that matter Apple's work on trying to eliminate third-party cookies, the IndexedDB data leak, issues with ITP etc). There is legitimate criticism (and some positive commentary) from multiple fronts on how Apple develops Safari and the fact that it lags behind many other browsers by a large margin. However, non of this appears to be discussed in the article in depth. This imo fails GA #3a and GA #4.

Besides this, there are a few almost contentless sections ("ios versions","Continuity" etc) failing GA #3a, multiple citation needed templates, and a almost completely unreferenced "Payments from Google" section failing GA #2, and some malformed citations. Overall, I do not think this represents the best work we have, and thus would like to move to review the article's GA status (or atleast ask for the article to be improved). Sohom (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For context on what I am talking about in paragraph 2:

- Discussion of ITP: [6][7][8][9][10]

- IndexedDB issues: [11][12][13]

- More discussion on the benefits of ITP: [14][15] [16] (and a bunch other which I can help idenitfy)

- Commentary on Safari's security issues and releases commentary: [17] (Safari here is refered to as Apple) [18] (coverage of security fixes in WebContent at the start, the rest of it is dense code, but still there is some interesting stuff in there) [19] (Safari's lack of features criticism) [20] (Blog post, but by a respected and well known figure) [21] (Blog post, but from a well respected figure in web standards tech) [22] (Petition to the UK Gov?) (there are more but there needs to be a effort to pick the wheat from the chaff, not completey ignore it) Sohom (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed on the talk page; I didn't think this met GA standards, and still don't. Your list of missing points is solid; to me the biggest missing point is Safari lagging behind in terms of web compatibility, and repeated bugs that have made it much harder for web developers to support Safari than other browsers (like several other IndexedDB issues and a localStorage bug). I'll try to work on this today. DFlhb (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would further agree. There is an overwhelming amount of short sections, a dearth of cited scholarly sources concerning this influential web browser, and a lack of information on how this browser was generally received by the public or commentators. I would agree this article is in even worse shape than Google Chrome by failing GA #3a, and due to this article's similar scale, would suggest a Delist as this may be too big of a fix for GAR alone and would need a complete re-write. The Night Watch (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; the required changes would be too extensive not to go through a full GAN again - DFlhb (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original GA reviewer here: the Safari article was the GA review I did, but I didn't do it thorough enough in retrospect. Support delist for now. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Malcolm II of Scotland[edit]

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

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

Result: Significant uncited material remains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of unreferenced paragraphs and sentences. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, can you point out some? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Corvette ZR1: In general, there should be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (except the lede and other exceptions). I have placed citation needed tags in the article to indicate where this is. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, will take a look. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Henry Winkler[edit]

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

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

Result: With thanks to Spinixster. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Melchior2006 removing the good article tag out-of-process * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received a procedural notification for this as a previous reviewer, though I wasn't able to actually complete the review for life reasons. Aza24 did, and doesn't seem to have been notified. Looking at the diffs of removals, I'm not inclined to think they're unambiguous improvements. Vaticidalprophet 05:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is funadamentally different than the one I reviewed. I have no idea what happened, but now it appears choppy and disjointed. And why has the lead been obliterated? The previous was perfectly fine. Another case of random editors going way too bold and not discussing anything... Aza24 (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A series of recent edits removed a lot of biographical detail as "puffery". Some of this is borderline or arguable (imo the listing-many-individual-works in the lead might not be the ideal career summary), but a lot of it is entirely worthwhile detail, IMO. I've restored to the stable version so GAR regulars can assess the stable state, and hope Melchior will discuss here. Vaticidalprophet 06:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the article was/is its overuse of one-sided quotes from interviews with Winkler or promotional biographies. Then there was the weird overemphasis of his parents' flight from persecution in Fascist Germany, complete with block quotes about what uncles said to relatives, etc., all before Winkler was even born. A further problem was/is a remarkable over-documentation, using up to three footnotes to verify pretty straightforward information. The self-promotional aspect is easy enough to see after the recent reverts: "he burst into stardom" and so on. In general, it is overly narrative, like the passage "his manager Alan Berger suggested that he write children's books". That is not really of encyclopedic significance, it is enough information to state that he began writing children's books. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved but wanted to put in my two cents. Though overquoting can be a concern—per MOS:QUOTE, Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement—some quotes can be quite valid. For example, one of the recent edits removed the quote from this sentence:

It's one thing to say that Winkler was appointed an OBE. It's another to say why he was appointed an OBE, and removing the quote would remove that context as well.

The previous edits also removed some context:

The original text says Winkler performed with MTC for free because he earned enough money from commercials. The revised text doesn't give this context, instead presenting this as two separate facts, even though the cited source (the interview with Winkler) says that he was able to perform with MTC because he could afford it. I haven't yet looked through this GA for other issues, but I do have to disagree with some of the recent changes, which Vat reverted. The overuse of quotes can be problematic, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I worked on the original GA and the article as it stands has changed since the reviewed edition. I tried to work with the changes as is, but there are considerable differences. That GA went on many months with suggestions from a number of editors. Certainly remove refs if there are too many, but the bio basically follows numerous interviews that he has given, so nothing is particularly promotional. I'm happy to make comments and give feedback, but I'd rather not give too much input at this point beyond the original GA that was approved. Here is the original GA: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Winkler&oldid=1083628482 -Classicfilms (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also trimmed the EL's.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. "he burst into stardom" isn't promotional? --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have a question about the text boxes on the right. One describes events several years before Winkler's birth. Do we want this featured so prominently? Then, further down, we have a text box which starts: "Lin and I, yesterday morning, wrote the first chapter of our 28th novel. Holy moly." This is just not the kind of objectivity we are looking for. One excuse for such promos might be if the content of the box were truly sophisticated or talented writing, but that is certainly not the case. Can we delete this stuff? --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1.Re: "he burst into stardom" - when using the term "promotional," it implies that editors have a vested interest in what is written, so I'd be careful not to stray into Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It makes more sense to just change the wording if a better sentence structure comes to mind. The fact of the matter is that during the 1970s, "The Fonz" was an incredible force in popular culture. If there is a better way to state it, go for it. 2. As for the text boxes, again I'd caution the term "promotional," as they reflect what happened. If there is another way to state these events, or if you want to trim, go for it. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it promotional to quote the subject discussing his writing process? It would be different to say this stuff in wikivoice as though it were fact, but we're explicitly identifying it as his thoughts on the matter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's one point, thx, but I raised a number of points in the lines above, most of which have gone unanswered so far. --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in as a passerby, I think those points are largely unhelpful in terms of both the GACR and what readers are interested in when they read these articles. Of course it's relevant that his parents fled persecution from Nazi Germany. That's generational trauma writ large; it must have impacted every aspect of the rest of his life.

Using multiple footnotes is not promotional nor is it over-documentation. It's fairly standard practice. There is nothing in the GACR or even the FACR that dictates the number of footnotes one must use.

Finally, re: the manager suggesting he take up writing. That is exactly the kind of thing readers would find interesting. He didn't spontaneously turn himself into an author, his manager had to inveigle him into it, and then he winds up writing 28 kids' novels. That's an interesting turn of events, and cutting the manager's role out changes the story entirely.

I'll be clear in saying I haven't read the article in strict detail and I'm not arguing that it's perfect (there are places where I can see that the prose could be tightened without cutting information), but those specific points I think are not really germane to whether or not it meets the GACR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having said that, there's more unneccessary quoting here than I thought. I've trimmed quite a bit of fat from the Books section - without removing the actual interesting facts, I think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (?) I'd like to help out, but I feel like the changes would be very controversial, so I would like to ask for opinions about them here before I do so. Aside from the unnecessary quoting issues, I also find it to be going into too much detail. For example:

The Dyslexia section: is it really needed to go super in-depth about his issues with dyslexia? And why does it mention his other roles during his time at Happy Days? The section is called "Happy Days and stardom" so I would find it appropriate to move it there.
The Arrested Development section (and most sections relating to his role somewhere in general) also seems to have unrelated information. Do we really need to know about some random references to his Fonzie character? It would probably fit better in the Fonzie article, not here.

That's just some examples. Another thing to note is that I see a lot of "Further information" templates. Is it really necessary here? Spinixster (chat!) 11:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tend to agree that the quoting is definitionally unnecessary (e.g. the "he was the Fonz" quote is a pithy illustration of the typecasting). Famously-typecast actors are a tricky lot; I'd expect an article on Winkler to extensively discuss references to Fonzie in the same sense I would Adam West's to discuss Adam Westing, or Leonard Nimoy's to discuss his relationship with being Spock. I'd certainly expect them to be in Winkler's article rather than Fonzie's, for which they actually would be undue references. "Is it really needed to go super in-depth about his issues with dyslexia?" Well, he's a significant activist for it, so...yes. The sectioning is probably not ideal, but I think that particular variant of it could just lose the section header, and another section header on it could be moved to "Personal life" with more general information. Vaticidalprophet 11:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice.

I've moved the Dyslexia section to the Personal life section, though I'm not sure about its last paragraph since I feel that it is not very necessary to go in-depth about his difficulties with dyslexia.
For the other sections regarding his non-Fonzie roles, I do feel like it is worth pointing out some references or similarities to Fonzie as long as they're cited, but I think listing all of them is unnecessary. Take, for example, the Arrested Development section. What should I do?

I'll try to remove some more unnecessary quotes, you are welcome to change some removals if needed. Spinixster (chat!) 13:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support- all great ideas, go for it.-Classicfilms (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I love it, thanks! --Melchior2006 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll try and see if I can cut down some unnecessary parts today. Please let me know your opinions on cutting down the parts in the Dyslexia section. Spinixster (chat!) 01:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think that's all I can remove before getting a consensus on the Dyslexia section. Can someone check? Thank you. Spinixster (chat!) 01:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks great to me!-Classicfilms (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Classicfilms, thank you. Do you think I should remove some details in the Dyslexia section, too, as I've stated above? Spinixster (chat!) 02:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spinixster - So, the section was originally part of the "Happy Days" portion of the article. I think it works equally if placed within the "Personal life" section. Dyslexia is a significant part of his biography, a point that he talks about in every interview and in his new memoir. It may make sense to compress the "Happy Days" quotes since you've moved it to a new section, but then you will also need to add sentences reflecting how dyslexia actually influenced many stages of his life- whether it was his approach to acting, signature aspects of his most famous character "the Fonz," and then later the Hank Zipzer books and shows - then his charity work with schools and school children. It's really up to you, and how you want to approach this topic.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion - take a look at the original GA article which I just linked particularly the original intro which tackles the subject- it has the dyslexia section under "Happy Days" because that is when he was diagnosed, but there are references to it before (the problems in school) and after - the Hank Zipzer books and shows and his charity work - that are spread out throughout the article. So one thought might be to summarize these points (by all means take out the quotes if you want to summarize) and put it all under the one dyslexia section.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I noticed in the article. The Happy Days section has 4 images, which I think is a lot considering the length of the section. I want to form a consensus on which image(s) to remove. Please reply with the image(s) you think should be kept:

Image 1: Richie Cunningham (Ron Howard) takes a turn on Fonzie's motorcycle
Image 2: Potsie (Anson Williams), Richie (Ron Howard), Fonzie (Henry Winkler) and Ralph Malph (Donny Most) at Arnold's drive-in.
Image 3: The Fonz becomes a singing superstar. Pictured are Cindy Williams as Shirley Feeney, Ron Howard as Richie Cunningham, Henry Winkler as Fonzie, and Penny Marshall as Laverne DiFazio.
Image 4: Marion Cunningham (Marion Ross) enters a dance contest with Fonzie instead of Howard (who is not interested).

I am towards keeping the 3rd image only as it illustrates the section well. The caption should be changed, though. Spinixster (chat!) 08:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am for Image 3: "The Fonz becomes a singing superstar" because the pose is characteristic, and you see HW in the context of other actors. Thanks for deleting the others, it is indeed overkill. Melchior2006 (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it - Image 3 works for me.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed the images and updated the caption. Please let me know if there are other issues, because I think I've run out of things to fix. Spinixster (chat!) 02:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! But there is still a lot of padding in this article. I would like to cut, at the end of the Stolperstein section, this superfluous paragraph: "The discovery came as a complete surprise to Winkler, as Jeff Dye had secretly enlisted the help of Winkler's children, who planned the surprise. A letter from them was waiting near the Stolperstein, and told Winkler that all of his experiences in Berlin reflected his parents' life there: "Even though the Winkler history in Berlin is heartbreaking, we thought it was important for you to connect with the past through this hopefully fun adventure, and connect you did...." --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yeah, I've partially removed it. Spinixster (chat!) 08:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you removed that business about "jumping the shark." It was one of many examples in this article that were way too detailed and below encyclopedic standards, simply because Winkler's speaking voice is not particularly profound. Many of these quotes were anecdotal. --Melchior2006 (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinixster, Melchior2006, Classicfilms, and Vaticidalprophet: does the article meet the GA criteria now? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, but to be fair, I am the person who removed most of the puffery text, so I'd prefer someone else's opinion. Spinixster (chat!) 02:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still NPOV issues and UNDUE as well. Here's what I mean:

1. "he never had to work as a waiter" ...or a taxi driver ... or an office worker? Why single out waiters? It is an example of this article's tone, which just isn't neutral and encyclopedic.

2. In the section "2016–2018: Better Late Than Never" 2/3 of the section is devoted to a Stolperstein, complete with translation about details of his uncle's murder. This is too detailed. I would say take the picture out and reduce the long paragraph that begins "Winkler was the focus..."

3. Under "Personal life" we have this quote which is too personal, emotional, full of [] supplements. "telling the Hollywood Reporter in November 2021, that "I loved the people. They are still my friends". --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll try to condense that. Let me know if it's fixed now. Spinixster (chat!) 10:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! You are something else. As for me, I am all set with this article, I think it looks pretty darn good. Thx for all your help! Fantastic; that's what high-quality wiki-work is supposed to be. --Melchior2006 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! Spinixster (chat!) 12:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Yes, it looks fine. One of the great things about the Wikipedia is that the review process allows for many different perspectives and approaches to a topic, where WP:NPOV also guides talk page interactions, that function under the larger umbrella of Wikipedia:Civility.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Laurentia Tan[edit]

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Needs updating on her post-2012 career as she has appeared in many races after that date. Spinixster (chat!) 02:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article a bit to add her participation in the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics, though Im not sure if she participated in any races between that and the 2012 London Paralympics. Blue Jay (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the article to include more of the races she was in; however some info is missing from them, so hopefully more sources could be found that can have these info. Blue Jay (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the extra information, hopefully all the concerns have been addressed. Blue Jay (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Percy Lavon Julian[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 addition has 2 citation needed tags as well as multiple unsourced statements. Spinixster (chat!) 07:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the tagged sentences was a complex set of ideas. I cited the main one and removed the minor details about it. DMacks (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large amounts of uncited text, especially in the "Aftermath" section. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Raymond D. Tarbuck[edit]

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

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

Result: No consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagged with relying on Primary sources. It seems like the banner was added shortly after the article was promoted in 2013. I don't think this article meets the criteria anymore. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THe drive-by tag can be removed. No evidence of discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it could be removed, but what would be the point of that? It's indisputably correct—27 of the 41 individual citations in the article are to Tarbuck's own self-described "reminiscences", including everything on his life 1897–1942. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the problem is? There's nothing wrong with sourcing an entire article from primary sources, so long as you stick to the facts and avoid WP:SYNTH. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly contradicted by WP policy, Hawkeye7. WP:PRIMARY (emphasis not mine): "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." I didn't think I needed to point out that being non-independent, the source also fails WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not related to the sources used in an article. The subject has widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article using primary sources, even extensively, isn't in and itself a problem if the sources are reliable (though the chief source not being independent of the subject is a concern, this must be contrasted with WP:SELFSOURCE) and there is also coverage in secondary sources. I do see several independent and secondary sources cited in the article. In my opinion the addition of more secondary sources would be beneficial to the article, but as written the Good article criteria only require reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As used, the sources are not reliable: a memoir is perfectly good evidence for what someone said about themselves or what they claimed about an event, but distinctly dodgy for statements of autobiographical fact: people forget, exaggerate their successes, downplay their failures, protect their friends, denigrate their enemies and sometimes outright fabricate things (a recent FA was about someone who almost totally invented their own autobiography, and I've written one article myself where the subject's autobiography is both the main ur-source and extremely unreliable).

In particular, I would be very circumspect about using an autobiography for statements like Tarbuck observed the Russian Civil War first hand, The ability to speak "Army", and knowledge of the conduct of land, sea and air operations, would prove important in his selection for his next post, or Tarbuck met with Admiral Chester Nimitz, who told him in no uncertain terms that anti-Army and anti-MacArthur sentiments had no place in his command: these jumped out immediately as areas where there's a high risk of the narrative having been "padded", or indeed of Tarbuck simply not having known the truth (he could only have known at second hand, at best, why he was promoted, for example). I'm with User:AirshipJungleman29 that there's a reliability concern here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings and Hawkeye7: thoughts on the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional secondary sources, including a recent work detailing his meeting with Nimitz. I disagree about Tarbuck's knowledge of his promotion; at this time BuPers managed the careers of regular Navy officers carefully, and usually there was some discussion about possible assignments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but even if he was told outright "you're being promoted because you speak 'Army'", it's entirely possible that he was really (or also) being promoted because his new boss took a shine to him, that his current boss wanted rid of him, that the promotion board had some grievance with his competitors... The reason for an officer's promotion is by definition an analytical/evaluative statement, so is outside what we can reasonably draw from a primary source, though there's nothing wrong with us saying something like "Tarbuck later wrote that the main reason for his promotion was..." -- that's a mere statement of fact, presented in Tarbuck's voice, not Wikipedia's. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting I have seen this but am very busy offwiki, I will look into thing further this weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a look, I believe the addition of secondary sources has been a significant improvement to the article, to the point I'm leaning towards retention of GA status at this time. I think the initial GAR had very valid concerns, but they appear to have been successfully addressed to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Early life of L. Ron Hubbard[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. CMD (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative GAR. This article has been merged elsewhere per Talk:Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1911 to 1950#Proposed merge of Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1911 to 1950 with Early life of L. Ron Hubbard, which also noted that the sourcing was not tilted towards hagiographic sources. CMD (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Macbeth, King of Scotland[edit]

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

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

Result: Significant uncited material remains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of unreferenced sections, including almost the entire "Life to legend" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I will try to find citations for this article and Malcolm II. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

NFL playoffs[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, along with a host of other issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per my edit summary when placing the GAR request tag on the talk page. This has significant issues with uncited material and cruft. Hog Farm _Talk 16:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tom Hawkins (footballer, born 1988)[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has not been updated sufficiently since its last reassessment in 2016, meaning it fails WP:GACR criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I move for GA status demotion until updates have been made and a reassessment issued. Thank you.

Electricmaster (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Southern Adventist University[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tagged since September for relying excessively on sources closely associated with the university. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: While I am generally ok with university sources being used to validly reference objective material, near exclusive reliance on material from Adventist sources is simply too much. Enough time has elapsed and sufficient notice has been given regarding this issue. A shame, but the article is still decent and useful, even in this less than GA-quality state. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of private equity and venture capital[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does this 2008 listing contain large amounts of uncited material, but it has not been updated since the financial crisis (!). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The uncited material is so great I'm thinking if that would be too much for a mere "reassessment". Aintabli (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bipolar disorder[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe placed the {{GAR request}} template on this 2012 listing with the edit summary "fails WP:MEDRS due to dated sources. Major updates needed". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually promoted in 2020, but some of the sources seem excessively dated. (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text has not been maintained current. Some samples from this version:

"Bipolar disorder is the sixth leading cause of disability worldwide" ... See WHO on 2019 disability
However, a reanalysis of data from the National Epidemiological Catchment Area survey in the United States suggested ... cited to 2003, followed by ... A more recent analysis of data ... cited to 2007.

And this confusing bit of "prose" in "Resistance to treatment" wasn't in the GA version; it doesn't appear the article has been watched, updated and tended in the three years since its GA listing, so there could be deeper problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Plymouth, Massachusetts[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material and a lack of updates from the last decade. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Super Bowl XLI[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion contains huge amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Danny Deever[edit]

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. This article has many unsourced statements, original research, and uses circular referencing. Spinixster (chat!) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinixster Thanks for flagging this. I'm recovering from covid at the moment so haven't much spare capacity, but I'll try and have a look over it in the next week or two and see what can be salvaged. Standards have definitely moved on a bit in the last 17 years! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray, I can also take a look towards cleanup over the next few days if it would be of assistance? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891 that would be very kind, thankyou! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a few citations and removed an uncited claim. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've overhauled the background (though it might need more tweaking). Working on digging up some suitable sourcing for critical commentary. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little more, and removed an uncited paragraph which does seem to have been editorial. The rest seems to be both sufficient and properly cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the work by Gray et al. looks good to me. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 00:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sabancaya[edit]

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

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

Result: No violations of the criteria apparent. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just notably expanded/rewrote the article, so it might need a re-assessment. I am especially unsatisfied with the prose, which is overly wordy. I'd like to present it to FAC in the future, so this needs to be tip-top. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, keeping in mind that GAR isn't PR and is really meant to assess if egregious violations of the GA criteria can be fixed, I think you're fine. About the most wordy sentence in the article is The flanks of Sabancaya themselves include roads and a major power line that comes from the Mantaro Power Plant [es] and delivers electricity to southern Peru; all of these could be threatened in an eruption.; it's still perfectly understandable, if a little verbose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Education in Iceland[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 promotion contains large amounts of uncited material, while the data it contains has not been updated since the mid-2000s, making it woefully out of date. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated a few things. Most of the information in the article does not expire - stays up to date for years and decades. Assessments are not made by looking at dates alone, but with facts in mind. A case in point is the literature rating, Iceland uses a PISA test, which is used across OECD states, and it is only updated every 3 years. There are no markings of citations missing, this is not a biography. Marking the sentances as needing citations is what you should have done, prior to this proposal of yours. I am demanding an second opinion, you are clearly not following protocol. Snævar (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snævar: The GA criteria has been updated recently to require an inline citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum. This article has numerous paragraphs that do not have this. If you would like, I can tag the article with citation needed tags to show where they are required. Also, it would be helpful if the citations included page numbers where the information can be verified, as this will help with a source check. Z1720 (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snævar as noted by Z1720 above, you may wish to acquaint yourselves with the good article criteria and the good article reassessment process before you accuse others of "not following protocol". I have tagged the sentences that need citations—there are quite a few of them. I hope that helps you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, far too many cn tags. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 00:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Architecture of Norway[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains considerable uncited material, including whole subsections, violating good article criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, multiple unsourced paragraphs and one entirely unsourced section (not a subsection). Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 00:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Torrie Wilson[edit]

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

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

Result: In addition, issues with unreliable sources. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited sections, including almost the entire "Filmography" section. Z1720 (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Royal Tunbridge Wells[edit]

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

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

Result: Two weeks, no attempt at improvement. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 06:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, a lack of updates since the mid-2000s, and some instances of excessive detail/trivia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yavapai[edit]

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

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

Result: Two weeks, no attempt at improvement. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 06:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Liquid crystal[edit]

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

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

Result: Not enough improvement since nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material (criterion 2b)), while a comment on the talk page indicates that it should be updated to include recent developments in the field (criterion 3a)). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kantian ethics[edit]

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

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

Result: The only comment was in agreement with the concerns raised, to which one more was added. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The part of the article about Kant's ethical theory is mostly just a presentation of the formulations of the categorical imperative from the Groundwork (which, as per title, is the grounding of his moral theory, not the actual theory). There is no discussion of the Critique of Practical Reason. Although I added a section on the Metaphysics of Morals, it is only the bare minimum of what a specialized article should include. For this reason it fails GA criterion 3a.

Although it meets GA criterion 2, there is very little engagement with the enormous secondary literature on this subject.

The Influences, Contemporary Kantian Ethicists, and Criticisms sections have no clear criteria for inclusion and are uneven in their coverage. For this reason it arguably fails GA criterion 4.

I did some work on this article a year ago and left some notes on the talk page, but no one has stepped up to do the sort of work necessary to get this up to current GA standards. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points being raised. An important oversight seems to be that there is nothing about neo-Kantianism. The point raised on the talk-page about Korsgaard is still valid. In relation to criterion 2b, there are some unreferenced and partially referenced paragraphs but this by itself would not be too difficult to address. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would love a section on neo-Kantianism! Had no idea there even was an ethical tradition there. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does this 2006 promotion contain significant uncited material, but, as noted at Sweeps 2023, it contains none of the extensive scholarship on the decision, so fails GA criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist It would take a ton of work to bring this up to GA quality, and at that point, we'd almost certainly need a new GAN review. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Federer–Nadal rivalry[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2009 promotion from the sweeps listing. Large chunks of the article are unsourced, and several of the sources used are unreliable (Sportskeeda, International Business Times, the UK Metro tabloid). Hog Farm _Talk 23:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inari Ōkami[edit]

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

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

Result: Does not meet criterion 2a), as it is impossible to tell which of the numerous Smyers citations refer to which books, in addition to criterion 2b). Cleanup is definitely necessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing has many unsourced statements and might also need cleanup to comply with quality standards. Spinixster (chat!) 00:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of the Swiss Air Force[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, including eighteen uncited paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 2007 North American blizzard[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, violating GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Dead links have become a major problem since the NWS forecast offices changed their links. News reports that are not archived have the same problem as well. ChessEric 20:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tameside[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 GA promotion that is largely unsourced. Original GA nominator has not edited since 2020. Additionally needs some updating, as there are items such as the 2021 census not properly reflected, or house pricing statistics from a 2019 source. Hog Farm _Talk 21:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 Juno[edit]

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

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

Result: No improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like 10 Hygiea which I started a GAR for, this article is very outdated and lacks extensive coverage on recent studies from high-resolution VLT images. There are very few sources from after 2010. Compared to the recently-renovated article Ceres (dwarf planet) which passed GA review in 2021 and later promoted to FA, Hygiea is severely lacking in depth, judging by the mostly short sections, massive white space beneath the "Observations" section, and the very broad coverage of the "Physical characteristics" section. I do not think this article qualifies for GA in its current state, and a total revamp of this article long overdue. (I do not have time to renovate this entire article by myself, though I may try). Nrco0e (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – some suggestions:
- The shape model image in the infobox needs a caption.
- The History section has section headers for two brief sections, which conflict with WP:OVERSECTION. They should either be expanded or the headers removed. Perhaps the History and Observations sections should be merged into an 'Observation history' section?
- The Characteristics section can be more organized. Perhaps: orbit/rotation/tilt, mass/dimensions, surface properties. I.e. transitioning from large scale to small.
- The article should mention that occultations produce timing chords that can be used to determine a diameter and silhouette. It can also mention estimated porosity and discuss shape models.
- A common form of the fast fourier transform is credited to Carl Friedrich Gauss, who developed it to evaluate the orbits of Pallas and Juno around 1805.
- It could potentially mine these sources: Noonan et al (2019), Noonan et al (2024), Li et al (2022),

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matooskie[edit]

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

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This rather interesting historical figure recently passed GAN, and for the very engaging story the article tells, I'm unsure if it hits the GA criteria. I took a quick glance at the sources and added what additional information I could find from them, but with the current information I'm unsure if it meets suitable breadth or not, and wanted more feedback on this. The prose is also slightly confusing at times, especially in the legacy section. Generalissima (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Generalissima I did the GA review. I tried to hew strictly to the WP:GACR, which only require that it "addresses the main aspects of the topic", which I think this does. WP:FACR requires that the article be comprehensive, i.e. "neglects no major facts or details", but that's a higher standard. Anyway, I'm always happy to have somebody take another look, so I'm cool with the reassessment request. RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback; I appreciate greater scrutiny of my work here. I've tried to tidy up the prose in the Legacy section, which I admit was a bit sloppy/confusing at times. – GnocchiFan (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also (re-)nominated this for copyediting at WP:GOCE if this helps. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima, I am inclined to agree with RoySmith; the GA criteria only requires that the main aspects of the topic are addressed, even while more can be said. A visit to GOCE will clear up any lingering issues in the prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mercury (element)[edit]

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

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

Result: With thanks to Reconrabbit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 listing contains numerous sentences and paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). Recent edits have drawn attention to the quality of the prose (criterion 1a)), and I am additionally of the opinion that the lists in the article do not meet MOS:EMBED (criterion 1b)). As a non-subject expert, I am unable to say whether the article addresses the main aspects of the topic while excluding excessive detail (criteria 3a) and 3b)). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of the article fail 2b? I went through the article once over and noted the following subsections that could have a citation needed argued for:

1b): I'm of the opinion that ~~we don't really need the list under Medicine#Historical and folk, but~~ the long history and wide range of applications kind of necessitate Applications#Historical uses to be some kind of list, if not exactly in the form it is in right now. Toxicity and safety#Releases in the environment looks fine to me right now. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 21:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the issues with the article are not improved by next year then the article will have to be delisted. Catfurball (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a run-through of the historical uses, added references and removed extraneous/repeated/OR statements. Anything else that needs work? Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 15:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: The cleanup section under treatment still needs to be expanded. Catfurball (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it following a change to the heading organization. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 18:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reconrabbit I've added around a dozen citation needed tags to unreferenced paragraphs and sentences; if those are adequately cited, I think the article can be kept. Many thanks for your efforts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tags have all been addressed. There was one instance where I could not find any info and deleted a sentence (the coordination complex of Mercury(II) chloride) both on this page and where it was transcribed on the compound page (where it also had no reference). All others were reworded to reflect the sources found if necessary. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bound for Glory (wrestling pay-per-view)[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2009 GA promotion on the sweeps listing whose original GA nominator has not edited since 2020. This article contains significant uncited text and the coverage of post-2013 matches is severely underdeveloped. Hog Farm _Talk 21:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Power: A New Social Analysis[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does this 2007 listing use the deprecated WP:PAREN citation style, which can be fixed pretty easily, but it contains excessive detail (7,000+ words) on "The Content" of the work, and not enough detail on its background, reception, and legacy. Thus, [[WP:GACR|GA criteria 2b) and 3b) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Besides the points being raised so far, the great majority of the article relies exclusively on the book itself as a primary source. This is problematic for a work on philosophy that requires interpretation to make sense of things. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's All Coming Back to Me Now[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. I've placed 11 citation needed tags, but there might be more unsourced bits. Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wigan[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing has not been adequately updated, especially in the "Demographics" section, which relies on data from the 2001 census, and the "Economy" section, which has been tagged with an update banner for over four years. There is also uncited material in the "Geography", "Sport", and "Transport" sections. GA criteria 2b) and 3a) are thus not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Norfolk, Virginia[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material and has not been adequately updated (census figures from 2010, citations from the mid-2000s being used for current events, etc.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a fair bit of puffery, needless adjectives, boosterism, and the like. So I think currently, it does not pass on the neutrality criterion. I'll try to tidy some of that up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chuck E. Cheese[edit]

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

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

Result: Keep as is, withdrawn proposal GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this good article for reassessment because it has so many edit wars over the years and tons of vandalism and many unsourced content, I certainly want this article to keep it's plus, but it's an old GA from 2009. --GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: UPDATE: It seems to have very few issues now; I fixed most of the grammar. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There probably should be moderate work to keep it's GA status. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

J. D. Salinger[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media portrayals section has an orange banner for more citations since 2019. Publications sections mostly unsourced, and I believe the Death and Post-humorous publications sections can be expanded with sources published after his death. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should that media portrayals section even be included? That sort of stuff is almost never WP:DUEWEIGHT and often turns out to be low-quality accretions that should just be purged. Hog Farm _Talk 18:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Samuel Colt[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited passages and an orange "additional citations needed" banner at the top. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely is in need of improvements and additions to citations, but appears salvageable if someone is willing to put in the time. Part of the solution may be to simply delete unsourced claims such as His public speaking skills were so prized that he was thought to be a doctor and was obligated to cure an apparent cholera epidemic aboard a riverboat by giving his patients a dose of nitrous oxide. WP MILHIST may be interested, and I've left a notification there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neighbours 30th Anniversary[edit]

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the article's DYK nomination, an editor expressed concern with the reliance of YouTube videos. I'm bringing this here to see if editors share this concern, and to determine if the article does meet the GA criteria for sourcing. Thanks to everyone who takes a look. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who expressed the concern—I was troubled by the excessive reliance on self-published, non-independent YouTube videos for large parts of the article, especially the "Cast" and "Filming" sections. In total, there are 67 individual citations to YouTube videos, and one to Facebook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem with most of the YouTube videos in this article as the videos are mainly from the show's official verified account and are used in cases where there isn't currently a better source available for them. The sourced videos are reliable, according to WP:RSPYT, as they were uploaded by the official channel and are therefore able to be verified to the uploader. YouTube links have been and are able to be sourced in GAs (1, 2). Happily888 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happily888, those discussions took place over a decade and a half ago. Do you know of any more recent discussions? If videos were uploaded to the official channel, that surely means that they are self-published, non-independent, and primary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this more recent RfC discussion which shows if the verified channel owner is known and the content is not a copyvio, the content inherits inherent reliability and is able to be sourced on wikipedia. For example, some of the interview videos sourced in this article contain information which isn't posted elsewhere and therefore are the best sources of information for cast members. Happily888 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, if the videos were third-party sources Happily888. But these are not third-party, they are non-WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:PRIMARY sources.

From WP:IS: "To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia."

These videos might be the "best sources of information for cast members", but that does not mean that the information should be included. It is policy that Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29: However, there are some cases where information should be included in articles: if the best source for this is primary and a video, it should be the source included. The only way to link such sources in video form, whilst avoiding copyvios, is to use videos posted only from an official channel.

WP:IS does state that independent sources are required in articles but it does not state that every source must be independent; rather, it instead allows non-independent sources to be used to fill in non-controversial details, with the section you quoted referring to statements about the subjects importance and why requiring independent sources. A primary source could be reliable whilst secondary source could be unreliable, it is better to instead look at sources on a case-by-case basis for the best possible source for that information, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or WP:PRIMARYCARE, which provides examples of primary sources being acceptable in some cases such as direct quotations and sourcing information about plots or characters. Happily888 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I can accept that Happily888. Thanks for your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Royal Canadian Air Cadets[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). It may also contain excessive details on matters such as uniform, training courses and centres, and performance objectives, which are near-entirely sourced to non-independent sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-edded, dupe W/L scanned, Canadian national spelling exception, minor CE, revert as desired, Regards ex-384 Sqn, East Midlands Wing, ATC. Keith-264 (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, especially in the "History", "Notable people" and "Demographics" sections; the last of these also relies on data from the 2000 census (there have been two since). It thus fails GA criteria 2b) and 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

McCarthyism[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 promotion contains significant uncited material, along with a banner for original research from January in the "Victims" section and numerous citation-related tags. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Madness (band)[edit]

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

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

Result: Uncited text and unreliable sources remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2007 GA promotion - there is significant uncited text and several sources used that are not RS - setlist.fm, discogs, IMDB, etc. Hog Farm _Talk 01:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rescue of Bat 21 Bravo[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violates the "well-written" criteria. It's filled with unencyclopedic language, and often reads like a popular history book rather than an encyclopedia article. Examples:

"Hambleton pulled the ejection seat handles and had a moment to make eye contact with the pilot as his seat rocketed out of the dying plane."
"Hambleton was due for some R&R, and his wife Gwen was planning to meet him in Thailand the next week."
"The Air Force did not put limits on what it took to rescue a downed airman."
"Hambleton decided that with only nine months to go until his retirement, he was going to survive and return home."

BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as that text is appropriately footnoted I don't see the problem. Yes it is not strictly encyclopedic style but it seems quite readable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean explained in a footnote or covered by a citaton? I did trim some of the "eye contact" text in the article. (I have not been involved with this article before, just trying to help a little.) -Fnlayson (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nomination; the tone is generally unencyclopedic. As the article also contains significant uncited material, thus violating GA criterion 2b), I think delist unless improvements are made. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - also cites unreliable sources such as an angelfire website, imdb, and a self-published AuthorHouse book. I additionally have reliability concerns with some of the other web sources used. Hog Farm _Talk 14:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Whiddy Island disaster[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article, including whole paragraphs in the "Background" and "Aftermath" sections, are uncited. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Berlin Stadtbahn[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, which means the article does not meet GA criterion 2b) and requires significant work to keep its GA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist barring substantial improvement - this is a long way away from a GA and I am surprised it was kept at an individual GAR in 2022. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist unless it's fixed. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Null (SQL)[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, violating GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably look into this over the coming weeks. Sohom (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sohom Datta, do you still intend to work on this? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do intend to, got sidetracked by Site isolation :) Sohom (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I'm probably not gonna be working on this. A lot of the text wrt to the article is from 2008, and seems to be non-trivial to source to a source that was online in 2008 and is still online today, while keeping WP:CIRCULAR at bay :( Sohom (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials)[edit]

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

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

Result: No concerns raised. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various maintens tags have been placed dating back to May 2020. I plan on fixing them myself but I wanted to see if anyother issues had arrised since then. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant An entire reassessment based solely on two maintenance tags is both troubling and concerning. If they are fixed, which you've noted you could do yourself, do you intend to close this reassessment? Why could this not have simply been a discussion on the specials' relevant talk page? -- Alex_21_TALK 05:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the templates have been there since 2020 and 2021 and there has been 189 revisions in the five years since it reached GA adding an additonal 11,534 bytes to the page so I think its fairly likely that an additional problem would be noticed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain the need for a reassessment instead of just a regular talk page discussion. Are there actually any other issues? -- Alex_21_TALK 01:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant Given that the two {{citation needed}} templates have been repaired, do you intend to now close this reassessment, given the lack of any other issues you've raised? -- Alex_21_TALK 02:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant You seem to have forgotten about this. Any further updates? -- Alex_21_TALK 01:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for a review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant Do you agree that there is no longer a need for this reassessment? On what grounds of WP:GAR was it opened? Which of the six good article criteria do you believe this article no longer follows? -- Alex_21_TALK 05:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Endgame tablebase[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant unctied material, failing GA criterion 2b); it may also need to be updated, as a message on the talk page calls attention to "outdated metrics". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bunch of edits few months ago which I believe largely solves the outdated problem. I think most of uncited material could just be removed, as it's pretty unnecessary. Jack234567 (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through this paragraph by paragraph and see what's trivial to do. Remsense留 01:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would say there's also a lot of WP:FANCRUFT for a non-general audience that makes it difficult to know how to begin reorganizing the article. Remsense留 01:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: there is still a lot of uncited material. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Queen Mary 2[edit]

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

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

Result: Doesn't look that bad, kept GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced prose, including whole sections. WP:OVERSECTION of the "Service history" level 3 headings. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed most or all of the issues above. Keep ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"only ocean liner in service" point not included (or explained) in body. There is a separate "only" point in the second paragraph which I'm also not sure is in the body. Are these related? The tone of the article piqued my interest, but not enough that I'm sure it is a serious concern. Similarly, quite a few primary sources, but within the context of a lot of secondary sources reflecting similar points. The Bibliography seems out of date, but not a GACR issue. Keep if lead/body are brought into alignment. CMD (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Derivative[edit]

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

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

Result: Massive effort from Dedhert.Jr and XOR'easter to bring this article up to scratch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant portions, including whole sections and subsections, of this 2007 listing are missing inline citations; the article thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). If someone has access to the books of the biblography section and the requisite knowledge, this is just a matter of finding pages, to my inexpert mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I predicted it. The article has some unsourced paragraphs during I was adding the citations. Not to mention, they are also some parts that is not understandable per criterion 1a, for example the partial derivative part. Also, the history section, to me, is somewhat not related, as it mentions the history of how the calculus was made; maybe this could be expanded or merge to any other sections, or just delete it literally? I do think there are lot of problems in this article. Pinging more users: @Jacobolus, @David Eppstein, @XOR'easter, @D.Lazard for more comments???? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article would benefit significantly from an effort to add a gentler informal or semi-formal description at the top, with less jargon, more pictures, and accessible to a wider audience. (A better history section would also be nice.) Other than that, this article seems mostly fine, and this reassessment is IMO a waste of time. Please feel free to add more specific citations if you want. All of this material is easily verifiable and discussed extensively in the cited references. –jacobolus (t) 20:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify jacobolus, are you saying that you feel this article meets the GA criteria, or that there is no need for this article to meet the GA criteria and discussing whether it should is a waste of time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying this article seems like a fine Wikipedia article. Like most of them, it could use additional work. Arguing about whether it ticks off some boxes on a made up checklist (a poor proxy for article quality) is a total waste of time. Addressing the specific criticisms raised here isn't going to make the article substantively better, and there are many more valuable improvements that could be made (but also don't have to be; as I said it's a fine article). Knock yourself out though. –jacobolus (t) 02:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second option, then. Thanks for your quick response. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, @Jacobolus: the discussion of improvement may be found in many places: see at my talk and the talk page of the article Derivative. In my talk page, me and XOR'easter discussed the improvement in the section of definition. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you and to XOR for working on the article. I hope the article will be improved, to the benefit of the readers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions from me regarding the improvement of this article:

I'm looking for the possibility of a scenario about the notation part: should this section mention after the higher derivative? In my opinion, the notation describes many different notations of differentiation, including the high order. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wonder why its applications remain stuck at the Differential calculus#Applications. Is it possible to write them down in this article, instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Monarchies in the Americas[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Former monarchies" section, thus failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At risk of starting a flamewar, there seems to be a strong British Commonwealth WP:POV to the structure of this article. There's a different coloring between the British vs. the Danish / Dutch monarchies on the map, and it sets aside the British areas as distinct from the others in the sections, while flaunting a distinction without a difference. The distinction between Canada claiming it has an independent monarchy that in an amazing coincidence happens to be the same as the British one vs. Greenland just straightforwardly acknowledging that yes, the Danish monarch is the monarch... come on. It seems to imply that Greenland isn't sovereign either, which seems designed to start a fight? The article is trying to send a message that somehow the British monarchy areas are "more independent" than the case of the Danish & Dutch monarchy regions which are merely "dependent" areas. Yes, I know that strictly speaking, this is officially true, but I'm sure that some sort of Dutch monarchy enthusiast could find some property that would have the Netherlands Antilles listed first with a positive adjective that only it complies with, and all the other monarchies listed next with a different adjective. I could see the argument about highlighting this distinction if some of these were genuinely independent monarchies in the sense of "actually having different monarchs", but that's not the case, despite the introductory paragraph assuring the reader that "each of the states is sovereign and thus has a distinct local monarchy". I think the article needs to be restructured to treat all three monarchies similarly. SnowFire (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Honestly I'm not 100% sure this even makes tons of sense as a unified topic, but this needs a deep rewriting. I've rearranged the sectioning and replaced the maps, which helps a little, but the article still needs major work. SnowFire (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Downgrade and Move/Spliy: Currently the article seems between B and A -- well-sourced inline, but the quality of sourcing is often mediocre and/or primary. The article should be moved/renamed to "List of monarchies in the Americas". The article topic is not "Monarchies in the Americas" because apart from the single section on Commonwealth succession laws, this is never addressed in any collective sense, as any general or comparative phenomenon (and for my (lack of) knowledge, I doubt there's any history that would give this topic such consideration -- I don't see a thesis). It's possible that a list of current monarchies should be separate from a list of former monarchies. To be clear, I despise most WP list articles, but this is just a mistitled list article -- as its scope includes all of precolumbian history across the continent (recorded and not), it is necessarily incomplete, inconsistently sourced, and of scattered scope and voice. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll amend: large sections of the article seem between B and A. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Sopranos[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This older GA suffers from bloating and disorganisation. Since its promotion in 2008, lots of prose has been added that is uncited, not notable for this article, and/or fancruft. In particular, the season synopsizes, "Critical reception" and "Characters" sections need to be trimmed. Hopefully, someone familiar with the topic can merge or remove the unnecessary information. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Strang[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a number of claims lacking citations, and relies heavily on citations to the subject's own works. There may also be some issues with plagiarism - for example this source is being nearly directly quoted, but is not attributed as such. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Stone Tape[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 addition has multiple unsourced or badly sourced statements, which would not meet GA standards. Spinixster (chat!) 10:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scouts South Africa[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 listing contains significant uncited material and large amounts of excessive detail (many sections on the minutiae of scouting could probably be cut), meaning that GA criteria 2b) and 3b) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the two reasons given: Article has 64 cites and IMO meets the norm for GA's in that area. Regarding excessive detail, IMO I didn't see any. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North8000, the GA criteria require inline citations for everything bar WP:BLUESKY and plot summaries; as it stands in the article, entire subsections such as "Patrol Leaders Training Unit", "International links", and "Air Scouting" are not cited.Nearly all of what is cited is verified only by non-independent sources, meaning that there is significant risk of WP:UNDUE information. If that is the norm for GA's in the area, I shall have to bring all of them to GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North8000, have you had a chance to consider the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. My overall opinion, is that it meets the GA norms in both of those areas. On your first point, I think that you inadvertently rewrote the criteria instead of quoting it. Using vague guess numbers,IMHO probably 20% of material is likely to be challenged, and at the other extreme maybe 5% is sky-is-blue. So while the criteria set the 20% as the minimum, in your re-write substituting sky-is-blue you raised the 20% minimum to 95% minimum. In the second area, boring encyclopedic information is seldom covered by independent sources and so an encyclopedic article needs to substantially use those. IMHO you are applying an unintended overly broad application of WP:UNDUE which is intended more to cover areas where opinions differ. IMO "independent" comes more into play regarding the 1-2 GNG sources for wp:notability. I'm not overly worried about GA status but you asked and I answered. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, GA criterion 2b) links to Wikipedia:Content that could reasonably be challenged, which you might find helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and thanks for your work. A reasonably good essay but does not equate to your "anything but sky-is-blue". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article could use more comprehensive sourcing to meet current standards. The extensive use of primary/non-independent sources is a separate question, and its interaction with OR is per WP:PST a bit of an art. At a first read, I would say this article uses them for great detail, but without much interpretation. CMD (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: I agree with the problems regarding criterion 2b. Good articles should be properly sourced inline and the expression "content that could reasonably be challenged" does not mean that there is an actual disagreement in the reliable sources about the fact in question. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:GAR coordinators: any comments? if not, can you please make a closing decision? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as failing to meet 2b for insufficient citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009 that is on the Sweeps listing. There is significant uncited text, which is problematic per WP:GACR #2b, and the notable cases section is largely sourced only to the cases section itself, which leads to issues as to how these cases were selected as notable. This latter issue was brought up in the original GA review in 2009. Hog Farm _Talk 15:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the listed cases are notable because they were ultimately appealed to and decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, establishing the interpretation of the law for the entire country. Note that as this is a federal court, there will be few notable criminal cases (e.g., sensational murder trials), as those are heard by the state courts unless there is a federal element involved. BD2412 T 21:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - sourcing improvements needed yet. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chuck E. Cheese[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing will need a few changes. Some poorly sourced stuff is in here. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the unreliable sources, but there is still extensive uncited material. Delist ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the source for the Awesome Adventure Machine and floppy disks. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added sources to many uncited material and removed one. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
removed a uncited material
GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist; sourcing work needed. Hog Farm _Talk 17:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like it should be delisted because of the status of it as of now, I would want it to keep it's green plus but it's an old GA that has not went so many sources. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails because content does not change significantly day-to-day. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Water supply and sanitation in the United States[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2009 GA promotion on the Sweeps listing. The article contains significant uncited text and most of the statistical content has become outdated, such as sewer rate comparisons from 2008 and employment figures from 2002. Hog Farm _Talk 02:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's clear a lot of effort was put into this article back in the day, it has indeed become outdated, and several sections are lacking citations. I am leaning delist unless improvements are made. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely delist. I haven't looked in detail but it's clear from the article stats that not much content has been added since 2009, so outdated-ness is likely to be an issue. Also, the article has become a bit loo long and should be condensed. Currently it's 74 kB (11897 words) "readable prose size". EMsmile (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cave Junction, Oregon[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 addition is on the Sweeps list. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GabrielPenn4223, when you open reassessments, please try to specify which of the GA criteria the article does not meet. So for this article, for example, you could say "the Demographics section is essentially unsourced, failing GA criterion 2b), and has not been updated since 2010, failing criterion 3a)". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The demographics is extensively unsourced, fail GA criterion 2b and has not been updated for 14 years, failing 3a

Added this thing. Keep or delist? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attachment disorder[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One permanent dead link and uncited sources. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist considerable uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Foundation for Economic Education[edit]

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

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

Result: Per citation and neutrality issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some CN tags and non primary source needed tags. The article also isn't that long and looks like it could use a bit of updating. Folks have had NPOV concerns but I don't know how substantiated they are. Please improve or delist. Right now, I'm doing a research project for school so I looked up the FEE to know what it's all about and saw the tags. I am too busy to work on the article myself because of this project. Thanks! ❤History Theorist❤ 23:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

How Do You Solve a Problem like Maria?[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 addition has some unsourced claims and might also need some cleanup. Spinixster (chat!) 06:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Western Wall[edit]

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

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

Result: Sourcing issues, involving uncited material, verifiability concerns, and dubious references, remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing has quite a few issues:

GA criterion 1b):
- Numerous subsections are very short, which breaches MOS:OVERSECTION;
- The lead, which currently stands at 758 words, may be too long per MOS:LEADLENGTH;
It contains uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b);
It has numerous tags for NPOV issues, meaning GA criterion 4 may not be met;
And at over 10,500 words, not counting quotes, tables, captions, or lists, this article might contain excessive detail and not meet GA criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There definitely appear to be more than a few aspects to the page that are a complete mess – as not untypical for one of these very dated GAs. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who ever did care about GA or GAGA or whatwver? It's work in progress, a politically hotly disputed site (by more sides than meets the eye), and classical encyclopaedic gem-like cut & polish won't ever be reached. Arminden (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People said that about J. K. Rowling, Arminden, and yet it still has an FA star. Anyway, thanks for tackling some of the issues, and in response to your post on the talk page, you can find the automatically-updated archives in the talk header template at the top. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would find it better to keep on the active talk page topics which are still being discussed. It seems to me that we have a hyperactive archiving bot patrolling the talk page.

I said that I don't care much at all about stars and Wiki labels; about improved quality I most certainly do. Arminden (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the parameters of the archive bot so sections should stick around longer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 Hygiea[edit]

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

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

Result: No consensus to delist ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very outdated and lacks extensive coverage on recent studies from high-resolution VLT images. There are three citation needed tags and an update template has been placed under the "Orbit and rotation" section since 2019. Compared to the recently-renovated article Ceres (dwarf planet) which passed GA review in 2021 and later promoted to FA, Hygiea is severely lacking in depth, judging by the mostly short sections and the very broad coverage of the "Physical characteristics" section. I do not think this article qualifies for GA in its current state, and a total revamp of this article long overdue. (I do not have time to renovate this entire article by myself, though I may try) Nrco0e (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging recent contributors @Kwamikagami and Double sharp: Nrco0e (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is too out-of-date to be a GA. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be too much work to get this back into shape, since we don't know much about Hygiea, but agreed that work does need to be done. There was that claim that it's a DP, which AFAIK hasn't gone anywhere, with it believed to be a re-accreted body instead. I imagine that other updates will be relatively minor. There's a claim in the intro that there's debate over whether it's the largest C type asteroid, but no explanation as to why (Ceres sometimes being classified as 'G'). — kwami (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e, Kwamikagami, and Double sharp: does anyone have the time or energy to work on this article, or should it be delisted? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit just now, and removed all citations from the lead.

If someone who knows what they're doing could calculate the axial tilt from the polar ascension and declension, that would be appreciated. (I just left it as "...".) — kwami (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any major problems, so keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sakurajima[edit]

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

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

Result: Uncited material removed from article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In April 2023, an article of the town of Sakurajima was merged into this article. This caused a new, uncited section to be added to the article. This merger should be resolved if this article is to remain a GA. Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't recall the format for posting replies to one of these off the top of my head. However, I think the merge itself should be undone. The scope of the article (the geographic feature) was clear before, and if it seemed like the settlement disappeared when it was merged with the other municipalities, then the best solution would seem to be to revise the contents of Sakurajima, Kagoshima or the article on the city of Kagoshima instead. Dekimasuよ! 05:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged the merging editor, but they have been inactive since November. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guto Puw[edit]

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

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

Result: Significant uncited material remains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 additions suffers from multiple issues, namely missing citations, external links and prose. Spinixster (chat!) 07:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The External links in prose is something that is WP:SOFIXIT level, and seem to have been added as a result of some edit-a-thon sponsored by Wikimedia Wales at the National Library of Wales ([23]). So probably good faith, just a janky way of adding a reference but a very easily fixable one by any experienced Wikipedian (although... somewhat lacking oversight... since it looks like the edit-a-thon's moderator didn't correctly instruct the user on how to tag their image uploads, resulting in them getting deleted). SnowFire (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Troilus[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, violating GA criterion 2b). It is also over 10,300 words long (not including numerous quotes, lists, or references) and contains excessive detail, meaning the article does not meet GA criterion 3b). Significant work is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The excessive length was already mentioned at peer review back in 2011 as an impediment to the article reaching featured status. Aside from entirely uncited material, I'm seeing some questionable use of ancient sources (e.g. the section on "the standard myth" is supported by a citation to Apollodorus; I would like to see a secondary source saying that Apollodorus' version is in fact the standard variant).

The length issue is not helped by some overly-wordy prose: e.g. does "the story of the circumstances around Troilus' death was a popular theme among pottery painters" say anything better than the more concise "the story of Troilus' death was a popular theme among pottery painters"? Or take "Of the esteemed Nine lyric poets of the archaic and classical periods, Stesichorus may have referred to Troilus' story in his Iliupersis and Ibycus may have written in detail about the character." What is wrong with something like "The archaic lyric poet Stesichorus may have referred to Troilus' story in his Iliupersis, and Ibycus may have written in detail about him"? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some extremely impressive research here: I'm not an expert on the specific material, but most of it seems eminently sensible, which is not always the case for such monstrously lengthy articles. However, I agree that the mass of uncited material is a pretty serious problem. There are also parts of it with quite a prominent authorial voice, reading more like an essay than an encyclopaedia. I'd be reluctant to start hacking at it: I think the best way to ultimately handle it would be to split it into sub-articles (say Troilus in Greco-Roman culture and Troilus in post-classical culture, perhaps even Troilus in 20th-century culture as well?), and it would be good to have the material on hand if/when someone does so. There's a bit of flab/fat (three paragraphs on three modern interpretations?!), but I'm not seeing too much that's obviously wrong or clearly has no place anywhere on the encyclopaedia. However, I think all that amounts to a delist for now; any GA-suitable version of this article would be a rewrite. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hardcore Holly[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 addition has three citation needed tags as well as multiple unsourced statements. The article may also need updates to reflect new information. Spinixster (chat!) 06:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me, far too much of this is uncited. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - unsourced material and unreliable sources such as Online World of Wrestling. Hog Farm _Talk 23:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dyer Lum[edit]

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

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

Result: There seems to be consensus that this is not GA standard, although there is not total agreement on why that is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

After 17 years of being listed as a good article, I think it's more than time for a reassessment. The article hasn't received many changes in over a decade and its main contributor has been almost completely inactive since 2013. A pass of this article has revealed to me some issues that I think need to be addressed in order to keep it at GA. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Prose is clear and concise, grammar and spelling seems to all be good.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
It complies quite closely to the manual of style, for the most part. But somewhere it stands out is its use of quotations, with one displayed at the very beginning of his biography and some rather large blockquotes in the philosophy section, as well as some unattributed smaller quotes scattered around the rest of the article.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Reference are mostly properly formatted, with only one exception of no formatting (Lum 1888) and a couple cases of duplicate information (i.e. Reviews in American History).

B. 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):
Every bit of information in the article has an inline citation, which is all good. However, I'm uncertain as to the reliability of many of the sources. Just under one-third of the citations are to primary sources with a direct connection to the subject (Tucker 1893; de Cleyre 2007; Lum 1888; Parsons 2002; Yarros 1890). There's also a few citations to self-published blog posts (Crass 2003; Carson 2005; McElroy 2007). The rest come from clearly reliable, secondary sources from academic publishers or journals. But this does mean that about half of the citations are coming from sources I would consider questionable at GA level.

C. It contains no original research:
No original research that I can see, everything seems to come from the cited sources and the spot checks I've done verify the information I see it cited to.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig flags some cases where it edges close to repeating Kevin Carson's words without attribution,[24] but this can easily be reworded.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
This is another place I think this article falls flat. There are quite noticeable gaps in the timeline, with zero information in the prose about Lum's birth and early life. It also completely glosses over quite important pieces of his biography that I feel could be served well by fleshing out.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The "philosophy" section strikes me as rather unfocused. The first couple sentences are more about claiming him as part of various different ideologies, without really explaining what his philosophy actually is. It also just repeats the same information as what's already in the biography, to strange effect. This section really needs a go over to tighten it up.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No clearly identifiable problems with neutrality.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
It's only received a handful of minor edits over the past few years. No reversions since before its first GAN review in 2007.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Photograph seems to be tagged with the wrong PD license, based on incomplete information. But this photograph is almost certainly in the public domain.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Only photograph is of the subject himself, although it could use a caption and alt text.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall, I think this article has some glaring problems that would hold me back from passing it today, although I'm sure standards may have been different back in 2007. Based on sections 2 and 3 of our good article criteria, I do not think this article meets the mark in its current state. It could certainly do with a rewrite, trimming the questionable sources and using other more clearly reliable sources to improve it. If other editors are interested in helping improve the article, I think it could get to meeting the good article criteria, but it would basically require a complete bottom-up redo. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am skeptical of the comments above. I'm not saying that this qualifies as a GA, but...
"zero information in the prose about Lum's birth and early life" - Do you have reason to think that this is notable? Is it covered in the sources or known at all?

"It also completely glosses over quite important pieces of his biography" - Now this is a real problem, but you can't just say this and casually move on. What important pieces of his biography does it gloss over? What's missing?

"(Tucker 1893; de Cleyre 2007; Lum 1888; Parsons 2002; Yarros 1890)" - Parsons 2002 is used to cite a quote from Lum, so citing Lum directly is perfectly accurate. Yarros 1890 is used to support a basic claim that Yarros criticized Lum. Lum 1888 is used a single time for a basic WP:ABOUTSELF for which political philosophy he described himself by; people can generally be trusted to describe their own personal beliefs. de Cleyre 2007 is used for another basic, uncontroversial claim that Lum edited an anarchist magazine - highly doubtful de Cleyre would inexplicably lie about that. Now, Tucker 1893 has something of a point - it's a contemporary source which is not great. However, it's mostly used for quotes and things like birth / death dates currently, with the prose even attributing it inline as "the anarchist press said..." in one part. That said, I agree that "ran for lieutenant governor of Massachusetts on the Labor Reform ticket of abolitionist Wendell Phillips in 1870" should be attributed to a stronger source ideally than Tucker.

"Only photograph is of the subject himself, although it could use a caption and alt text." - It's just a picture of Lum. The documentation specifically says to only include a caption when needed, and if the caption were just to say "Dyer Lum", it's not. I guess the date the photograph was taken might be mildly useful info but it's not listed in the image description.

"without really explaining what his philosophy actually is" - He isn't Wittgenstein. It's not like even elected politicians have perfectly consistent philosophies, and as someone on the outskirts of political life as an anarchist, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to decline to create some overarching philosophy. Sometimes all we have to go on are scattered statements and articles.
Per above, I'm not necessarily endorsing the article, but I suspect that the above suggestions would be counterproductive if anything. To get this closer to being a modern GA, then trimming some weakly sourced info is probably preferred to expanding the article with material that might not even exist or be relevant. But to know for sure I'd want to read that "Biographical Dictionary of the American Left" article, but it looks like it's not available for borrow at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all fair and valid criticisms of my comments. But I would like to push back against the suggestions that more sources on him don't exist, that there isn't more to write about him and even that he isn't worth writing about in any depth. In particular, Frank Brooks has done a lot of research into Lum,[25][26] but his work is relegated to "further reading". Even within this article there are sources that go further in depth, but aren't cited much at all (see Avrich 1986; Schuster 1999 and McElroy 2003). -- Grnrchst (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for elaborating. I don't think that citing unpublished PhD dissertations should be required or expected even at the FA level (although it's cool if it's done and it's a relevant source), so Brooks 1988 is probably optional, but I do agree that Brooks 1993 and Carson 2018 (which did not exist at the time of GA nomination!) look like good sources to include if anyone wants to take a stab at updating the article. SnowFire (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Agreed on the broad strokes of what's needed to meet the GA criteria: replacing unreliable/primary sources, replacing quotes with paraphrase, and expanding from the named sources (but not the dissertation). Covering that breadth of sources helps justify the brevity of the article if there is indeed no major biographical detail to add. czar 20:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Highlanders (rugby union)[edit]

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, in addition to some poor prose and a lack of updates (the notable players subsection is based on a dead link from 2007). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Who Made Huckabee?[edit]

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

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. With a heavy heart, I think this no longer meets GA requirements. Some of the sources are questionable (Sensitivitytothings and maybe Rush Limbaugh's website), the article is not written very well with puffery and cruft here and there, but it might be easy to fix. Spinixster (chat!) 04:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick skim, but I'm not seeing anything particularly criteria-violating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the usage of the Sensitivitytothings source is definitely questionable, right? After all, it doesn't seem to be a reliable blog. Also, some of the sentences are phrased weirdly, like Interestingly, upon returning to air on January 7, 2008, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report had increased ratings. [...] Late Night with Conan O'Brien, however, remained at a normal level, with 2.5 million viewers. ; On February 7, 2008, Huckabee made a trip to New York to make yet another appearance on The Colbert Report, [...] ; etc. Also, is there a need to mention every single detail of the mock feud? A lot of the sources used there are primary. Spinixster (chat!) 01:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote was easy enough to remove. If you feel that the information is excessively detailed, that is fairly easily fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said it was easy to fix, but I am not 100% familiar with this subject so I don't know what information is important. Spinixster (chat!) 00:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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