Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 67

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 66) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 68) →

Trucking industry in the United States

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Without objection, delisted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I ran into this article yesterday, and was shocked to see it listed as a good article. What's wrong with it? Well, this article was promoted in 2008 and has not been reassessed since. In that time, it has become more than a decade out of date (there is a "as of 2005" statement in it) and has a number of unsourced paragraphs and subsections. Sections of prose do not meet GA standards for their quality of writing. Inexplicably, the article does not cover Trailer-on-flatcar or Containerization at all, which are significant parts of the trucking industry in the United States. A fair amount of work is needed to bring this back to GA level, especially considering standards for what we consider a good article have increased since 2008. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, it has been nearly a month and no improvements have been made to the article. How does it get delisted? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benzylpiperazine

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: kept. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion needs further attention now. There is uncited text scattered throughout, as well as datedness - the source for One in every 45 (2.2%) last-year users of BZP in New Zealand is classed as dependent upon it, although 97.9% of users said that "it would not be difficult to stop using legal party pills", and 45.2% of people who reported using both BZP and illegal drugs such as methamphetamine reported that they used BZP so that they did not have to use methamphetamine, which was perceived as more harmful. is about 15 years old and probably outdated, and the information in the legal issues section all seems to pre-date 2010. Without a thorough updating and citing, this may have to be delisted as a GA. Hog Farm Talk 06:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks

edit

Antonio Luna

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: There is weak consensus that this article no longer meets the criteria after revision, especially on neutrality. This discussion has been stalled for approximately two months with no further response from editors, and the article also did not observe any significant improvements during the last two months and no constructive edit at all this month. VickKiang (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assed in 2016, the has number of citation needed tags some going as far back as 2017. Has random information unrelated to the subject in question and with WP:UNDUE; i.e. 7 lines regarding a book, that he reportedly memorized as a kid. It also has problems with WP:TONE. Skjoldbro (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I hadn't added any, I was unaware that it was necessary for the discussion. I have added some now. Older tags can be found in Assassination and aftermath section. However, I don't believe that the article should ever have received the GA title, as the article has had these issues, at least since the last assessment. The article, therefore, never met criteria 1 and 3. Things like this excerpt is completely irrelevant to the article subject:
He also memorized the Doctrina Christiana, believed to be the first book printed in the Philippines.[4][12] The title of the work literally means "Christian Doctrine", and thus the primary goal of the book was to propagate Christian teaching across the Philippine archipelago. The book consists of 38 leaves and 74 pages of text in Spanish, Tagalog transliterated into roman letters, and Tagalog in its original Baybayin script, under a woodcut of Saint Dominic, with the verso originally blank, although in contemporary versions bears the manuscript inscription, "Tassada en dos reales", signed by Juan de Cuellar. After a syllabary comes the basic prayers: the Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, Credo, and the Salve Regina. Following these are Articles of Faith, the Ten Commandments, Commandments of the Holy Church, Sacraments of the Holy Church, Seven Mortal Sins, Fourteen Works of Charity, and points on Confession and Catechism. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Skjoldbro Can't you just remove any content that you consider irrelevant? Wouldn't that fix the problem? (t · c) buidhe 09:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe I don't think so, as I don't believe the article ever should have gotten the GA status in the first place. I think it clearly fails criteria 1 and 3. There are major issues with tone and relevance throughout the whole article, and would have to be wholly rewritten. Making the article unwarranted of the GA status. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if it is all that bad. The tone is alright, but I agree that there are some areas where it can be tightened. Probably not enough to lose GA status over or even have the big orange tags. The bigger issue are the inline tags. The ones I looked at are all reverent and the sources are not readily available to me. @Arius1998: in case they pop in and will leave a note at some wikiprojects. Aircorn (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: Maybe it is just me, but I just think that the tone is "off" e.g. After taking breakfast, he ordered a subordinate, Colonel Queri, to prepare arms and ammunition for the ten men. Then, the men boarded a train destined towards Malinta, which was American-held territory. After giving orders to the men, he let them go and watched them with his telescope. The men, succeeding their mission, eventually returned unharmed. Admiring their bravery, he organized them into a guerrilla unit of around 50 members. I just don't think it reads like other GAs. It sound more like a story rather than statements of facts. Additionally, how is anyone able to know the mood of Luna moments before his death? Still outraged and furious, Luna rushed down the stairs [...] These are just two examples from a cursory look. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True some of it gets a bit overly dramatic. I sometimes prefer this than the monotonic encyclopaedic style that is often encouraged here, but yeah it could be toned down a bit. Aircorn (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NATO

edit
Content dispute is not a reason to delist the article considering it's only non-stable because of wanted addition that has been rejected. Pls review Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.Moxy-  02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 delisted per Moxy's rationale above. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specific historical facts are routinely censored in this page as highlighted here. The quality of the discussion in the talk page has reached very low levels making it impossible to hold a conversation. The page is also a theater of edit-warring, which should cause immediate failure of being considered a good article. Morgoonki (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are mischaracterizing both the material and the discussion.
First - it is historical information. Characterizing it as 'facts', when parties involved have made multiple contradictory claims (found in reliable sources) is a conflation. This is easily exemplified by Gorbachev's vaccilation in discussing the matters.
Second, you have grossly mischaracterized the material in creating Baker-Gorbachev Pact. The word Pact has a specific meaning. The negotiations were in no way, shape, form, characterization, or context, a "pact". Please read up on the definition if necessary.
Third, jumping to the "censorship" argument is facile. You have already violated 3RR in your attempts to push a narrative that you are fond of. That's not censorship, that's ensuring that editors don't push their POV to the top of an article, giving the material greater weight than it holds.
Fourth, you have characterized in your edit summaries justifying your additions that there was an 'emerging consensus' on the talk page - unfortunately, the emerging consensus was that the material was not appropriate to the lead. The Baker-Gorbachev (Shevardnadze,Kohl, Genscher, etc etc) discussions - not even formal negotiations - are an interesting footnote in the history of what took place. Assigning it the importance of a violated legal pact is over the top.
As I have stated elsewhere, these matters are interesting, and deserve coverage; they don't necessarily warrant their own separate article, and more importantly, they are not critical to the body NATO itself, not such that they need to be relitigated in the lede of the article.
The discussion on the talk page has been largely civil. Characterizing it as being 'very low' quality is a misrepresentation, the rationales of all parties have been stated very clearly. That you dislike that you have little agreement doesn't make the discussion 'low quality', it simply means that the consensus thus far doesn't support your additions, specifically in the lead of the article.
There is no need for reassessment. Anastrophe (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page you linked to specifically says that a page being the subject of an edit war should result in the immediate failure of a Good Article Review, only when the edit war is prior to the article being made a good article. It should be obvious that anything Good or higher isn't immediately delisted as soon as an edit war starts. Loafiewa (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2022 (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.

Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article passed GA in 2007. Our quality standards have since improved greatly, and this no longer meets them. There are claims that lack citations and the lead fails MOS:LEAD in its length and coverage. The prose arguably fails GA#1 too, due to its jumpy layout. Anarchyte (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

edit

The table below represents my individual assessment of the article against the Good article criteria. However, I requested a community reassessment given the lack of consensus and high level of disagreement on the article's talk page. Thus, the assessment below represents only one person's opinion; it is neither the complete nor the final good article reassessment. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted, has active cleanup banner (t · c) buidhe 09:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Recent contentious editing has degraded the quality of the prose.
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead is too long, containing text better suited for the article body.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Whether or not a reference constitutes a reliable source per WP:MEDRS has been hotly debated. In my estimation, some of the references do not comply with both standard and medical reliable sources criteria, e.g., theoretical articles and primary source citations.
  2c. it contains no original research. There appears to be instances of WP:SYNTH.
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Not a major problem but excess detail occurs in some places.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Some agendas are being pushed, IMHO of course.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Frequent back-and-forth edits with tendentious arguments common on the talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall assessment. Regrettably, the article no longer meets GA criteria.

Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre (board game)

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am opening a community GAR on this article due to that from my perspective it does not meet the Good Article criteria in the following:

1. Well written- This article in my opinion does not satisfy the requirements according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The article is split into eight main sections, but numerous sections are too short or superficial for it to fully satisfy The Manual of Style which states that 'Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose.' However, in this article two sections (Awards and Other Reviews) are exceedingly short with the first comprising of only a single sentence whereas the latter only lists a single outdated example in dot point form. The prose is also severely lacking for the section 'Spin-offs', which includes numerous subheadings, but most of them are especially superficial with a single example given. Similarly, numerous other sections, such as 'Game Description' and 'Publication History', also comprise paragraphs also only consisting of one single sentence. Consider those lines under the 'Publication History':

'In May 2012, a new Designer's Edition of Ogre was funded on Kickstarter.com.

In late 2018, SJG ran a Kickstarter for Ogre Battlefields, an update and expansion for both the Designer's Edition and the Sixth Edition.

In 2020, SJG released a updated pocketbox version of Ogre with a 16-page manual and 112 counters, along with updated pocket box versions of G.E.V., Battlesuit, and Shockwave.

In 2021, as part of a Kickstarter campaign, SJG released 1976 Ogre Playtest Booklet, a reproduction of the original typewritten playtest set for the first version of Ogre.'

In my opinion, those do not seem to comply with the Manual of Style, which recommends paragraphs with suitable prose. The article also has numerous grammatical errors, such as 'In 2020, SJG released a updated' where 'an updated' should be utilised instead.

2. Verifiable with no original research- most sections of the GA has pertinent referencing. However, various sections, including the lead paragraph (which should be 'carefully sourced' based on its Wikipedia page entry) as well as the 'Other Reviews' does not consist of any sourcing and might possibly indicate original research, which I believe also does not satisfy the GA criteria.

6. Illustrated- the article only provides two images, and does not show any standard edition of the game; only a deluxe edition image is included along with the cover. This seems fairly lacking in my opinion, especially considering that the inclusion of images in the section 'Game description' would have benefitted from my perspective.

Based on my quick check, I believe that it does not meet at least three criteria, the others (criteria 3, 4 and 5) being weak passes. However, I am a very new Wikipedia editor and hence believe that this article would require a community GA assessment considering its overall quality and that the last GA approval is in 2008, during which the standards would likely be different. Please let me know for any questions and I appreciate sincerely your feedback- VickKiang (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Note: I also added noteworthy sections of the article requiring clean-ups from my perspective, including expansion for sections 'Awards' and 'Other Reviews' as well as changing list to prose as a suggestion for the 'Spin-offs'.

Agreed, despite some substantial improvements recorded in the new edits, this article seems inferior in quality compared not just to GA articles, but in contrast to most B- grade articles. If anyone else can respond that would be great- VickKiang (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Burundi women's national football team

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the criteria at WP:GACR, a Good Article should be well-written, verifiable with no original research, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated if possible. This article severely struggles to meet the verifiable and broad categories, and with my own research mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/Archive 12#African women’s football teams it seems like the topic does not pass WP:GNG (as WP:NTEAM says it should, for the record) and ought to be merged into a new article on Women's football in Burundi or outright AFDed. Keep in mind that there really isn't a true women's national team, just a youth team and and adult team that occasionally are organized (one does not appear to currently exist). As for the specific issues:

  • Most of the academic sources cited here make zero mention of a Burundi women's national football team. Many don't even mentioned Burundi, they speak of generalities about women's football in Africa.
  • While the sport grew in popularity worldwide in the ensuing years, Burundi did not have an official team until more than two decades later. A likely WP:SYNTH violation, since ref #3 (an old Fifa database page) is dead and ref #4 makes no mentioned of when the team was first established, or makes any comment on the "growing popularity" of football during this time.
  • The team has withdrawn from numerous other events. Also seems like a WP:SYNTH violation, which is cited to two dead refs and another which is just a chart of women's championship games from the Confederation of African Football (CAF).
  • Burundi was scheduled to participate in a competition in 2007 organised by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) in Zanzibar. Nicholas Musonye, the secretary of the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations (Cecafa), said of the event, "CAF wants to develop women's football in this region in recognition of the milestones Cecafa has achieved over the years. CAF appreciates what Cecafa has done despite the hardships the association has gone through, from financial problems to political instability in member states and poor management of associations. Member states in the Cecafa region have not taken women's football seriously. CAF now wants to sponsor a long-term campaign to attract women from this region into the game."[16] The competition was canceled due to lack of funds.[17] Aside from the first sentence, this whole paragraph is not about a Burundi women's national football team. GA criteria requires that an article "stays focused on the topic". This could simply be trimmed down to they were scheduled to participate in a contest that was cancelled.
  • Burundi has not participated in other major events on the continent, including the 2011 All-Africa Games. Another likely WP:SYNTH violation, shows another CAF chart of games in which Burundi is not mentioned. It is pure WP:OR to describe what is not mentioned in a given source.
  • The development of women's football in Africa faces several challenges, including limited access to education, poverty amongst women, inequalities and human rights abuses. Cool, but not about a national team and not even about Burundi. While the same probably applies to Burundi, we need a source which says so. It's not good logic to use a source which says "Africa has problems" to mean "X country in Africa has problems".
  • The Football Federation of Burundi, the country's national association, created a woman's football programme in 2000.[3][5][23] By 2006, there were just 455 registered women players, and the absence of a thriving women's game has been an obstacle for the national team.[24] Lydia Nsekera is the head of the national football association.[25] Outside the national federation, the Commission nationale du football féminin was established by the 1990s, and a league and women's teams were organised in the same period in Bujumbura. About women's football in Burundi, but not about a national women's team.
  • The "Home Stadium", "Managers", and "Coaching staff" sections are all empty, and these things probably barely exist, since the team exists on an on-off ad hoc basis.
  • The majority of the article is taken up by CRUFTy infoboxes and tables of records and scores, all of which have zero sources.
  • The only materials which seem to directly address the sometimes existence of this team are FIFA documents, but those might lack independence. My WP:BEFORE turns up only really this which gives the name the women's team uses and nothing more. I've searched under the sports section of Iwacu, Burundi's only private newspaper, and gotten mention of women's football but nothing about a national team. There's little hope for expanding this article using reliable secondary sources about the topic.

I advocate delisting and probably eventually deleting or merging to a new Women's football in Burundi article (an actually notable topic). The existence of this article seems to totally hinge on false expectations that a national sports team is/should be notable. Sorry to say, that is not the case here by my read. But I open the floor to others who may have new sources or ideas. Courtesy @Aircorn: who first brought this to my attention. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree generally with the above but as for merging altogether, the team are active in AFCON qualifying this season - if that doesn't confer notability on its own, I'd suggest that it at least indicates the team is becoming more active and warrants a 'stay of execution' for the NT article, pending the evidence of their involvement in other upcoming tournaments? Crowsus (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I see no rush per se -it's not like this is a vandalism magnet or major BLP violation risk- but we don't have a WP:CYRSTAL ball which tells us that Burundi's team is going to get SIGCOV in such an event. At best it's WP:TOOSOON. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is what the article looked like when it was promoted; 2/3 of what is written is not about a Burundian women's national team. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would delist from GA, but keep the article. Nehme1499 16:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I remember these African women's team GAs were done as a sort of 'job lot' in a single splurge of creativity which was a very impressive feat. There are some imperfections, for example In 1985, almost no country in the world had a women's national football team is obviously false in light of things like 1984 European Competition for Women's Football qualifying and 1983 AFC Women's Championship. While The senior national football team has never competed in a FIFA-sanctioned fixture seems to be out of date, considering the team is currently competing in the 2022 Africa Women Cup of Nations qualification. I suppose the complained of imprecision will be there until someone writes an academic paper focused specifically on women's football in Burundi. So I could live with a delisting, but talk of AfD or redirection is a bit much.
There is no doubt that the senior team currently exists, they named a 30-player squad earlier this month: [1]. In March 2016 (four years after the article was created) the national team had still never played a match, but its formation was allegedly a priority for the FFB: "The Burundi Football Federation (FFB) plans to expand the women’s game. A priority for the FFB’s 2015-18 development strategy is to get a squad up and running. The national team has never played a match – a frustration for Saidi. Funding shortfalls and the lack of equipment have hampered its development, meaning it has not managed to play the five matches against Fifa-ranked teams that it needs to get an official ranking." They definitely played at the 2016 CECAFA Women's Championship:[2] and I found a pre-tournament friendly in which they were beaten 3–0 by eventual winners Tanzania: [3]
They were slated to play at the 2018 CECAFA Women's Championship ([4]) but when it was shambolically postponed at four days notice, they weren't at the edition which went ahead: [5] They played at 2019 CECAFA Women's Championship and reached the semi-final. It's not clear what happened to the 2021 CECAFA Women's Championship after Djibouti pulled out of hosting it. I can't read French/Swahili/Kirundi and (until today) my knowledge of Burundian football was nil, but I have certainly found some coverage of the matters inhibiting the women's national team. Lack of funding, prejudice against women etc. [6], [7] The coach Daniella Niyibimenya (yes she exists!) has complained about a lack of friendly matches to sharpen up before the tournaments: [8] While Lydia Nsekera says a lack of female representation in the corridors of power has held back the development of women's football: [9]. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Jimbere Magazine source, I had never encountered it before and it does seem to give good coverage to the women's team. I've added coverage about the 2019 CECAFA Women's Championship to the article, but I don't think there's enough to rescue this GA entirely. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that all of them need to be delisted, but quite a few do. Depending on how this GAR goes, it could be a precedent for the other national teams listed above. Nehme1499 09:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They all probably need some improvement. The Zanzibar article actually looks quite salvageable, and since Rwanda tends to punch above it weight in media I'd bet there's some sources that could be found to improve it. Others, like the Central African Republic and Niger, probably should have never been promoted in the first place. Same problems with women's programs that have barely gotten of the ground and issues with text and sources pointing to challenges for women's football in Africa generally, but not actually discussing those countries specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely this article no longer meets the good article criteria as it features a {{more citations needed}} cleanup banner and superscript ordinals that go against the manual of style guidelines for numbers (see Pixar#Pixar: 20 Years of Animation).

IAmAnIndividual (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is salvageable. Just needs some citations and maybe a quick tidy up. Aircorn (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 22:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Hard for me to argue with you. It's been 3 months and none of the issues highlighted above have been fixed. --The helper5667 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congestion pricing

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed good a long time ago. The lead mentions things other than transport but the body text is almost all about transport. For example the lead mentions electricity but there is nothing about charging more for electricity transmission when a line is in demand a lot. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to cover the environmental and health impact at greater length. The research is clear: congestion pricing reduces pollution, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and has health benefits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little skeptical of "advocates claim" in the second sentence of the lead. Is the research strong enough to just state that in wikivoice? This is an important topic, and it'd be nice to save it from delisting. Chidgk1, have you noticed other problems, or just that the lead doesn't align with the body? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scope of this article compared other articles e.g. Electricity pricing - see e.g. https://learn.pjm.com/three-priorities/buying-and-selling-energy/lmp Too much detail on the London ULEZ but some general explanation of relationship with LEZ would be interesting e.g. why US has road congestion pricing but no LEZ as far as I know. And will the balance change as EV proportion continues to increase rapidly in Europe? Bibliography needs trimming and updating. I may find more problems later. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK so we agree it needs work to stay good so the question now is whether anyone is willing to do much work on it. I am not but I will leave this open for a while and if no one volunteers put an appeal in the most relevant project before delisting. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oposed the delisting. The topic is still up to date, no much progress has occurred worldwide since it gained GA. Details about the London congestion charge should go in that article, not here. The summary about London is due to more studies and evaluations available, and because it is the onle big city in the world with such scheme, therefore, it is a global reference.--Mariordo (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mariordo Do you have an opinion about the scope of the article? I mean whether it should include things other than transport? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the article explains in its description section (supported by the corresponding reliable sources, mainly economic literature), congestion pricing could be applied in several public services, but in practice it is mainly use in transportation services, such as road pricing (most common application) and other transportation modes (such as the scheme in the Panama Canal). In other sectors similar concepts has been applied, but slightly modified because of the different nature of the service (for example, electricity requires distribution, transport does not. Final users of water and energy services pay a monthly fee according to use, road users don't pay out-of-pocket fees for use of the road network, except some toll roadas), and are called by different names, such as variable pricing, water pricing, and electricity pricing.--Mariordo (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you the scope should be wide as explained in the lede. But the body does not have enough on non-transport e.g. electricity has moved on since the article was first written Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariordo Thanks for your improvements so far - are you (or anyone else of course such as Snooganssnoogans Sdkb) intending to improve this article further in the next few days? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • On scope, I think that we ought to restrain it to "congestion pricing" in transport, i.e. traffic congestion pricing. This is for several reasons:
    • It allows us to proceed without having to cut or add much to this article, increasing the likelihood we can save it.
    • The broader concept of congestion pricing is already covered in dynamic pricing and variable pricing.
    • The non-transport uses of congestion pricing are often called different things and have different qualities, so it makes sense to discuss them separately.
    • Articles with too big a scope tend to become unwieldy.
I've added a hatnote attempting to clarify this. I hope that helps with scope, but the very fact we're having to discuss it here rather than it being something the original author made clear is a failing of the article (the 2008 version included transportation network in the first sentence definition but then included public utility in the next sentence), and is something that could portend other quality issues. I haven't looked into those, so I can't comment on that yet. I will note, though, that this topic has changed a ton since 2008, so if it hasn't been actively updated, it's likely no longer up to standard. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is delist. But note that this is a community assessment so an uninvolved editor will eventually need to close the discussion. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, unsourced portions here and there (2), most of the article seems a list rather than general coverage of the topic (3b), and has a separate large WP:CRITICISM section (4). Other concerns mentioned above also seem plausible, although I have no preference as to what exactly the final scope might be at the moment. CMD (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef

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. With one supporter (the nominator) and one opposer, this reassessment went nowhere, and should really be regarded as no consensus (defaulting to keep). I will note that while being a couple years outdated would perhaps be adequate to demote an FA, it is not a serious enough problem to remove a GA. This could become grounds for demotion in a couple more years if it remains unfixed, however. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping someone will update the article as I think it is no longer good because it is out of date. But I don't know the subject. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood Thanks for your comments about Sea surface temperature. I know this is a long way from your sea but have you time to also comment in this community reassessment? No Australians have commented yet so I wonder if I have messed up something technical with where I put this. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no one has come here from the Australia and Queensland projects. If no one else comments I will very soon delist as out of date so no longer addresses the main aspects of the topic. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 What information is missing that is sufficiently important to justify a delist? Why would you expect Australians to be aware of this reassessment? Please try to fix before threatening to delist good articles. It is fair enough to delist if there are multiple issues that you cannot fix, but this is Wikipedia and we all should try to fix what we think is broken, particularly since you appear to have specific references which you consider should be used. If you are not confident in your subject knowledge, propose the changes you think should be made on the talk page, If no-one responds to that after a week or so, leave a message on the talk pages of the associated projects, If you still get no response, fix the problem as you see best, and explain in an edit summary, referring to the talk page proposal. If you don't know what should be changed, you probably shouldn't be delisting. Also, this is a GA, the criteria for completeness and up-to-dateness are less stringent that for FA. Ideally, you would fix what you think needs fixing, and then take the article through GAN to make sure you have done a good job. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to fix this article. However my comment above is wrong because this is a community reassessment so I cannot delist myself unlike an individual reassessment. I notified Wikiproject Australia some time ago. If you (or anyone else who would like to comment) would like to say whether you think it is still good or not then I would be interested to hear. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is delist because the lead is relying a lot on a 2014 report and a 2016 article, whereas a lot more recent info is available. And nowadays there should be more info added about the recent politics e.g. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/great-barrier-reef-election-battle-brews-amid-fears-of-more-coral-bleaching-20220107-p59mmj.html Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2022 (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.

SpaceX Starship

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 first thing I noticed when beginning this closure is that the article is still very unstable: there have been more than fifty edits in the past five days, some of them very substantial. This is problematic because it is impossible for editors to perform accurate assessments of an article's content when that content keeps changing. Some problems with sources remain unaddressed (e.g., the article continues to state that SpaceX acquired Valaris's rigs in January despite the source saying August) while others have been recently introduced (e.g., this edit today replaced three sources with one other source, leaving most of that paragraph's content unsupported, while this edit yesterday introduced outdated plans without clearly identifying them as such). Other concerns also remain unaddressed; for example, CactiStaccingCrane has yet to justify his or her opposition to the inclusion of critical opinion editorials, and despite his or her promise two months ago to stop POV railroading, there seems to be even less criticism of this project now than when this GAR began. (I can only find one sentence now, down from four.) In light of these and other problems, I am delisting this article. Furthermore, while I believe that some of the problems introduced by CactiStaccingCrane can be explained as good faith errors (it seems obvious to me from this discussion that he or she is not a native English speaker), it is clear, both from the evidence and by his or her own admission, that the overall trend of his or her editing is tendentious; I would remind CactiStaccingCrane that tendentious editing is considered disruptive and could lead to being blocked if it continues. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has changed significantly since it became a GA, with content being culled/added, and I have a few concerns with this. My main being NPOV issues, with the repeated removal/moving/renaming of the criticism section and other general criticism in this article. Because of this, I believe the article now fails GA criterion #4, "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each". Below, I have listed the multiple modifications/removals of the critism section, almost entirely by CactiStaccingCrane:

At this point, the article currently has minimal sections documenting criticism of the project, with a small section half way down the article called "Environmental impact", of which half is dedicated to criticism. Other than this I cannot see any major concerns in the article. Because of this clear NPOV issue, I believe this article should be delisted from GA status.

  • A dedicated criticism/controversy section is, more often than not, not the right way to present criticism of a topic. Personally, I would support discussing the criticism in the sections where it's relevant, for example, moving the content to environmental impact and safety sections. (t · c) buidhe 15:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a section named specifically "Criticism" is unnecessary. However, this article in its current state has about 4 sentences discussing negative reception of this plan (which is obvious there is). — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that CactiStaccingCrane's editing behaviour is intended to minimise the mention of criticism or controversies (given their expressed admiration for Musk and the project). Given they have indicated they wish to take this to FAC, comprehensive coverage of criticism and controversy related to the project will be required in this article IOT to meet FA criteria 1b. and 1d. Some editors consider that a separate section for such material isn't necessary or even desirable, however, often the controversies or criticism isn't obviously associated with any one aspect of the subject, and in those cases, grouping such material together can make sense. Either way, the material needs to be in the article both at GA (to continue to meet criteria 3a. (addresses main aspects of the topic) and 4. (NPOV) and FA. There is also a serious question mark over whether it meets criteria 5. (stable) if there is such to-ing and fro-ing about the inclusion of this material. Unless the attempts to minimise criticism and controversies ceases immediately, I would be recommending delisting. I strongly recommend discussion of how to incorporate this material is conducted on the talk page asap. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Berrely, Peacemaker67: About the criticisms that Stonkaments and I have, they are more about Starship development and Starbase. It has been copied to another section at SpaceX Starbase, and I'm trying to find criticisms about Starship itself. I found adding a dedicated section for criticism is not a great idea (evident by Musk's controversialness). I really want to get someone else to write the criticisms instead, as they would be a lot more neutral than I am. I'll disengage from the article now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to gather criticisms and other POV to the article, with little success. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#SpaceX_Starship_NPOV_request. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping QRep2020 and Stonkaments for discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe criticism of Starbase should be kept in the Starship article instead of being moved to the Starbase article in its entirety. I've found some articles online on criticism of Starship as well:
Can these be incorporated somehow? I can work on these later. Nigos (talk | contribs) 01:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was also some discussion of this here. Leijurv (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the many recent revisions, I believe that the tone of this article is not that of standard Wikipedia tone. Because of this, I believe it fails Criteria 1b, where an article must "[comply] with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." I've attached a list of a few places I believe are tonally inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia:

Provided are only a few examples of casual tone on the page. To put it bluntly (I don't mean to put anyone down here), a large potion of this article reads as if it was written by a child. I think a major rewrite is required in order to remove the extensive tone inconsistencies.

I tried to simplify the language here because this is a spaceflight article, which uses a lot of jargon and things. If tone is what you wanted, I do think more collaboration between editors is necessary and clean up the weeds. It's pretty difficult to be NPOV on something recent, especially when reliable sources is very polarized on what Starship is. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Berrely, I have a question though. Why do you do a GAR instead of suggesting on the article's peer review? I do feel this is pretty stressful to handle both of these at once. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:PG, avoid dumbed-down language. Otherwise, the article may be more appropriate for Simple Wikipedia. Theknightwho (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the article is too technical... I will fix this after all NPOV issues are fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that you shouldn't use jargon unnecessarily, but don't shy away from it when it's the most accurate way to describe a certain concept. Theknightwho (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, I have done Wikipedia:POV railroad to Stonkaments and QRep. Utmost apology to them, and I will not do that in the future. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. As I've said before, there is departure between the cited sources and the actual text, and while it has improved, I don't think it's sufficient. For example, I scrolled randomly and picked this string of sentences:
  • In January 2020 SpaceX purchased two drilling rigs from Valaris plc for $3.5 million each during their bankruptcy proceedings, planning to repurpose them as offshore spaceports cited to this, which says August.
  • Next sentence, After the Mark series, SpaceX named subsequent prototypes with the prefix "SN"., has a footnote saying it's obvious; whether or not that's the case, I don't know, but also I have no clue what "Mark series" means.
  • Next sentence, No prototypes between SN1 and SN4 flew: SN1 along with SN3 collapsed during proof pressure test and SN4 exploded after its fifth engine firing., cited to this, which doesn't support anything about SN2, despite it apparently existing. (I say apparently because I have no familiarity with Starship.)
  • Next two sentences, During the interval, the company accelerated the construction of manufacturing and support infrastructure at Starbase, including large tents, stations, and repurposed intermodal containers. When linked together, these facilities act as a production line, making Starship construction quicker., cited to this. First sentence OK (though I don't know what an intermodal container is; that description is just lifted from the ArsTechnica piece, and I don't understand what a "tent" means without reading ArsTechnica). Second sentence is concerning, because as far as I'm reading the source, all of the information is aspirational - it's what Musk wants to achieve, but it's not necessarily saying that construction actually is quicker, or that being linked together makes construction quicker; both of those conclusions are problematic. But even if all of that is true, I'm not sure we should even be using Berger for that information (or stating it as incontrovertible fact); he seems to have some kind of interest in how we perceive SpaceX, given that he has "unparalleled journalistic access to the company’s inner workings".
Stability I've already made clear elsewhere is concerning to me. None of this is an attack on any maintainers of the article. I have zero interest in the subject of the article, and zero interest either way in how this GAR concludes. These are just some observations I have; sometimes the work is too big for us, and we lose sight. I think GA status should be something challenging to achieve; otherwise, why try? Urve (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the similarity between files like File:Side Starship sketch.svg and probably copyrighted designs should be looked at. However I have no familiarity with the copyrightability of product designs and leave this for someone else. Urve (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to have more criticisms. Is the article due now, or need more improvement? It is worth noting that finding source that is negative about Starship is very difficult. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just rewrote the article's lead again, should the lead language be more neutral? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starship is a fully-reusable rocket made out of stainless steel, developing by SpaceX. Both of its stages – Super Heavy booster and Starship spacecraft – contains liquid oxygen and liquid methane. Starship would launch upright, with the booster's thirty-three Raptor engines operating in parallel. Super Heavy separates and the spacecraft fires three of its Raptor Vacuum engines, inserting itself to orbit. The booster then control its descent via grid fins and positions to the launch tower's arms. At the mission end, the Starship spacecraft enters the atmosphere, protected by a series of hexagon heat shield tiles. The spacecraft glides using its flaps, flips up, and fires three of its Raptor engine to land upright.

Starship's main features are high capability and low operating cost. The rocket will launch at Starbase, Kennedy Space Center, and two offshore launch platforms. The spacecraft tanker variant can refuel spacecraft in space, increasing its 100 t (220,000 lb) transport range to the Moon and Mars. Other spacecraft variants can deploy satellites, serve space tourists, and explore the Moon. Starship's low cost might make SpaceX Mars ambition and make rocket travel on Earth possible.

The rocket is first outlined by SpaceX as early as 2005, with frequent designs and names changes later on. In July 2019, Starhopper, a prototype vehicle with extended fins, performed a 150 m (490 ft) low altitude test flight. In May 2021, Starship SN15 flew to 10 km (6 mi) and landed, after four failed attempts by previous prototypes. As of January 2022, the BN4 booster and SN20 spacecraft may launch near early 2022. Starship iterative and incremental development has unrealistic goals, harmed environment, and displaced residents.

There also used to be a Finance section that no longer exists in the current article. X-Editor (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the finance and criticism sections, but there are some citation errors that need fixing. X-Editor (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, seems like no one is interested to place the article back to standard, including me. I will renominate the article instead, keeping this GAR is a waste of time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate my opinion here. The closurer was not able to defend their rationale, so this review is still kept open. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close GAR?

edit

@Berrely: I think that I have addressed your NPOV concerns, as there are now many paragraphs which details about Starship criticisms. Is it appropriate to close the GAR now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it was entered as a community reassessment. The instructions for community reassessment say: "After discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion". There are still outstanding concerns above about sourcing and, probably, the images. Urve (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being inactive here for a bit. The images are definitely copyright violations. Autotracing a copyrighted design in Inkscape and adding arrows does not give it a new copyright (especially if you claim own work). Also, as pointed out above by Urve, I wouldn't withdraw the nomination after the concerns have been addressed, an uninvolved editor will close it. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 07:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per your copyright concerns, I removed them and nominate for deletion. I will try to spot check the articles, but it's gonna take some time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane I think we need some guidelines on the article talk page for people editing so they know exactly what should be kept and to make sure all images are CC. Similar to the invisible notes in the article, but a list of notes on the talk page. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a spot check and fix references. May someone else spot-check again? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, about NPOV, I found very little source that is directly criticizing Starship, and a lot of them are op-eds. I don't think that NPOV is actionable here, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the GAR of SpaceX Starship is now becoming zombie-like, when I ask for comments multiple times and no one is responding. I also don't feel that the article is that bad that it needs a GAR, as a notice on the article talk page would do for me. So, I would close the assessment, but I am more than happy to reopen the reassessment if anyone wants to chip in, pinging @Berrely:, @Urve:, @Peacemaker67:. I won't add {{GAN/result}} for now, as an uninvolved editor would decide. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What questions have you asked me "multiple times" without a response? I still don't see why Berger is a good source. Random things: What makes the Mabboux master's thesis reliable? How is an op-ed unreliable for statements of opinions, but Trevor Sesnic's interview with Elon Musk is reliable for statements of fact (such as At the bottom of Starship are six Raptor engines, with three operate in the atmosphere and the other three Raptor Vacuum may operate in space)? What makes this reliable for statements of fact? Is Elon Musk the same as SpaceX, such as when it's said that SpaceX has stated its goal is to colonize Mars for the long-term survival of the human species cited to this, which is just repeating what Musk says? And if that is the case, why is it not mentioned that Musk himself told nonprofit XPrize in April that some astronauts will “probably die” en route to Mars - an important detail about the sustainability and safety of the project? Etc. Urve (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Also, my questions above don't seem to be resolved? Urve (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning these, and I will fix it right now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Urve (talk · contribs) It takes me a while to answer these questions. Here you go:
  • Berger does has a board, and while I am not sure he has a conflict of interest (i.e. he has stake on SpaceX), I don't think that other sources are that reliable while giving in-depth information either.
  • Per WP:V and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science), Mabboux thesis is unreliable and will be replaced soon.
  • Tim Dodd's interview (summarized by his editorial member Trevor Sesnic) do contain information that comes from the primary source, and the review is verifiable by his 2-hour video series. I don't cite the video itself, partly due to inaccessibility and unable to verify crucial information. This is the case that I think the primary source is better than secondary source.
  • [10]: This is a proposal for monitoring Starship's re-entry, and the claim "Starship is designed to be a fully-reusable orbital rocket, with the aim of reducing launch cost drastically" is best verify here. I can add other citations if you would like, but I afraid that they would be of lower quality than this material.
  • Elon Musk is the spokeperson of SpaceX, but I will try to find information target to the company itself. It is pretty funny that there is not a lot of info that mention SpaceX as a whole, but a ton targeting to Musk. Irony...
  • Yes, the sketchiness of SpaceX's Mars plan must be added, which I have spent the second paragraph on this section for, albeit with more focus at tangental projects.
  • I do understand your concerns about the sourcing, but it starts to get harder and harder to find more reliable information about the topic at this stage of article development. I would wait till after the next Starship presentation 2 days later as there would be more reliable source to reference at. Thank you for addressing these concerns, and sorry for being a bit aggressive earlier. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane. Replies:
    • The January vs. August issue I highlighted earlier has not been dealt with. Some of the argot and implication issues I discussed before (like what intermodality and tents means, and whether they actually hasten production) are not resolved.
    • I note your thoughtful explanation of Berger's inclusion, but I do not find it persuasive.
    • Regarding this, I'm asking how it's reliable for factual statements because I have no clue what it is. By that, I mean: Is this some kind of undergrad research proposal, a conference presentation, some kind of press statement at an event, a NASA proposal? You don't need to answer; you know better than me, but that was my central issue. But looking at it now, I have quibbles: Starship's heat shield is designed to be used multiple times with no maintenance between flights - the source is talking about a thermal protection system doing that; I have no idea whether this is exactly the same as a "heat shield", or whether it includes other elements within and without the spacecraft (like perhaps whatever "reinforced carbon carbon" is), so I can't comment on whether that's accurate. each mounted and spaced to counteract expansion due to heat - I don't see that in the poster.
    • I note your other explanations and express no opinion.
    • I reiterate my confusion as to how primary sources, like interviews, are acceptable, but op-eds are not.
    Again, no ill will, and I don't want to tank your hard work -- I have no interest in this matter. Probably better for me to disengage from here. Urve (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2022 (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.

Sea surface temperature

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. Vague concerns that the article may be outdated are not sufficient to delist. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources show warnings for being preprints or general repositories. Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) is not mentioned. So I wonder if the article is out of date? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chidgk1, GA review was in 2011. There have been about 190 edits since then, so article has not been entirely neglected, but it could indeed be out of date. More concrete problem specifications would be needed to delist. Feel free to be specific about the suspected shortcomings, and also feel free to fix any easily fixable specific problems you may find. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't know the subject so cannot be specific about which of the 12 cites with warnings (they show yellow with User:Headbomb/unreliable.js) are actually not good enough - some or all may be OK. That is why I raised this for community reassessment rather than just deciding for myself with an individual reassessment. I don't want to spend time updating as incorporating info from the SROCC (for example https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/technical-summary/) would be a lot of work I suspect. But I am sure info from the SROCC should be added just due to the reputation of the IPCC. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood I have asked at the oceans project for more comments. I see you have taken a close look and made some changes - what do you think now - is the article still good? If not is anyone willing to fix it? (by the way there is a harv error on cite 3 - I don't like that harvard style cite myself - maybe we don't need that cite?) Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, The harvbn ref was fairly easy to fix with a google search and a bit of formatting, which is always better than simply discarding a reference because the format is poor or it is incomplete. I consider that reference to be adequately reliable for its purpose. I am not familiar with Headbombs script, but its documentation page warns users to examine the references personally and use their discretion, as they may or may not be acceptable depending on the details of the publication and what content they are used to support. Have you made any such checks? I do not have sufficient information to make a judgement call here.
What information from the SROCC do you think should be added? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I say I don't know the subject well enough to be able to make such a judgement about the cites. In https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/04_SROCC_TS_FINAL.pdf there are 10 occurrences of "sea surface temperature" so I am pretty sure something should be added. But I don't want to spend time on it myself. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the GA criteria would you fail it on? A cursory examination suggests that it could be expanded and updated, with some more detail to clarify a few points, which by itself is desirable but not obligatory, as there is no indication of how much is missing or how important it is, and you have raised the issue of verifiability, but not made any claims about specific sources or the content they are intended to support. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a community reassessment not an individual one so it is not my sole decision. Unless others advised that they were bad I would NOT vote for failing it on the cites as they are shown yellow (warning that human judgement required) by the tool not red (unreliable source). However I would consider voting to fail it on "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" but I would need to take a closer look at the SROCC and might well be persuaded by more expert arguments from people such as yourself. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Some of the sources show warnings for being preprints or general repositories." This is simply a reminder to make sure you're not citing crap. Here it highlights stuff with links to Google books. Google Books will have things from reputable publishers like Springer Science+Business Media, but also things like Alphascript and Lulu.com. If the books have reputable publishers (which they all seem to have), there's no real problem. See the 'General repository' and 'Google Books' examples in User:Headbomb/unreliable#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases for more information. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave this community reassessment open in the hope that other people will comment. Also I see from the instructions that "Any uninvolved editor may close the discussion". Chidgk1 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is delist as out of date. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no evidence that it is out of date to an extent that would justify delisting. Opinion not supported by evidence or logical argument carries no weight in Wikipedia discussions. As I consider myself marginally involved I will refrain from closing. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support delisting - the article currently does not have sufficient information and recent data regarding the impacts of climate change on sea surface temperature (including linking it well with other related articles on this topic). This needs to be worked in at the very least before the article can be regarded as being a WP:GA.EMsmile (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2022 (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.

Central African Republic women's national football team

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: outcome (t · c) buidhe 20:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am opening a community GAR due to it being poorly written, with questionable refs and most sections being empty. Note its similarity to a previous article on the Burundi Woman's Football Team recently delisted as GA. See the table below:

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Indisputably poor prose with most sections being empty.
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Most sections are empty with no info provided, as several tables, lead contains info not mentioned elsewhere, e.g., " It played its first international matches in 2018 in the Cup of Nations qualifiers."
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Most of the refs (2-6) seems to be generally about all African teams, and not specifically this team, so I am tentative on this entire paragraph.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Ref 12 and 14 does not seem reliable, with no editorial standards and an extremely dated interface.
  2c. it contains no original research. Some lead info as per above not found elsewhere nor verified by any refs.
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Does not have copyvios.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Most sections seem entirely empty, and the article does not address all of those.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Verbious info on 2002 performances, but almost none for post-2010 ones.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Mostly adhere to NPOV.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Highly stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Adheres well.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Captions extremely short but tolerable.
  7. Overall assessment.

As a result, based on my speedy check it seems that this article fails at least three, and IMO it should not be a GA and is a C or start class. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist I came to the same conclusions some time back when I viewed this article after it was mentioned at the Burundi GAR. Unfortunately, it also seems like the source material to truly make this a GA doesn't even exist. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lady in the Lake trial

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delist. There is consensus the article lacks in referencing, specifically text-source integrity and original research. There are further concerns with neutrality Femke (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Active cleanup banners (original research, citation needed issues) on the article, also see Luxtaythe2nd comment on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the existing cleanup banners and {{cn}} tags, I notice the article claims that many unusual knots were used to tie the body, and the same knots were said to be used in Gordon Park's house and boat. This was one of the key pieces of evidence used against Gordon in the trial. This is cited to this article, which doesn't describe the knots as unusual and doesn't say that they were a "key" piece of evidence.
More generally, I think there are significant concerns about neutrality; the controversy section seems to be just a long essay about how Park dint do nuffin, guv. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fried chicken

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: kept: the sourcing issues have been addressed. Determining the WP:Primary topic is outside of the scope of GAR. Femke (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this article fails "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." immediately. fried chicken, such a generic dish, exists in many variations in different countries. to draw an analogy, it would be unthinkable if fried rice should only refer to some America's (or any country's) variation.--RZuo (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

agree Tai123.123 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Two 'citation needed', one 'better source needed', several paragraphs are unreferenced. 'Racial stereotype' section is just a list of controversial reports from the news. Artem.G (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article clearly states that it is about the American dish in the hatnote so the original complaint is not an issue. Agree with Artems points above, but they are hopefully corrected now. Aircorn (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inanna

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept This has been open long enough and the original issue has long been dealt with Aircorn (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with neutrality (criteria 4). User:Skyerise has been acting like she WP:OWNs the page, bullying and threatening other users into letting her views stand. See Talk:Inanna#Removal of dubious Greek equivalence and User talk:HaniwaEnthusiast#Astarte. In the latter user talk page link Skyerise asserts that her personal religious beliefs should be considered on equal footing with reliable sources, which might indicate an original research (criteria 2) problem as well. -Apocheir (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from StainedGlassSnake

edit
  • I think this is a very reasonable concern, and it does indeed seem to violate criteria 2 and 4. I'm particularly concerned by the discussion on User:HaniwaEnthusiast's talkpage including the tone and content of Skyerise's messages, and their use of an edit warring notice as part of an edit conflict that they were part of themselves. It does not seem to me that the purpose of the three-revert rule is to ensure that anyone's alterations to an article can stand as long as they have the endurance to keep posting it repeatedly and only one person is opposing them, though the edit conflict should never have happened in the first place. The issues raised regarding the source for the mention of Persephone in an article on Inanna from the article's talk page were never addressed, and lines such as "And try to keep it conversational, I'm not interested in your page long lectures. Don't you know how to talk to people?" are certainly inappropriate under WP:RUDE when an in-depth discussion of the point at hand is being provided. StainedGlassSnake (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem is User:HaniwaEnthusiast's "in-depth" discussion is not completely honest. He dismisses a source first by claiming the author had no qualifications: turned out the author was Alumni Distinguished Professor emeritus of History at North Carolina State University. Then HW hints and something about that author having right-wing views and that that makes the source unsuitable. A Google search found no such common knowledge about the author nor any related news items. IMO, HW's complaints are nothing but academic rivalry between himself and the author of the cited source. As for "rude" - HW also started that by referring to my personal beliefs, which I hadn't shared, as "dubious spiritual beliefs." That's an intentional personal attack levied after my information about the author of the cited work didn't kowtow to his desire to discredit the source. I told him quite clearly that unless he retracted that personal attack, I had no reason to humor his long messages which now could not relied on to be entirely accurate. I don't think it's reasonable to ask another editor to read that potentially unreliable pedantry and sort out the true from the false. But y'all are welcome to do that. Oh, any my prounouns are she/her. Skyerise (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The author in mention indeed lacks qualifications, and on top of that endorses heinous conspiracy theories such as Gunnar Heisohn's "new chronology" ventures. He isn't quoted in any papers or books about Inanna or Mesopotamian religion as a whole written by actual experts in the field (ex. Andrew George, Joan G. Westenholz, Wilfred G. Lambert, Jeremy Black, Frans Wiggermann, Manfred Krebernik, Gábor Zólyomi, the list goes on - I'm sure that as a self-proclaimed expert Skyerise is familiar with these authors) and his theories stand in opposition to the most basic assumptions (he basically describes Inanna as a child-snatching boogeyman!). Putting that aside: this article never really deserved the star. The sources prior to my attempt at fixing it were to a large degree outdated, fringe or irrelevant, and the overall quality of information presented was pretty low and hardly in-depth. The same can be said about many other Mesopotamian mythology articles on wikipedia, which seem to prioritize haphazard antiquated "interpretations" of myths and dubious Greek parallels, and worst of all until recently even List of Mesopotamian deities was basically arranged according to fringe theories of the Helsiniki school (Parpola and his students) which is an object of scorn from most authors. Also, I'm a woman.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • See, being a Alumni Distinguished Professor emeritus of History is what we call a qualification. But do feel free to add a rebuttal from any of the authors you mention. If Riddle is so wrong, surely someone besides yourself has actually said so, right? Skyerise (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here are a few summaries of mr. Riddle's work for your enjoyment: "Riddle sometimes departs from careful analysis and forces his thesis on the data" (Michael Walton in The Sixteenth Century Journal), "Riddle accumulates materials which do not always say what he claims," "there are many errors" (to specify - he gets basic mythology information wrong, ex. calling ARTEMIS a goddess of love; all of this courtesy of Helen King, in this review); yet another critical review can be found here. Noticing a pattern yet? All of these come from credible journals in the field Riddle is purportedly an expert in, which it not history as a whole, but merely some aspects of history of medicine, also - not from random websites, astrology magazines or self-published esotericists. I think in the context of this discussion it's worth bringing up your other dubious sources, by the way. For instance, you seem to treat self-published extremely fringe Jungian pseudohistory site metahistory.org as some sort of authority, as seen in the article Simhamukha. I do not think you're the one who should be asking others to muster stronger evidence.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • There you go, insulting me again. Basically this is a disagreement between two editors. Plus there is the editor who added the information in the first place, as I did not add the statement that you object to. The most reasonable step, which I believe I've mentioned before, is to take it to the reliable sourcing noticeboard. As it stands, you don't seem to have support from other editors with respect to the unreliability of the source. In such a case, the content stays until there is a consensus about the reliability of the source. Since no other editors have stepped up to support you, then it's up to you to find that support before removing the material. I've got no vested interest here other than making sure you follow process and have a consensus for the removal. Skyerise (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the criteria

edit

Please do not use this forum to continue old disputes. All we care about is how it fails the WP:GACR. If there are concerns with editors behaviour then they need to go to another noticeboard. There is a serious risk of turning away editors well versed in the Good Article process if the above back and forth continues. Aircorn (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay. From what I can gather this seems to be a dispute over whether the lead should say This is similar to some aspects of Greek myths of the abduction of Persephone and whether John M. Riddle is a reliable source for making that statement. Is this correct? Aircorn (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is that user H.E. removes things based on her own opinions, and makes up the reasoning later. Cue complaints about the other two sources I added (one which was already being used in the article) in 1, 2, 3... Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not an issue that we deal with here. We have WP:BRD and if discussion goes nowhere WP:RFC for most complaints of this nature. Otherwise you can try your luck at WP:ANI if you think the issue is behavioral (but that is likely to be an unpleasant experience for everyone). What I am looking at is, at least superficially, a pretty decent article. Editors that think it fails the WP:GACR need to explain why. For example it fails WP:LEAD at the moment as the Persephone stuff is not mentioned in the body. This is an easy fix. It either gets expanded in the body, moved out of the body lead or deleted as being undue. @Apocheir: you opened this by saying it had issues with neutrality. Can you explain more on how this is not neutral as it is not obvious to me and the links you provided are editors sniping at each other. Aircorn (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. I don't think the article fails GA. Could it be improved? Sure. But I've seen no analysis of precisely how it supposedly fails WP:NPOV. Skyerise (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems the material preceding the Persephone detail, about the connection with the cycle of the seasons, is also only to be found in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then the same should happen to that material too. The lead is a summary of the body, so it should not introduce any new information. It appears to come down to WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, which is best discussed on the talk page. From what I can see you seem to be in the minority there. That's fine, edit here long enough and consensus will fall against you occasionally. If you feel strongly about it I suggest starting an WP:RFC as that can bring in outside voices. Another option is to propose a compromise. Maybe suggest moving it to the body and attribute it according to John M. Riddle .... If its just a sentence in the body the claims of UNDUE are weaker and if you take it out of wikivoice it mitigates the reliable source concerns. Either way none of this seems to rise to the level of demoting the whole article. Aircorn (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Riddle source is gone, replaced by two other sources. Doesn't need to be in the lead, that's just where the editor who added it put it. I haven't figured out how or where to integrate that content yet, or even how much needs to be moved. Skyerise (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned that this article lets one user's POV dominate. User:Katolophyromai and User:HaniwaEnthusiast have both stated that they think the similarities between Inanna and Persephone are overemphasized. Individual users may have other concerns that I haven't been able to tease out of their flame wars, as well. I am not an expert on this topic, I just happened to see the fighting over it and became interested. If everyone else comes to an agreement, I'll be happy to withdraw this reassessment. I encourage them to speak up. -Apocheir (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You do realize that I didn't add the material? This is not a POV I'm pushing into the article. This is material that's been here for a while, added by other editors over time and, given the number of sources for it, should certainly remain in the article despite whatever academic rivalries are leading to calls for its removal. Skyerise (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: I am the editor who originally rewrote this article and nominated it for GA back in January 2018 in the first place. The version of this article that passed GA contained no mention of Persephone in the lede; the only mention of comparisons of any kind to Persephone was near the bottom in the "Later influence" section and it was only one line, cited to the Assyriologist Samuel Noah Kramer. Also, the line was actually comparing Ereshkigal to Persephone, not Inanna, so it was probably not really relevant in this particular article anyway.
The line in the lede comparing Inanna to Persephone that is at the center of this contention was added by Titus III in a single edit on 12 August 2021 without any kind of citation. The line is not present in any version of the article before that date. HaniwaEnthusiast immediately reverted the edit and you immediately reverted her edit. You are, as far as I can tell, the only one currently arguing for the inclusion of this line in the lede.
I do think it might be worth mentioning somewhere that scholars have, rightly or wrongly, compared Inanna to Persephone. Walter Burkert, who is cited in support of the statement in the lede currently, was probably the foremost scholar of connections between ancient Near Eastern and Greek religions in the twentieth century, so, if he has indeed made this comparison, it is certainly noteworthy. It does not, however, belong in the lede. —Katolophyromai (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never argued that it belongs in the lede. By all mean, move it. Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at pg 109 of Burkert's Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, it seems to be making quite a different claim from the sentence in the article. He compares the Adonis myth with Inanna's Descent; the abduction of Persephone (as in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter) does not feature. He actually describes the relationship between the Hellenistic and Roman Adonis myth and the myth of Dumuzid as seeming to be of 'different worlds'. He then goes on to note, however, that in the Christian period, beginning with the Apology of Aristides (an anti-pagan tract), Christian authors began to add the element of Aphrodite going down to the underworld to seek Adonis and of Adonis returning to the living world for part of the year. His hypothesis is that the 'Sumerian-Semitic' myth was added as an appendix to the Greek narrative in the late period. All that to say I don't think it supports the claim made on the page, though it could be used to support Greek authors identifying Ereshkigal with Persephone, Tammuz with Adonis, and Ishtar with Aphrodite in the 2nd century CE onwards. StainedGlassSnake (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair one persons views dominate most articles, but I agree that Skyerise needs to follow consensus. You are unlikely to find experts here either though and I am usually happy to defer that knowledge to the editors that have done the work getting it to GA status (in this case Katolophyroma). It seems to be overkill to suggest delisting a pretty decent article based on one disputed sentence. Aircorn (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that the fighting was out of proportion to the issues with the article. (Which is a common state of affairs...) -Apocheir (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing?

edit

It's now been months since there was any discussion on this reassessment, the content about Persephone appears to no longer be in the lead, and the dispute about this point appears to have died down. A quick glance over the article suggests that it is in pretty good shape. Can this now be closed as keep GA, or are there any remaining concerns? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it is well past time to close it. Aircorn (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist: While work has been done to improve the tone of the article, overquoting remains. Femke (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not neutral; it frequently editorializing about Pedro II's character and describes him in exclusively positive terms. It describes him as "a monarch who grew tired of his crown" and says he was "beloved by the Brazilian people"; he was "a man grown world-weary with age", and so on. The section titles are hardly encyclopedic: "A tired emperor" and "The monarchy's fate: heirless" are overly dramatic. Also, there is no basis for including the claim "through action and inaction, consciously and unconsciously, he had been sabotaging both the monarchy and the prospects of his daughter's future reign for nearly a decade." Overall, it focuses on Pedro II's psychology as much as the actual rebellion, and it venerates him to an almost propagandistic degree.

@SaturnFogg: Have you notified major contributors, such as User:Lecen, and any related WikiProjects? I will look at the article soon and try to save it or support its reassessment. FredModulars (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first issue that jumps out at me is the overuse of extended quotes to express basic facts that could just be written in wikivoice. For example:
    • It "had an economy that was rapidly developing in 1880s".
    • To give an idea of the economic potential of the country during the Empire, if "it had been able to sustain the level of productivity achieved in 1780 and managed to increase exports at a pace equal to that verified in the second half of 19th century, its per capita income in 1850 would be comparable to the average per capita income of the Western European nations"
    • The "countryside echoed with the clang of iron track being laid as railroads were constructed at the most furious pace of the nineteenth century; indeed, building in the 1880s was the second greatest in absolute terms in Brazil's entire history. Only eight countries in the entire world laid more track in the decade than Brazil."
And that's just from the first two paragraphs of the body. The whole article is written like this. There is no reason these long quotations couldn't be replaced by paraphrase (see MOS:QUOTE). This has the effect of making the prose difficult to read (GACR#1a). In cases where direct quotes are used, they should generally have in-text attribution (they currently don't). I would be inclined to delist for this reason. Colin M (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Colin M above. Not only does it fail the prose requirements the over quoting is borderline 2d (copyright) as well. A bit of a shame as it is a relatively easy fix if someone is interested in saving the article. Aircorn (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FredModulars

edit

I have reworded the two section titles you have described as dramatic. I removed "a monarch who grew tired of his crown" since it seems inappropriate for the infobox, but there are no issues with the statements "beloved by the Brazilian people" and "a man grown world-weary with age." ("Beginning in late 1880, letters from Pedro II to the Countess of Barral reveal a man grown world-weary with age and having an increasingly alienated and pessimistic outlook."). Put into context, this statement doesn't seem out-of-the-ordinary or exclusively positive. And why would the statement "beloved by the Brazilian people" be a problem if it is reliably sourced?

It also seems that the article regards him in a positive light because that is how historians and sources have evaluated him as — a great monarch. "Through action and inaction, consciously and unconsciously, he had been sabotaging both the monarchy and the prospects of his daughter's future reign for nearly a decade," is a statement immediately supported by a historian's remark and fits what the article is trying to convey. This also brings me to your claim that he is regarded in "exclusively positive terms"; the article seems to put blame on Pedro II for the fall of the monarchy. It is even quoted in a source in the article: "The 'Emperor's indifference towards the fate of the regime was also one of the main factors in the fall of the Monarchy.'" This would have been excluded had this article been created to a "propagandistic degree," along with all the other mentions of Pedro's lackluster attempts at saving and contributing to the downfall of the monarchy.

Finally, you say "it focuses on Pedro II's psychology as much as the actual rebellion." Of course, it does! I clicked here wanting to read about Pedro II's decline, not the Empire of Brazil's sudden disestablishment. The article places equal emphasis on Pedro's psychology, personal thoughts, and life as it does to the factors which contributed to the military coup. If anything, it places more emphasis on the latter at some points. If I wanted to read on the "actual rebellion," I would look up the Proclamation of the Republic. I clicked here in search of Pedro's decline and Pedro's life in this time period, and the article explains both well. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this reassessment and will notify WikiProjects and any significant contributor(s) for them to weigh in. FredModulars (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WIN Television

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted -- Problems with focus and sourcing remain largely unaddressed. Femke (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WIN Television was listed at GA in 2007 and survived a GA sweep in 2009. It has been more than a decade. While there is a good amount of what probably are good offline newspaper citations, the page is unfocused and does not do enough to explain the scope of WIN's operation. It is not a GA in its current condition; only now was a {{cn}} removed from the lead paragraph!

  • If I were not already familiar with how regional television in Australia worked, this article might confuse me. This article sorely needs a table that lists all of WIN's regional services and their network alignment.
  • Material that is heavily about WIN's early years in Wollongong should be at WIN (TV station) with a {{main}} on the section here.
  • The programming section should focus on local/regional productions by WIN and not on what is produced by the metropolitan stations they carry in different areas.

The article sorely needs repair from editors with more knowledge of Australian television. If this is not obtained, it should not stand as a GA. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist clearly way short of current GA requirements. It's been almost 3 months and none of Sammi Brie's suggestions to improve this look like they're being implemented. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302 I did add some of the first table and made some changes, but this needs someone with a bit more knowledge on where to get Aussie TV sourcing, especially historical regional Australian newspapers (a Wollongong publication is sorely needed). Trove has the Canberra Times 1926–1995, so there is some coverage post-aggregation of WIN Canberra, but... That's potatoes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No sourcing for 2021–present: Return to Nine affiliation and some of the other sections suffer from single sentence paragraphs. Aircorn (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted -- Clear consensus the article is far from meeting the GA criteria. Femke (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

43 citation needed tags by my count. Needs a lot of improvement to sourcing to stay a good article. (t · c) buidhe 13:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man (2002 film)

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep. All concerns have been addressed. Femke (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a citation needed template in the visual effects section, the music section is quite empty and per WP:IMDb it is not a reliable source. Sahaib (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahaib: I have removed the information regarding the Citation needed template, and have added a bit of Spider-Man: Original Motion Picture Score's lede to the Music section. I'm not sure what you mean by WP:IMDb though. — SirDot (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SirDot:, IMDb is cited in the Accolades section. Sahaib (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sahaib: Thanks. I've removed the ref. — SirDot (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Cod

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. The case for delisting rested mainly on the extensive use of quotes and the light tone of the article. There was a rough consensus that some (quoted) humor is acceptable for a topic like this. Opinions were divided on the overall writing style used, but only a minority of participants believed the style was below GA standards. Two examples of sourcing issues were given. While these issues have not been resolved, they did not sway the discussion towards delisting. Finally, I discarded the argument of dead links, as the GA criteria explicitly allow those (WP:GA?) and note that WP:SANDWICH is not part of the GA criteria either. Femke (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be re-evaluated for Good Article status. Despite a long history of edits, it does not meet GA Criteria: 1a, 1b, 4, and 6b. 1a: there are too many in-line quotes, block quotes, image quotes, external media, and other collections of non-prose items, distracting from the main focus of an article - encyclopedic text. 1b: the Manual of Style is not followed with image sizes, sandwiching media, editorializing, weasel words, and other elements. 4: there is strong editorial bias in the text and quotes given. It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper. 6b: there are several poor, repetitive, or barely relevant images illustrating the article. The article also suffers from innumerous dead links and run-on sentences. A full source check may be necessary to see if it complies with GA criteria, e.g. sourcing Lovecraft's opinion directly to one of his works of fiction is a nonstarter. ɱ (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've suggested before that you look up the term run-on sentence so you won't keep embarrassing yourself by showing you don't know what it means.
  • There is no reference to Lovecraft's "opinion", rather the article simply states that amusing is the term Lovecraft employed, which is true. That he put it in the mouth of his narrator is irrelevant.
  • What's an "image quote"?
  • What "image size" problems are you talking about?
  • You say there are "innumerous" dead links. I checked all the cites and found one dead link. Are you unable to count to 1?
EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No answer. Huh. EEng 02:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What puns in the lead? So many? One, maybe, 'Cod-napping', and that is discussed and well sourced later in the text. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because William F. Galvin refers to it under the pun "codnapping" on a single subpage of his gov't website (actually a digitized version of his weasel-word-filled tourist-oriented guide to the building) does not warrant us to use it throughout an encyclopedia that aims to be neutral and serious. The fact that this article attributes it to "State House officials" is misleading. ɱ (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth seems official enough. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote that solely for a tourist guide. If I were to quote everything from official tour guides of the tours I've been on, Wikipedia would be a hot mess. ɱ (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if everybody went to the same restaurant on the same evening and ordered blintzes, there'd be chaos, but they don't [12]. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: I can't make sense of the "it's fine" comments that don't address the points raised in the GAR nomination and don't make any case for why this article is "fine" despite the obvious violations of the MOS and the GA criteria. The caption on the Infobox image seems to be an original creation and quite inappropriate. The second sentence on the "Sacred Cod nickname" sentence makes the claim "[w]ithin a few years authors, journalists, and advertisers‍—‌even those far from New England‍—‌were using the term routinely", but this is only cited to primary sources from the era; that seems to be at least skirting WP:SNYTH if not an outright violation. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 17:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree with the most specific claims at the top; I'm fine with the "in-line quotes, block quotes, image quotes" also the images. I don't see any "weasel words" (WP's most miscited policy). User:Ɱ obviously has a beef with the article, but I don't share it. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you are fine with it does not make it in-line with Wikipedia guidelines and norms, nor does this April-fools joke fit in-line with the GA status, which represents some of the very best work Wikipedia has to offer. Perhaps reevaluate your standards to align with Wikipedia's, as Wikipedia will not spontaneously align with yours. ɱ (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, which of us has 14 FAs? GA status does not "represent some of the very best work Wikipedia has to offer" - that's FA. There's a huge range of quality in GAs. Also, WP:NPA. You seem rather intemperate over this; perhaps you should go off & calm down. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FAs that are a decade+ old goes to show you might not understand how things have changed in the last few years. Especially for the FAC process. ɱ (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where I still regularly participate. Yeah, right. Sadly one thing that hasn't changed much is the uneven quality of GAs. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My "fine" was also maligned. The article gives due weight to acknowledging the seemingly lighthearted official policy of the state in its honest honoring of a 'sacred cod' while, at the same time, it adequately encyclopedically covers the importance placed on this rare 238-year old wooden sculpture (the third in an established lineage). In assessing this page about an American-formation era artifact, doubters of its quality should reread the beautifully-put opening caption while keeping the existence of that level of local respect for tradition and symbolism in mind. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost as humorous as the puns in the article, and undoubtedly just as serious. ɱ (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Meant every word. It is a 238-year old beloved American artifact and that sense is captured throughout the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The central issue here seems to be It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper. It is not improper. There is no rule, in GA or elsewhere, that Wikipedia articles must be dry and humorless, and even less is there such a rule for topics that are notable for being silly (such as this one). The rule is not that humor is outlawed, but rather that the humor should not interfere with being accurate or informative; here I don't think it does. Indeed, I rather suspect that readers of this topic are likely to come to it as a way of seeking out humorous anecdotes about it, and are likely to leave disappointed and uninformed if the humor is excised. This desire to avoid silliness has led the nominator to overreach elsewhere; for instance it also appears to be untrue that the images are poor, repetitive, or barely relevant; they all look relevant and distinct to me. It is also not true that the dead links are innumerous, too many to be counted: I count zero {{deadlink}} tags in the article, a number that is easily small enough for most people to count. I don't think a GA reassessment with such a flawed basis is likely to lead anywhere productive, except as a referendum on Wikipedia:Humor, for which the talk page of that essay might be a more appropriate venue. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: That is not the central issue, I equally listed many. Editorial bias is clear based on the overly generous way the editor(s) portray it and its story. Your analysis is not correct either - we do not need an image of a real codfish, we do not need block quotes or similar obtrusive media in every section, and the images of the exterior of the state houses are completely irrelevant, and do not supply the reader with anything relevant to this "artwork". It is clear that this comment follows a cursory scan of the article. "Deadlink tags" are not necessary to make links work, have you even clicked on the reference links? ɱ (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well for that matter, an article on the Sacred Cod isn't something we "need", nor is Wikipedia, nor (for that matter) is the entire human race. This isn't about what we "need" but rather what best serves the reader's understanding of, and appreciation for, the subject. You're not speaking to that, just complaining that this article doesn't look like lots of other articles. Vive la différence! EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, as nominator, this article has extensive problems with specific GA criteria. Keep votes have largely thus far not analyzed the criteria or problems discussed in the nomination, and have simply agreed with the unusual writing style. The use of sources, with many unreliable or improperly used to support information, and with many nonfunctioning links, needs to be addressed and fixed. The use of irrelevant images, news clippings, external photographs, etc. needs to be addressed. The issue of unclear prose, cluttered in with first-party narratives in quotes, needs to be addressed. As well, the article violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch more than most any I've read. ɱ (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just in the lede itself, fitting MOS:WTW: "to the life" - euphemism, "important" - state significance instead, "historic" - simply state years, "creature of tradition" - poetry, "natural habitat" - editorializing, euphemism --ɱ (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 
As I say so often in such situations: It was tedious to write, so it should be tedious to read.
Let's see...
  • "to the life" - euphemism – Better look up euphemism in a dictionary, or ask your teacher.
  • "important" - state significance instead and "historic" - simply state years – The article text reads "a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" (i.e. Massachusetts, of which cod is officially the "historic and continuing symbol"). The importance is explained in its own section of the article, and aside from the fact that it's a quotation, how in the fuck are we supposed to "simply state years" instead? What are you even talking about? You seem to not understand what the subject of the article is.
  • "prehistoric creature of tradition" - poetry – Again it's a quote, and one which perfectly transmits what's intended. You seem to consider lifelessness a sign of quality writing.
  • "natural habitat" - editorializing, euphemism – For the nth time, PLEASE look up euphemism so you can learn what it means. And editorializing too while you're at it. I openly admit that "natural habitat" is meant to make the reader smile, and if you don't like that, tough. Don't smile if you don't want to.
Apparently you've been inhabiting a drab prison of grays and browns so long that you're forgotten there's a big, colorful world out there. Lock yourself in if you wish, but pardon the rest of us if we don't join you there. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a matter of personal taste whether the verbatim quotes make for choppy reading or, alternatively, give the prose enough verve to be readable instead of impossibly dry. What I'm not seeing is a failure to be, well, encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Dunning-Kruger effect, WP:MISSSNODGRASS. Nominator throws around terms such as euphemism, run-on, bias, weasel word, and editorializing without knowing what they mean; seems to think WTW is a list of forbidden words; believes quality articles are written by filling in blanks on a form; etc etc. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by others who can see the light of day, this article reads like an April Fool's joke, as humorous as your attempts to insult me. ɱ (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're enjoying it. Will you be rebutting any of the points I've made, as I've rebutted yours, or will you just sulk off? Either way is fine. But remember to look up euphemism and so on. EEng 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you're unable to respond substantively I guess there's nothing like some good old-fashioned forum-shopping to keep a crusade alive:

Planning to recruit anywhere else? EEng 02:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Users are allowed and encouraged to post discussions to encourage a fair consensus. You may be pleased to know that these comments are disheartening, and the widespread endorsements of this absolute mess are holding me back from actively editing here right now. ɱ (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'd be pleased to know, rather than that you're disheartened, is that you've taken on board what Tryptofish said below: One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The RulesTM, rather than substantive ones about page quality. But you'll probably just ignore that and keep yelling "run-on" and "euphemism" and "bias" at random. EEng 23:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "skillful and distinctive" is not evident here. It's clear that what amuses some editors in a positive way is seen by other editors as improperly amusing for a site that is meant to seriously introduce facts. We have a bad enough academic reputation as it is. ɱ (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By "some editors" you mean numerous respected editors and admins -- half of them published (academic!) authors themselves -- with extensive experience shaping and applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and editing articles on a wide range of topics. By "other editors" you mean the kid with 5000 edits who rates himself en-2, the snooker editor, and the editor formerly known as Voiceless Labiodental Nasal Stop (whom I will allow others to characterize for themselves). EEng 02:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, forgot to add: Feel free to sputter on about how this is the end of Wikipedia, but until you point to a specific, intelligible issue I won't be responding further. EEng 03:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, although I might be a fish (and even a sacred snooker), I am also a retired university professor, and I think I understand academic writing and academic reputations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My point exactly. EEng 00:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and endorse EEng's logical explanations of the good faith nominator's points of concern. Being fair, Wikipedia would be enhanced if the page were featured. Every element works in tandem, and to answer just one concern, an image of the building seems topic-relevant as a further understanding of location and artifact importance. One strength are its all-too-Wikipedia-rare notes, which round the page out as a fully informative encyclopedic article. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll wire the money to the usual numbered account. EEng 03:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe toss in an extra 10%, for the Big Guy. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolve facing The issue of which way the fish faces and whether this now reflects the ruling party needs resolution. There are multiple sources saying this but the article takes a different line and this appears to be OR. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to get involved in the dispute over the lighter tone, but a Good Article should be consistent on whether its name is properly italicized.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As for silliness, anyone should feel free to slap me with a sacred trout. Oh wait, you can't, because I'm already a fish. But seriously, I went and looked through the page, and it seems to me to be well within what we expect for a GA, and is really quite well-written and complete. One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The RulesTM, rather than substantive ones about page quality. Perhaps someone should go through it with a copyedit, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been attempted, and at others that EEng effectively holds ownership over. ɱ (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying there. If you cannot make progress at the article talkpage, you can try an RfC. That would probably be more productive than the reassessment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that when I referred to a copyedit, I was saying that in terms of what I would regard as minor edits reflecting feedback from the discussion here, and as a suggestion rather than as a major concern. I didn't mean that to imply that things need to be corrected in order to be kept as a GA. But let me also say that if an RfC leads to a consensus that is not, however, implemented, that would be something where I would support a delisting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had never heard of this topic until I stumbled on it just now. What a good article! Thanks to those who wrote it. Here in California, we only have a state flag with a Grizzly bear, extinct in this state since either 1922 or 1924, depending on which source you think is best. That flag is emblazoned with "California Republic", a rag-tag entity that lasted for 25 days in 1846. There are humorous aspects to many state symbols. But I read this entire Cod article and found it fascinating, an informative insight into the lore of Massachusetts state government and one of its historically major industries, and quite well referenced. If anyone wants to actually work to improve the article, then maybe it will become a Featured article, alleviating all concerns raised here. Cullen328 (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had attempted to, but WP:OWNership is strong in this article, and needs to be broken. Your endorsements of this violating editor are not helping. ɱ (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Is this about your dispute with another editor more so than this specific article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have had no dispute - I attempted to edit this article to fix obvious MOS issues. When rejected, I reanalyzed the article and it became clear that it fails multiple GA standards. Any attempt to gloss over the immensely glaring issues reads to me as a bad-faith assessment. ɱ (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, many other editors disagree with your assessment, and we work based on consensus here. Cullen328 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote, and I don't think this GAR is shaping up to be a fair consensus over the article's quality. Many keep votes simply think the GA bar is lower than this article is. ɱ (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And they are probably right, which is a perfectly valid reason to oppose here. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Phineas Gage and Talk:Phineas Gage, another heavily edited by the main editor here. They deflect all edits attempting to improve the mess in the article, and then any attempts to work things out on the talk page are torn apart over walls of text. ɱ (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm strongly tempted to hat everything after Cullen's initial comment, along with potentially a whole lot of stuff higher above, but I won't take it on myself to do so. This is supposed to be a discussion about whether or not this one article is still of GA quality. I support keeping the GA ranking, but that does not mean that the nominator is a bad person for having made the nomination; they aren't. I've long been aware of the ownership concerns, but then again, there have always been multiple editors supporting the way the pages have been written, so there is also a consensus as opposed to the contrary view of a single person. There is blame to go around on both "sides" for how this has gotten sidetracked into personal disputes, and everyone needs to tone it down. Reassessment discussions, like deletion discussions, have a built-in adversarial structure, and it's understandable that editors can feel like this is something with sides, but enough is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note: I saw this discussion on the Discord, but the person who sent the message has not commented here.) Reluctant keep - I personally don't like the writing style, and EEng's ownership behavior is inane. I'd push back against Tryptofish's claim above that the writing style has consensus; I see no such consensus, on the talk page or even on this reassessment page. Indeed, this article would never pass FAC. But ultimately, it's not poorly sourced—at least after recent efforts—and doesn't have such pervasive grammar issues that would make it comprehensively fail criterion 1(a). Ovinus (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with a sigh of relief as I first thought it was about a different topic. The style of writing is what we call engaging prose. We want our readers to actually read our articles, not use them to fall asleep. It passes all 6 GA criteria. I'm not seeing a valid reason to delist. Atsme 💬 📧 12:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing along at home ...

edit

... His forum-shopping having failed, the OP is now taking out his frustrations by making WP:POINTy edits adding random inpopcult trivia to other articles [15]. EEng 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Someone seems to have accidentally deleted the above comment; I've now restored it.)
Following up the above, editors are invited to comment on certain inpopcult items at Talk:Massachusetts State House#Inpopcult trivia. EEng 07:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist The article is based mostly on primary sources. That in itself is no reason to delist, but makes it difficult to adhere to NPOV and to not engage in SYNTH. Concerns with those criteria have not been addressed. Femke (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

This article was marked as a Good Article in 2008, when the standards were probably not as high. Looking at it today, it has only a few citations, many of them not highly reliable sources. A lot of praise for the comic is extrapolated from these. More information comes from primary sources than is ideal.

Primarily, I think this doesn't meet the current Good Article criteria because too much information is drawn from primary sources. However, I'm putting this as a community reassessment because I'm not an expert in the Good Article space. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was so far gone that I invoked WP:BOLD and listed it at AFD, but apparently a couple of sources scrapped together proved otherwise. It's still extremely light on sourcing, with nearly everything being WP:PRIMARY. Like the few other webcomic GAs, this one's clearly out of mode and unlikely to get any better than it is now, so I think WP:IAR should be invoked and it should be speedily delisted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are implying that if an article is not long enough - with no other criteria being failed - it cannot be a Good Article. I am not sure that is how Good Articles work. As far as I can tell, length is irrelevant as long as the user gets a complete understanding of the subject, which they certainly can from visiting the article. Despite saying it should be speedily delisted, you make no other more specific arguments about how it supposedly fails. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Length is not a factor. Comprehensiveness is the factor, and it just so happens that more length is typically more comprehensive. Miss Meyers for example is an FA half the length of this GA casualdejekyll 17:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Right now the nominator makes no real argument as to why it fails GA criteria, primary sources are only a negative when an article has a total dearth of secondary sources. The AfD for this article just proved that it does indeed have sufficient secondary sources and demonstrates its real-world significance from multiple critics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is there are way too many of them, and too few secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I don't think anything in Wikipedia policy states that there can be "too many" primary sources when used in a judicious manner and avoiding plotcruft. And since the article survived AfD, there are not "too few" secondary sources, otherwise it would have been deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The concerning (haha) thing is that the of the article's 26 sources, 17(!) are primary, and 5 are interviews (which are primary or secondary depending on context). That leaves 4 sources which are either secondary definitely (3) or unknown (1).
    I think we seriously have to ask ourselves if it's possible to write a verifiable article in summary style of this length with three secondary sources, one of which is in Romanian. (I do think it just barely hops over the GNG line, though.) Not to mention nobody has yet managed to locate the PC Zone article, which one commenter in the AfD apparently couldn't even verify existed? I haven't looked for it yet, personally.
    Oh, also, most of the Themes section is either OR or SYNTH. casualdejekyll 02:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Yeah I think the article definitely (if barely) passes GNG, but I agree that the number of primary sources definitely tips into territory that at the least doesn't meet GA standards, and if you cut them and the possibly synth down you're left with something that's not really comprehensive enough for GA standards. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per casualdejekyll and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs's rationale. To be honest, this and the other Half-Life fan content pages don't even strike me as that notable on their own, but that's a discussion for another time. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UBS

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: - Delist Fails NPOV and verifiability Femke (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Concern that the article includes unsourced content and downplays the controversies that the organization has been involved in, see the talk page for details. (t · c) buidhe 15:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by Swiss romulus moved from the other GAR:

  • I've just checked, and there's no sign that the relevant WikiProjects were notified about this GAR at the time the nomination was made; such notifications are part of the GAR process. I don't think this can be properly closed before they have been notified and given a chance to bring the article back up to GA level. buidhe, can you please take care of it? (When I was checking, I saw that you'd notified one of them about an FAR; GARs should get the same attention.) While it's much less likely that the original GA nominator and reviewer are still around, they should also be notified if they are still editing. Thank you for taking care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Done (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill

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) 15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations, cleanup banners, lack of updates on post-2009 work, poor prose in areas (elaboration on the talk page) (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The "Writings" section definitely needs a trim / citation update that only uses primary source references as extra backup. That said, I'm not convinced "lack of updates on post-2009 work" is a problem. Google News seems to show that the only notable thing that happened after 2009 was the Supreme Court rejecting his appeal in 2013 - which is already in the article - and him showing up at U Colorado Boulder for a single 90-minute speaking / venting session in 2017, which was barely newsworthy and really just an excuse to tell his story again. Everything else seems to be retrospectives talking about the original incident, the 9/11 deal, and so on. It seems like he hasn't really done much of anything notable since 2009. (To be clear, I agree that the prose & citations in writing sections still need to be fixed for the article to stay a GA - just not the "comprehensive" concern.) SnowFire (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. (t · c) buidhe 19:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. No edits on the article after a month, problems remain unresolved. SnowFire (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - this must be delisted, no improvements on warranted and reasonable buidhe and SnowFire suggestions.--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:51, 22 May 2022 (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 Armstrong (Georgia politician)

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. Femke (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last month, User:Lilredreb removed a large amount of information from this page, asserting that the article was conflating different people. This article needs someone familiar with the subject area to sort it out. It needs to be determined if the removal of information was the correct thing to do. If it was, then the references listed in the bibliography section need to be checked if they apply to this guy or the other guy. The infobox would need to be removed or replaced. I also have some concerns relating to whether this is sufficiently broad in coverage. Some newspaper references could be used. If that is not possible, then I would call into question whether this subject matter passes GNG. Steelkamp (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist. A good article does not need to be long, but this is less informative than some stub articles i've seen. Also i think that he may not be notable based on the lack of info i've found online. The helper5667 (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist I am unsure if this is an option, but agree per nom, as the article is extremely poor IMO. With barely more than 100 words, a one-sentence lead, and few refs, IMO this should at best be a start article; its notability is also probably questionable, namely this line: Much of his early life is unknown. VickKiang (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I Don't Miss You at All

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: Delist - Concerns about broadness and unaddressed comments from the first GA nomination remain Femke (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got a few concerns with this one. First the Copyvio score appears to be quite high. Further to this, the article is VERY brief - the coverage may not be broad enough to satisfy all aspects of Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. The information when direct quotes from Fineas are removed is very sparse. Not convinced there was enough prose to assess a decent coverage of the topic. This is problematic as it was promoted as a "good topic" too. Would appreciate other's thoughts. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Didn't sheetmusic copied the article from wiki? Despite that I agree, the coverage is not broad enough and very scares if Fineas' quotes are removed. However, it passes WP:WPSongs as Billboard gave it a review and its live performance at the TV show had some coverage. It is just not GA worthy, from my point of view due to the reason mentioned above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist in addition to the above, it doesn't look like all of the concerns from Talk:I Don't Miss You at All/GA1 were addressed before the article was renominated and somehow got passed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per the nom and above commenters. A lot of the Eilish-related GAs passed as QPQ could use more eyes on them so I'm glad the process has begun.--NØ 08:17, 14 July 2022 (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.

Leander Paes

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: Delete. Problems with prose and verifiability have not been addressed. Femke (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this article for GA reassessment, as it does not meet the good article criteria. The article was last reviewed in 2009, and has changed considerably since then. It consists of several prose-related problems, and also lacks citations, as shown in the templates. Also, there has recently been no major contributor for this article. With so many issues, a proper review should be done. Kpddg (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over two months since the nomination, and there has been no overall improvement.... Kpddg (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2022 (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.

Churches of Christ

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: Delist for lack of summary style, outdatedness and prose problems. Note that the lack of images in certain sections is not a GA criterion. Femke (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Churches of Christ may warrant re-assessment for a number of reasons, including number of issues with page structure and layout. This includes: the length of the lead; the volume of imagery (none until section four, and none in the sixth section either); sections starting with pull quotes before the subject is introduced in prose; a degree of overcite, other citation needed, and a number of overly short subsections (also in section six); also some badly out-of-date statistics (at least one 2014 source in the infobox); and a general lack of conciseness - at 135,000kb, the page could merit splitting. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've hacked the lead down a bit, but yes, the entire thing is bloated and would benefit from trimming. I do not think a split is needed--nor do I immediately see an obvious place to do one. It's not something I've paid attention to in a while, and yes, GA could reasonably be pulled from it as it stands now. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2022 (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.

Royce White

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: Delist, as the article has not been kept up to date + there are NPOV concerns. Femke (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is woefully outdated. It does not include enough details about White's recent political activities, public statements, or his recently announced campaign for congress (MN-05). Also, as others have pointed out on the talk page, negative edits tend be removed quickly (possibly by a PR team?). It no longer meets the criteria for a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minneapples (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 February 2022 (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.

Operation Python

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 – there is disagreement about the reliability and independence of sources, which is not completely resolved after 7 months of discussion. Femke (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the sources are to two Indian commanders who were involved in the battle, most notably the head naval commander. Does not used independent reliable sources. Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Zawed, who I think has a pretty good grasp on what constitutes a GA. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that a) from what I can tell, Afsir Karim was not involved in Operation Python despite his involvement in the Indo-Pakistani War, and b) the Hiranandani sources are reputably published and used properly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to a ping, presumably sent as I reviewed this article for GA back in 2017. I see some additional sources have been added since my review and these presumably are what is of concern? Karim appears to be only used once for a fact that seems non-controversial. Hiranandani is a bit more troubling since it is excessively used and from his Wikipedia article, assuming it is correct, he was a participant. Even so I think some use is acceptable for an Indian perspective on non-controversial points. Any statements on contestable issues should not be in Wikivoice, i.e. it should be expressed as "According to Hiranandani..." The article already does this in the first paragraph of the attack section. Zawed (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pow (Elvana Gjata song)

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: Delist -- concerns about reliable sources have not been addressed. Femke (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned the article includes a source that is quite unreliable, Illyrian Pirates, there are no authors, no editorial staff and I can't just remove it as it is a backbone of the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2022 (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.

Ex (Elvana Gjata, DJ Gimi-O and Bardhi song)

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: Delist -- concerns about reliable sources have not been addressed. Femke (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned the article includes a source that is quite unreliable, Illyrian Pirates, there are no authors, no editorial staff and I can't just remove it as it is a backbone of the article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2022 (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.

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

edit
2022-08-24 Reassessed as Keep
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 changes since the last discussion here so closing as a keep. MONGO (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article is the subject of a long-running dispute on the talk-page, with no sign that I can see that resolution is imminent or even likely; it can't be considered stable. The text is far from neutral in tone, and contains so much off-topic material that it can't reasonably be considered to be focused on the topic either (as an example, material about James Hinks, who bred a totally different dog from this one, starting from the same nineteenth-century cross-bred dogs). I hope that others will comment on the quality of the sourcing and any possible WP:OR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that contradict the current article
  • Alderton, David (1987). The dog: the most complete, illustrated, practical guide to dogs and their world. London: New Burlington Books. p. 102. ISBN 0-948872-13-6.
The origins of this breed [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] are far from illustrious. It was developed primarily as a fighting dog in the early nineteenth century from terriers crossed with Bulldogs ...
The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases.
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the "original Bull Terrier", simply a renamed version of the "Bull and Terrier".
The result of the decision to breed more athletic dogs for fighting purposes was the emergence of the so-called 'Bull and Terrier', sometimes referred to as the 'Pit dog'. This is of prime importance in the story of the development of our breed as 150 years later this dog would be recognised by the Kennel Club as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier!
  • Billett, Michael (1994). A history of English country sports. London: Robert Hale Limited. p. 39. ISBN 0-7090-5238-3.
... a new breed known as the bull terrier, or the 'half-and-half' breed. It was also called the pit dog and eventually the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
  • Buckland, Jane (1961). Terriers. New York: Viking Press. p. 7 & 13.
... the owners of bulldogs turned to dog fighting, but here they found that their heavily-built bulldogs were too slow and cumbersome in the dog-pits. So they crossed them to courageous and lively terriers, probably black and tans, and the bull-and-terrier had arrived as a definite breed. ... The original bull-and-terrier fighting dogs remained unrecognised until 1935, when they were finally registered as the Staffordshire bull terriers.
... the heavily-built bulldogs were severely hampered in the dog-pits by their lack of agility; so their owners crossed them to lively terriers of proven courage and the bull-and-terrier, or pit-dog, had arrived as a definite breed. ... [They] remained unrecognised for sixty years, finally to emerge in 1935 as the Staffordshire bull terriers.
The Bull and Terrier might have disappeared if not for a group of fanciers led by Joseph Dunn, who appreciated the dogs for their own sakes and persuaded The Kennel Club (England) to recognize the breed as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier...
It [the name pit bull] is a generic designation for several breeds including the American pit bull terrier, which was the first breed registered by the United Kennel Club (UKC) in 1898; its counterpart, the American Staffordshire terrier, which was registered by the American Kennel Club (AKC) in 1936; and the ancestor of both breeds, the Staffordshire bull terrier.
  • Coile, D. Caroline (1998). Encyclopedia of dog breeds. Hauppauge: Barron's Educational Series. p. 146. ISBN 0-7641-5097-9.
The result [of crossing Bulldogs with terriers] was aptly called the Bull and Terrier, later to be dubbed the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
  • Cunliffe, Juliette (2002). The encyclopedia of dog breeds. Bath: Paragon. p. 250. ISBN 0-75258-018-3.
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier was not recognised by the English Kennel Club until 1935, despite being bred in the UK in the nineteenth century.
Staffordshire bull terrier, breed of terrier developed in 19th-century ... created by crossing the bulldog ... with a terrier ... Once known by such names as bull-and-terrier, half and half, and pit bull terrier ... It is an ancestor of the somewhat-larger American Staffordshire terrier ...
His [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's] ancestors are believed to be the bulldog and English terrier and he was known as the Pit Dog or Pit Bull Terrier.
  • Gordon, John F. (1983). The Staffordshire Bull Terrier. London: Popular Dogs Publishing Co. Ltd. p. 13. ISBN 0-09-152771-6.
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier ... has existed in Britain for the best part of 175 years.
  • Horner, Tom (1984). Terriers of the world: their history and characteristics. London & Boston: Faber & Faber. p. 190. ISBN 0-571-13145-X.
Before obtaining Kennel Club recognition, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was known variously as the Pit Dog, Bull-and-Terrier, or even the Half-and-Half!
He [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was first known as the Bull-and-Terrier ...
Quite apart from the name “Bull-and-Terrier” used freely in literature for many decades [for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier], respected authors like Pierce Egan in the Annals of Sporting (Vol. I.), 1822, refer to result of these crossings for the first time as “Bull Terriers”.
Unfortunately for the historian tracing a nice straight line is not easy when examining the background of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier if only because it comes under quite a few names. They might be called Bull & Terriers in some journals and at other times the dogs are called Pit Dogs, maybe Staffordshire Terriers, half-bred dog, or simply come under the general umbrella of the Bull Terrier.
  • Lane, Marion (1997). The guide to owning a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Neptune, New Jersey: T.F.H. Publications Inc. p. 3. ISBN 0-7938-1880-X.
The new breed went by many names: Bull and Terrier, Half and Half, Pit Dog, Pit Bullterrier and later — for the region where it originated — Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
  • Lee, Clare (1998). Pet owner's guide to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Lydney, Gloucestershire: Ringpress Books Limited. p. 10. ISBN 1-86054-082-1.
The Bull Terriers attracted a higher-class owner than the older Bull-and-Terriers, and these latter were officially christened the Staffordshire Bull Terrier in 1935.
  • Marples, Richard, ed. (1985). Encyclopedia of the dog. London: Peerage Books. p. 155. ISBN 1-85052-036-4.
Bulldogs which were too slow and ponderous for the 19th-century Corinthians who introduced a dash of terrier blood to give speed and agility and so laid the foundations of the ‘Bull and Terrier’ breed. By virtue of its association with the Black Country this breed was to become the Staffordshire [Bull Terrier].
  • Morley, W. M. (2004). The Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Midhurst: Beech Publishing House. p. 17-18. ISBN 1-85736-256-X.
it is generally accepted that the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a direct descendant of dogs of mixed origin, generally known during most of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as the Bull and Terrier.
The first recorded name of this dog [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the Bull-and-terrier. It has also been referred to as the Bull-dog Terrier, the Pit dog, the Brindle Bull, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Pit-Dog.
It [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was created in the 19th century in Staffordshire, by crossbreeding the Bulldog and various terriers (machine translation)
  • Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1989). Atlas of dog breeds of the world. Neptune City, N.J.: TFH Publications. p. 811.
This [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier] was the original “Bull-and-Terrier.”
And after protracted discussions there with wbm1058, still no sources have been presented that articulate a meaningful counter-narrative.
To try to avoid acknowledging this, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (which is itself a form of OR) have been employed extensively throughout the article, so really the article should now also display Template:Original research. Further, like Justlettersandnumbers, I believe the focus on James Hinks is UNDUE, as is the completely UNDUE focus on the American Kennel Club's 1974 recognition of the breed which is given greater weight in the article than recognition of the breed by the Kennel Club.
Unfortunately, like Bull and terrier, this article is now Start class at best. The worst part is this situation was entirely avoidable. Cavalryman (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Further, the article cites an unreliable WP:SELFPUBLISHed sources in the Nicolai article and the Zwettler self-published book, it cites the same Pearce book twice, it inexplicably cites "Amazon.co.uk" and "Issuu", and it provides no page number for the Worboys et al, Read, Hall and Percy FitzPatrick books. Cavalryman (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • It seems a large part of the dispute revolves around whether another article (Bull and terrier) pertains to the same subject or not. I'm not well-versed enough into these matters to be the judge of that, but I don't see how that affects the GA status of this here article. It seems suggestions range from merging the content of Bull and terrier into this article, or into the Bull-type terriers article, the latter solution which would have little to no consequences for the status of this article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, FunkMonk, my reason for starting this review was not the dispute (which I've been watching for some time), but the state of the article itself. I haven't recently even tried to read past the lead, but that is already far from encyclopaedic – it's highly polemical, and has large amounts of material that should not be there. Problems such as the plural pronoun for a singular antecedent in the second sentence are relatively easily fixed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further clarification after a bit of research that has stirred my memory - perhaps it will stir FunkMonk's memory as well:
  1. Aug 17, 2019 - the apology from Cavalryman for his inappropriate behavior, not unlike what he has exhibited here.
  2. Sep 16, 2019 - In Option 3 - William Harris made an important observation about the history of the breed origins and the myth: Perhaps the time to end breed club myth starts now with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article. I note that the FCI Breed Standard has not bought into this myth.
  3. Cavalryman was pinged and responded as follows: Thank you for the ping, apologies for my late response I missed the notice on WP Dogs and have removed this page from my watchlist. I am fully supportive of restarting the process, Hancock’s Sporting terriers specifically states the Staffordshire’s forebears (he discusses both theories of origin) on page 60, further references are on pages 61-66. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC).
  4. Both theories of origin are in the article. Nothing has changed from a century ago to verify anything beyond anecdotal accounts of what MIGHT have happened - myths and speculation as I've proven repeatedly. They are theories - nothing more - and we do. not. state. flat-earth theories in Wikivoice. It's time for Cavalryman to stop beating this dead horse. Atsme 💬 📧 05:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, the previous dispute has no bearing on this discussion, but from memory that dispute commenced because you were attempting to say James Hinks was central to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier's development, now that's a fringe theory for you!!!
I won't attempt to speak for William Harris, but he did support the merger so it appears he agreed that the mountain of sources represent the mainstream view. Interestingly he retired from the project in disgust because, just like here, some editors were trying to discount reliable sources that did not conform with their opinions.
Now, as stated by the overwhelming majority of sources, the mainstream view is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed in the 19th century from crosses of Bulldogs and terriers (acknowledging a second theory), it was initially known by the names Bull and Terrier, Bull Terrier, Half and half and Pit dog (among other names), and it was given its current name in 1935 in order to achieve kennel club recognition. Until this is included in the article with prominence "in proportion to the prominence of ... [that] viewpoint in the published, reliable sources", this article does not present a neutral point of view. Further, this needs to be stated with no caveats like "unsupported theories or opinions" which is your opinion that is not reflected in any source whatsoever.
Finally, in order to prevent this article being branded with Template:Contradicts other, Bull and terrier needs to do the same. Given you have recently rewritten that article to conform to your opinions [16][17], this is relevant to this discussion. Cavalryman (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this GAR is malformed and is being misused in an effort to settle a disagreement. Furthermore, this GAR and the NPOV tags are noncompliant with WP:NPOVN. After months of discussion, no consensus has been reached to either include the material presented by Cavalryman, or to merge Bull and terrier. The article has had no issues beyond the ones Cavalryman relentlessly brings forward as a result of OR and what appears to be an inability to distinguish figurative language and opinion from statements of fact - we do not use Wikivoice to state fringe opinions as fact - flat-earth theory. My concern is that this GAR is a back door attempt to get consensus for a merge proposal that, without a doubt, would cause great confusion. Merging Bull and terrier to Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any other purebred article, would be a mistake because Bull and terrier is relied upon by several other articles for historic reference. Multiple purebreds share a common ancestry with the bull and terrier crosses, including but not limited to 6 distinct purebreds: Bull Terrier, Boston Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier. No editor, except Cavalryman and JLAN, are convinced that the merger is warranted, or that there is a NPOV issue with those 2 articles. What we're seeing is DONTLIKEIT, OR and CIR. All the RS involved, including the actual breed registry that recognized the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a purebred in 1935 and approved the name (after rejecting "original" from the first submission for the name), the misinformation and POV pushing we've had to deal with goes beyond the pale. My goal as an editor who has helped promote/review 8 FAs and 19 GAs, my priority is to get the article right - I would not deny valid material or any material that would improve the article. I know better than to state unverifiable opinion in WikiVoice which is what Cavalryman is proposing, and JLAN supports. Any editor who has taken the time to read both Bull and terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and at least scanned the other articles with common ancestry, will see that all substantial views have been included under History, Early history, and Theories of origin. The Hinks dog was the first Bull Terrier that was recognized by The Kennel Club as a purebred in the 1800s, and yes, a group of breeders later split-off to refine their own strain of Bull Terrier, but common knowledge tells us that the modern dogs of today are NOT the same dogs as the heterogenous dogs that were crossed centuries earlier. To make such a claim defies logic and has nothing whatsoever to do with NPOV or the reason to delist a GA. Atsme 💬 📧 19:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding: I can provide many more RS than what are listed below, and will add that most of the sources cited by Cavalryman, when read in context, actually corroborate my position and what the sources I've added have published less the figurative language and/or opinion by authors who are selling books. The statement that the Stafforshire Bull Terrier is the renamed bull and terrier is nothing more than figurative language in most cases, or it's born of breed politics and "bragging rights". We've all used figurative language - in fact, I did in this TP discussion, (pointing to photo) I said: Example text Cavalryman misconstrued it to be a statement of fact: *Where in that link does it say that painting is Hinks-type Bull Terrier look alike? Is that just your impression? Pure white SBTs are known and allowed. Also James Hinks was born in 1829 so anyone suggesting he bred Trusty in 1800 is a fool.
RS with accurate statements of fact that disprove the fringe claim
  • 829 Is the Staffie the True Bulldog? by David Hancock - "I believe it perfectly reasonable to consider the Staffie as the contemporary example of a bulldog and am saddened that we can no longer view the pedigree Bulldog as the sporting breed it once was. For the English Bulldog to lose its claim on its own breed title is more than a shame, it's a tragedy."
  • "The Staffordshire Bull Terrier shares the same ancestry as the Bull Terrier, i.e. Bulldog crossed with the Black and Tan terrier, and was developed as a fighting dog. When the founder of the Bull Terrier James Hinks added other breeds like the Collie to change the head shape of that breed, devotees of the original type of bull terrier cross remained loyal to their preferred type. Because of its early association with fighting it was, for some time, difficult to get recognition for the breed and it was not until the 1930s that The Kennel Club recognised the breed. It carried the name Staffordshire as the breed was developed in the “black country” of Staffordshire and northern parts of Birmingham.
  • "As dog fighting became popular, a new type of dog began to emerge – one that possessed the strength and courage of the bulldog but also had the agility, tenacity and intelligence required to excel in this new sport. To achieve this the breeders of the time crossed the bulldog with various breeds of small terrier. Not yet a breed in their own right, it was this cross between the Bulldog and the terrier that resulted in the early forbears of the Amstaff, known at the time as the bull-and-terrier. This bull-and-terrier would eventually evolve into a number of our modern breeds, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier."
  • "From among the profusion of breeds created in this way, most now extinct, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, perfected by one James Hinks, of Birmingham, England, in the mid-19th century, emerged as one of the most successful and enduring. The breed name that finally came to these burly, broad-skulled terriers is a nod to the county of Staffordshire, where the breed was especially popular." NOTE: The beginning statement in the History was misconstrued by Cavalryman as is the case in many other RS from which he cherrypicked single statements but when read in context, it is clear that his interpretation is incorrect. "The story of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a relatively brief one in the grand scheme of canine history, but it can be confused by the several different names hung on the breed at various times. The Bull-and-Terrier, the Patched Fighting Terrier, the Staffordshire Pit-dog, and the Brindle Bull are a few of the Stafford’s historical aliases." The keywords are "confusion" and "hung on the breed at various times". Atsme 💬 📧 20:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/dog-breeds/bull-terrier-history-behind-the-breed/ "From Bull-and-Terrier to Bull Terrier

¶Another breed that descended from these rough-hewn crosses was the Bull Terrier, which was molded into a distinct breed by James Hinks of Birmingham, England."

  • "Test data from the UC Davis Veterinary Genetics Laboratory has also found the dominant haplotype 1 of the English bulldog in the French bulldog, Bull Terrier, Bull mastiff, Miniature bull terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, Wire-haired fox terrier, Beagle, and Coton de Tulear."
  • J Appl Anim Welf Sci. - "Furthermore, what was perceived as a Staffordshire bull terrier in the United Kingdom tended to be classified as a pit bull in the United States. Although what is deemed a pit bull is clearly of greater importance within a specific country or within a locale subject to BSL than it is between countries, it does bring into question the validity of determining breed identity based on appearance."
  • In our study, some of the largest differences between UK and U.S. participants' responses to whether each photographed dog was a pit bull were for the two dogs who more than 90% of UK participants considered to be Staffordshire bull terriers (Dogs 11 and 17). A high percentage of UK participants did not consider those two dogs to be pit bulls, whereas a high percentage of U.S. participants did consider them to be pit bulls. This is likely because in the United Kingdom, the Staffordshire bull terrier breed is perceived as separate from the pit bull and is not banned under the Dangerous Dog Act."
Atsme, as I've said just above your post, my reason for initiating this review was not the dispute (which I've been watching for some time), but the piteous state of the article itself. It is not well written, it is not well sourced, it is not neutral, it is not focused on the topic; yes, the prolonged dispute means that it is also not stable, but that is far from being the only problem. If you want to start rewriting the article to become more encyclopaedic I'm happy to collaborate to the best of my ability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to ping - "piteous state", JLAN? And what do you propose would make it better? Atsme 💬 📧 20:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rewriting it with solid WP:RS, in clear plain neutral encyclopaedic English, and sticking to the topic in hand? As before, if you're interested in doing that I'm happy to collaborate to the best of my ability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you just confirmed WP:NPOVN, DONTLIKEIT and CIR which is based on your own disclosure in this diff when responding to Cavalryman: ...mostly I'm inclined to defer to your opinion...this is not an area I'm particularly (or really even marginally) familiar with. FYI - the article does stick to the topic at hand - theories of origin - but your unfamiliarity with common ancesters of 6 distinct modern purebreds and what constitutes a modern breed may be interfering with your judgement as to what does and does not belong in the article. If it were simply a matter of copy editing, I welcome the collaboration, but your suggestion speaks in generallities to context, and that concerns me. I totally disagree with what you've stated, and am done with this discussion. It speaks for itself. Atsme 💬 📧 20:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Atsme, since I wrote that I have actually done some reading and research into this topic, so while I'm still happy to acknowledge my extensive ignorance of it, I'm not quite as ignorant as I was; and after writing or re-writing literally hundreds of domestic animal breed articles, I believe I do actually have some limited understanding of what constitutes a breed. The topic of the article is absolutely not "theories of origin", but a British dog breed. Since this is not our page on the Bull Terrier, I suggest that a good first step might be to remove as off-topic all but a passing mention of Hinks and his development of that breed. Unless there's objection here I'll go ahead and do that soon. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, once again none of your sources disprove anything and again you are trying to misconstrue what citations state, the AKC is definitive about the Bull and Terrier being the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the confusion is because the breed was previously known by different names.
On another note, my library have just managed to get some scans of pages from the Dieter Fleig's Fighting dog breeds which prove you deliberately attempted to falsify the contents of that source here and here, the cited page makes no mention of any terrier whatsoever, it is exclusively about 20th century conformation show Bulldogs. I am happy to share this page with any impartial admin to verify. Are there any other sources in this article (or Bull and terrier) that you have falsified? Cavalryman (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Responding to ping by JLAN - I would love collaborating with you, and it's good to know that you've been reading. It won't hurt for you to keep reading, starting with the RS I cited above, because you are still misunderstanding Theories of origin. Maybe if you liken it to etymology, it would help. Nothing has changed relative to the modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier and what is written in the article now. The crux of the disagreement has nothing to do with that information; rather it is related to the fact that the article does not treat, as statement of fact or in "tone", that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the bull and terrier renamed. The reason it doesn't is because it is simply not true - such a theory aligns with the flat-earth theory that defies logic and the science behind it. Hinks is more than just a "passing mention" as it relates to the ancestry of all bull terriers/bull and terrier crosses, and once you understand that, you will have a better understanding of what Hinks contributed to both modern breeds back in 1860–1870 and before that, when there were no pedigreed dogs or verifiable purebreds. Everything in the article is important encyclopedic information. It explains why the modern Bull Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier are considered 2 different purebreds today, and why the other purebreds that share common ancestry are separate breeds despite sharing the same ancestry. You will see that more clearly after you read, in context, the sources I've provided and even the sources Cavalryman provided without cherrypicking the flat-earth theories or conflating author opinions and figurative language with statements of fact. CONTEXTMATTERS, logic matters, and so does the science - such as this DNA study titled, Genomic analyses reveal the influence of geographic origin, migration and hybridization on modern dog breed development and this cladogram. If DNA wasn't considered a good source, I would not even mention it. In fact, I'm going to add those 2 links in my list of sources. Understanding the theories of origin is important, especially considering Bull and terrier relates to and serves as an important historic reference for all the other dog breeds of the same ancestry. Atsme 💬 📧 21:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to aspersions/PAs by Cavalryman – all are noted, and they don't change the fact that the bull and terrier of the 1800s is not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier renamed. I'm pretty sure Elon Musk wasn't in the UK in 1860 offering canine cryonics so those dogs could wake-up in the 21st century as Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Quoting David Harris, The Bully Breeds Kennel Club Books: page 39, Registration and Popularity - That is how the 6 distinct bull-and-terrier breeds became established. One by one, the AKC recognized five of them in this order–Bull Terrier, Boston Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and Miniature Bull Terrier. I've already provided the process for name choices as it was handled by TKC, the official breed registry with the authority to approve or reject the newly formed parent club, the new dog breed submission, and name choices.
RE: your aspersion that I "deliberately attempted to falsify the contents of that source" - wow! That is an outright character assasination. I'm not sure if it rises to the level of T&S involvement but you owe me an apology. Despite being pressed for time, I went back and retraced my steps to find out what happened with Fleig.
  1. Your diff (Staffordshire Bull Terrier) = what I found:
  2. This diff is my initial edit citing Fleig. Why does it bother you to the point of Wikihounding me over it? I found the quote on pg 18 of this article, which I initially found in another WP article but can't recall the details. I cited only the cited source of the quote, and used my own editorial judgement and paraphrased. I didn't think it was necessary to cite the article for Fleig's quote. Are you alleging that the article incorrectly quoted/cited Fleig? If what you say is true, the university should probably be advised.
  3. This edit removed the Fleig citation.
  4. Your diff – noting this is about the Bull and terrier article, not related to this GAR = what I added in that History section included 4 sentences describing the appearance of bulldogs of the era because the bulldog is the prominent breed in the bull and terrier cross, and it's the History section. Is this not a "duh" moment? The rest was already there: 2804:7F7:2481:FE58:0:0:0:2 (talk - contribs) added it 2 February 2018 8:51 PM. I intended to add more despite your disruptive behavior, but here we are – wasting even more of our valuable time. Atsme 💬 📧 08:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, if this new story is true, why did you use the source to cite the information that you did? In the two pages of the dispute you used the source to cite:
  • it was a hybrid cross between the now extinct [[Old English Bulldog]] and [[Old English Terrier]].<ref name="Fleig, D. 1996">Fleig, D. (1996). ''Fighting Dog Breeds''. T.F.H. Publications. {{ISBN|0-7938-0499-X}}</ref><ref>Shaw, Vero (1879–1881). ''The Classic Encyclopedia of the Dog''. {{ISBN|0-517-43282-X}}</ref> [18]
  • It is believed that bull and terriers were crossbred primarily from the [[Bulldog]] and one or more varieties of [[Old English Terrier]]s.<ref name="Fleig-1996">Fleig, D. (1996:86). ''Fighting Dog Breeds''. T.F.H. Publications. {{ISBN|0-7938-0499-X}}</ref> [19]
You later gave a different story about how you accessed it [20] which does not conform to your new version of events. Having found a photo of the book's contents page on the internet here I questioned you about it [21], but you subsequently maintained your story [22]. Not only does the page not include any of the information you cited, but the entire source does not state the Old English Terrier (or any other name for the breed such as Black and Tan Terrier etc) was used to create the Bull and Terrier, it does not list any breed/variety etc, it just says terriers were used.
This, in addition to your attempts to hound me, first trying to disrupt an article I recently elevated to a GA [23] and later tagging another I rewrote with page issues [24] (in the month after this dispute commenced you made only three edits to dog related articles or TPs outside of those connected to this dispute) is a very concerning pattern of behaviour.
BTW, that paper you have cited states the Bull and Terrier was later recognised as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and ... that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was the progenitor to the American Pit Bull Terrier (so by extension the American Staffordshire Terrier etc). Cavalryman (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Cavalryman, this GAR is not the place to discuss past edits that are no longer in an article, and certainly not the place to be discussing Bull and terrier which is not a GA. Take your concerns to the TP of the respective articles where editors can corroborate and fix the issues. I will no longer reply to your allegations here, and I will certainly not respond to your character assassinations and your bad faith interrogation. If it continues, I will simply file a complaint with T&S. Atsme 💬 📧 17:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This debate has gone on far too long and across far too many fora. In my opinion, either the article body - and not the article lead which should not include any breed history - should reflect both points of view or the article should be delisted. There is far too much reliability being placed on the AKC as a source of this breed's history. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does include all significant views in three subsections under History – fringe theories as well as the mainstream, scientifically supported FACTS including a DNA section, all properly cited. It also doesn't matter how many times a RS is cited, especially one of the oldest and most reliable breed registries in the world with the largest DNA database. The article does not and will not state any fringe theory in WikiVoice which is what started this entire reassessment is about. Atsme 💬 📧 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be included in the article with prominence "in proportion to the prominence of ... [that] viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" which it currently is not, and with no caveats like "unsupported theories or opinions" which is one editor's opinion that is not reflected in any source whatsoever. And as has been explained repeatedly, most kennel clubs that provide a historical summary (including the American Kennel Club) state emphatically that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the Bull and Terrier (see here).
Also, more sources have been presented that state the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ancestor of the various bull-type terrier breeds than state otherwise, this also is not represented adequately in the article. Cavalryman (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I did not call for another round of debate from the parties. The article lacks a WP:NPOV and has been tagged accordingly. It cannot endure as a GA article as it currently stands. 14.2.195.135 (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The GAR has not achieved consensus or confirmed that there is a NPOV issue. There is no POV issue - the issue is the POV pushing to include a fringe view that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier IS the bull and terrier group of heterogeneous dogs; i.e., undocumented, unpedigreed mongrels or dog types of the 1800s that were named for their function, not a bonafide breed. No breed registries existed at that time. Atsme 💬 📧 21:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I have provided four dozen sources here that that state all or multiple aspects of:
  1. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed into a distinct breed of dog in the 19th century
  2. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was developed directly from crosses of Bulldogs and terriers (with no intermediate breed in their lineage)
  3. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier was initially known by a number of names, but most commonly: "Bull and Terrier", "Pit dog", "Bull Terrier" and "Half and Half"
  4. the breed's name was later changed to "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" in order to achieve kennel club recognition, this occurred in 1935
  5. the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the ancestor of all of the other bull-type terrier breeds (except possibly the Boston Terrier which many sources state descends from separate crosses of Bulldogs and terriers that occurred in the US).
In addition to the over three dozen independently authored works (several of which are tertiary, but policy says they may be used determine due weight), there are three sources from the American Kennel Club, two from the Canadian Kennel Club, and one each from the Kennel Club of Britain, the Australian National Kennel Council, the Raad van Beheer of the Netherlands and the Société Centrale Canine of France (the last three of which are member clubs of the Fédération Cynologique Internationale). Additionally, a number of those sources are cited in the article, one is cited eight times.
These are clearly mainstream views held by kennel clubs, independent authors and independent publishing houses. Yet the article does not acknowledge most of those points at all. Therefore the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject matter.
It remains my preference to fix the article, but you continue to resist all attempts at doing so. Cavalryman (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hopefully, an experienced closer will close this reassessment as it was basically used as a final resort to settle a POV dispute. Fortunately, more project team members started participating in the discussions, and the unwarranted tag-bombing has ceased; the tags have been removed, and the article is now stable again. I am slowly working toward making the article an WP:FAC. Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 25 April 2022 (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.

Proxima Centauri b

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, a few weeks ago I installed a major rewrite of this article and there are later edits too. I should have done this GAR earlier, since the article is now completely different from the time at which it passed GAN I think the new version should be checked against the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for your work on this article. I'm the original reviewer that passed this article in its previous review. I'm happy to take a look this again for the reassessment if that would be desirable. I'll likely be able to put some time in this weekend. ♫CheChe♫ talk 11:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going by this someone else will have to do the re-review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is in a good shape, everything is cited, no cleanup templates. If it looks like GA, it is GA. Artem.G (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep. Very close to GA, but there are a few places where the prose is not quite clear
    • The paragraph starting with "Climate models including"
    • Proxima Centauri b receives about 10-60 times as much of this radiation as Earth[50] with a particular increase in the X-rays[69] and might have received even more in the past,[70] adding up to 7-16 times as much cumulative XUV radiation than Earth -> can be split too. The mid-sentence cites make it difficult to parse
    • (I don't think it's a GA criteria, but the diagrams section could be better integrated into the article).

Femke (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand: "From Proxima Centauri b, Alpha Centauri would be considerably brighter than Venus is from Earth". Proxima Centauri b is a part of Alpha Centauri, so comparing it with Venus/Earth makes little sense I would think. Femke (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think most people will read "Alpha Centauri" as the star, not the entire system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm.. I was just going off wikilinks here, having no prior knowledge. Googling "alpha centauri" leads only to pages about the star system, rather than an individual star. Could you clarify which star is meant? Femke (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that most people won't care about the distinction star-star system. In my experience, when you are talking about a star system you aren't part of star and star system aren't distinguished. If you are part of the system then you do distinguish (Sun vs. Solar System) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you're right, but what's the harm in changing it to "Proxima Centauri" for those who are unaware of such a convention? Femke (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that would make it any clearer, and we are talking about the planet not the star. And the convention above is also used in lay sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to be a pain, but I still don't understand the sentence. In my reading it can mean either: "From the planet Proxima Centauri b, the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri ..." Or From the planet Proxima Centauri b, the binary stars Alpha Centauri AB ..". I think if you add "the binary stars of Alpha Centauri", the AB can be omitted. Femke (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Put a variant of that in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2022 (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.

Weh Island

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: The result was delist due to a silent consensus. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 04:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have several reasons regarding this reassesment:

  • The GAN is very old, hence most of the info of the article is very outdated. Example, the dominant economy of the city/island as of 2022 is not agriculture anymore but trade, construction, and social service per BPS 2022
  • The article content itself is problematic, because the entirety of Weh Island is inside Sabang city. This results in a potentially very similiar content found in Weh Island article should instead be at Sabang, Aceh
  • The article itself is not that comprehensive

Hence why I believe this article does not meet requirements for Good Article status and reassesment is very much needed. Thank you very much Nyanardsan (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2022 (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.

Walden Galleria

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: delist due to a silent consensus. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 04:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to have been having issues with stability lately, as I'm seeing a lot of blanking and reverting (ETA: and sockpuppetry). I got it to GA back in 2008 and don't think it holds up anymore. The reviewer retired in 2015.

Issues are stability and comprehensiveness. Some facts have gotten removed entirely with time for unknown reasons, such as Bed Bath & Beyond opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenPoundHammer (talk • contribs)

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.

Homotopy groups of spheres

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. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 14:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is tagged for lack of sources. Though it has a section of references, it lacks inline citations. The math markup is also a bit rough and probably needs to be converted to LaTeX style due to the MOS:BBB character, and italics not meshing well with superscripts. There are also equations in section headers, which might be good to avoid? -- Beland (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article used a parenthetical inline citation style that was standard at the time it passed GA but has since been deprecated. I converted them to footnotes. This does not change the fact that, before I converted them, they already were inline references. Many many of the citation needed tags, added per above, were not actually citation needed, but had been added by someone unfamiliar with that citation style, often directly onto the inline citation, as if that person had not even tried to make sense of the text and just blindly applied citation needed tags whenever they didn't see footnotes in the style they were expecting. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I'm not sure all of the citation needed tags need answering. The Wikipedia:When to cite explanatory essay says that subject-specific common knowledge does not need citations. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the topic to judge this completely (I've attended one lecture that talked about this iirc, long ago), but there are some statements I'm fairly certain need a citation.
    • This is the case that is of real importance: the higher homotopy groups πi(Sn), for i > n, are surprisingly complex and difficult to compute, and the effort to compute them has generated a significant amount of new mathematics
    • the higher homotopy groups πi(Sn), for i > n, are surprisingly complex and difficult to compute, and the effort to compute them has generated a significant amount of new mathematics.
Overall, the article is well-written, so it shouldn't be that much effort to bring it back to GA for an expert editor with access to sources. Femke (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is incomprehensible to someone who doesn't have higher math education. I'm not sure that's an avoidable problem with something this esoteric, which is why I'm not taking a position on delisting. casualdejekyll 00:36, 31 August 2022 (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.

Eddie Bayers

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: delist due to a silent consensus. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 14:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems to fail WP:WIAGA points:

  • Well written:
    • Several instances where terms aren't linked, such as "Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart". Terms like "after a short time" are not quantified.
    • Also no clear inclusion for the "selected discography" part. Why these albums and not others? Why is one a keyboard credit? Also concerns about WP:REFBOMBing AllMusic.
  • Broad in coverage:
    • There is very little biographical info about him. His DOB is unsourced, and his city of birth is not verified in the body of the article. Also, the "session work" segment gives very little detail on session work, speeding through a laundry list nearly five decades long in less than a paragraph.
    • As a musician, there should also be information on his style. What is his drumming like stylistically? What types of drums, cymbals, etc. does he use?
    • He is mentioned as recording on Universal South in the infobox, but this is not verified in the body.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @J04n: @Jackedano: Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-pinging @J04n: and @Jackedano:. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:37, 6 September 2022 (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.

Group 4 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: No consensus to delist - Not enough discussion to get a solid conclusion here, but it's been open for 6 months. Quantity of media is not a GA criterion, and people disagree about whether the biological occurances section expansion is necessary to keep GA status. Femke (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article meets the criteria as there is not a lot of media, and precautions and biological occurences could be expanded. Bli231957 (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, biocompatibility of Ti should probably be mentioned. That said, I don't think there's much of a need to duplicate everything in the articles on the individual elements: this can very well be a summary article that focuses on things common to the whole group. Double sharp (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there is information lacking in these sections doesn’t mean that we should demote it from good article status. Instead, we should get referenced information about this from the individual elements’ articles. That way, we do not need to demote the article while putting new, properly referenced information and filling in information gaps. We can do this with other periodic table group that are Start-Class or C-Class so we can get them to B-Class and good articles as well. I agree that we do need more information on the Groups and Periods articles but that we shouldn’t put everything - just the major and important facts and knowledge that fill in the gaps. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, what shall we conclude with? It has been 6 months since the original reassessment has been started. 141Pr 19:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it as a GA-Class article, because it mostly adequately summarises the elements. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2022 (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.

Mother 3

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. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 10:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article gained GA status eight years ago. Since then, the page has changed quite a bit, including the plot section getting completely mangled, which meant I had to replaced it with a clunkily-written plot summary of my own (I am not the best at using words). In addition, there are claims on the talk page that the Development section is now severely outdated now that more sources have been found and translated into English. I'm not entirely sure whether or not it meets the criteria to be delisted from being a good article, but I feel it deserves being looked at again. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm inclined to vote Keep as GA. About the Development section, well, the section is a summary of Development of Mother 3, so people interested in seeing more details about the development can read that specific article. A GA needs to "[address] the main aspects of the topic", and this article does, in my understanding. The Plot may not be perfect, but I don't think the GA status should be removed only because of that Skyshifter talk 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is the issue regarding the GA criteria? If the plot is a mess, feel free to revert back to what it was during the GA nom. Plot sections are a magnet for cruft across all video game articles (and the linked version was fully sourced!) Any "outdated" claims re: development are a matter for the talk page, not a GA reassessment. czar 19:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I prefer to see the Plot section as referenced as much as feasible, even if using the primary game as the source (i.e. via quotes; game guides can also suffice). The "Legacy" section could be cleaned up prose-wise, and some of the references need to be fixed, namely most of the Nintendo Dream references. I'm not 100% the issues are enough to delist as a GA, but my standards are a little higher than many GA reviewers. --MuZemike 03:13, 20 July 2022 (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.

Superstore (season 6)

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, defaulting to keep. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merely a cursory glance at the page revealed examples of poor writing and misrepresenation of a web source (both present at time of original GA assessment), which I edited to fix. Reassessment required. U-Mos (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further issues encountered: article skims over the notable fact that departing lead actor America Ferrera not only returned to film the episode held over from the previous season, during which she departs, but filmed a further episode as well (the season premiere); currently just reads she "wrap[ped] up the storyline". Further down in the production section, a paragraph begins with confusing reference to "multiple showrunners, writers, and lead actors" (from other shows?) discussing using COVID as a narrative theme (in reference to Superstore? Or more generally? Is this backed up by the source from the subsequent sentence, which is behind a paywall?) U-Mos (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on TV articles nor this show, but this doesn't seem like an actual problem? The article says "Ferrera would return to the series for the first two episodes of the sixth season to wrap up the storyline." That doesn't seem like "skimming over" it. I'm not sure how a reader would interpret that sentence to be about showrunners and writers from other shows - that would be very strange, there's no clarification required, the default subject from context is the showrunners of Superstore (which the source confirms). Not a "confusing reference." You can get past the paywall with the archive link. The edit you made looks fine, but also doesn't look like it's revealing some deep rot that indicates everything else is broken. Maybe there are problems here, I did not extensively check the article, but if there are, they don't appear to be the ones cited above. SnowFire (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seeing no further comment or expansion on problems, seems fine to me. I reserve the right to change my stance if further problems are found, but they aren't "cursory glance" problems. SnowFire (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2022 (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.

Ko Olina Station and Center

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: Delist due to the article being merged. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this meets GA criteria. Lonely Planet is a tourism website and doesn't seem sufficient for supporting notability. Most of the other sources are similar tourism blurbs too. There's very little info about the mall, as the article is only two paragraphs long. It doesn't seem to be a thorough enough look, especially when compared to other mall articles. tl;dr: comprehensiveness and sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just a quick note: GAR is not the place to talk about notability, and 'comprehensiveness' is the FA criterion. Good articles only need to be 'broad'. In practice these two terms mean the same for articles with few sources available. Femke (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is still sorely lacking, as most of it is just tourism bureau websites. I still think the coverage is far from broad enough for a GA. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, Femkemilene I've boldly merged into the Ko Olina article. There is no longer an article to be GA. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 23 September 2022 (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.

Walter Hunt (inventor)

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 is a consensus to delist. Gusfriend (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article had substantial amounts of content removed for being a copyright violation; this diff is the removal and this is the source. The source is paywalled to Gale through TWL. There is a very high chance that I have missed more close paraphrasing and copyright violations from both this source and others, as I only removed the most blatant of what I could see. The original addition was also blatantly copy-pasted, and then subsequently edited down. There was an effort by the nominator to reword, but it barely changed the actual copied text. There was also plagiarism, and there's a chance that more needs to be attributed. The copyright issues means that this article is possibly not broad enough as it stands. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously, this needs to be delisted. Given the amount of CV already removed, we can't assume good faith on anything else. It would need a complete rewrite from top to bottom from a completely different editor to retain GA status, and I doubt that's going to happen. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per PMC's comments. I was the GA reviewer and did not spotcheck the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Honestly, the issues go beyond copyright violations. Irrespective of that, if I had reviewed the article, I would not have passed the page in its current state because of the quality of the prose (WP:GACR point 1). For instance:
  • He also made improvements to guns, cylindro-conoidal bullets,[22] ice-breaking wooden hull boats, paraffin oil candles, velocipedes, machines for making rivets and nails, and self-closing inkwells.[23][24] He also invented the Antipodean Performers suction-cup shoes claimed to be used by circus performers to ascend up solid side walls and walk upside down across high ceilings.[20][25] He did not realize the significance of many of his inventions when he produced them and sold off most of his patent rights to others for low prices making little for himself in the long run - Three sentences in a row that start with "He" make for a very awkward paragraph indeed. I'm pretty sure the second sentence also needs a comma after "shoes".
  • He developed the first modern feasible operating sewing machine[20] sometime between the years 1832 and 1834[28] at his Amos Street shop that was up a narrow alley in Abingdon Square[29] at the borough of Manhattan in the city of New York. is a run-on sentence and needs to be split into preferably two, or even three, sentences. Also, "at the borough of Manhattan in the city of New York" is both unnecessarily detailed and technically grammatically correct. No one would say "at Manhattan", and most people would just say "in Manhattan, New York City".
  • He gave as reasons for not procuring a patent that 1) he was busy with other businesses then; 2) the expense of getting the appropriate drawings and paperwork together to register a patent was more than he could afford and; 3) the difficulty of introducing the new sewing machine into public use, saying it would have cost two thousand (equivalent to $54,290 in 2021) or three thousand (equivalent to $81,430 in 2021) dollars to start the sewing machine business. - Technically, this is not a run-on, but it is a very long sentence, and "1) 2) 3)" aren't necessary in a prose list like this.
These are just examples and not a full review. Since large parts of the article have been determined to be copyright violations, the article would have to be rewritten anyway, but these examples are representative of what improvements are needed. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I passed it, and I'm aware the prose is weak, but I interpret "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct" as allowing some weak prose through in comparison to what FACR requires. These sentences convey what they mean to convey and aren't technically incorrect (except for that run-on sentence). I do copyedit as I review, but it's hard to do that without access to the sources. Other GA reviews I've looked at seem to be setting the prose bar higher than my interpretation of GACR so I think I'm going to end up being a bit more stringent in the future, if only to avoid criticism. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie, your prose comments are fine with me. I'm just saying that, if I had reviewed this article, I would have required a few more tweaks to the prose. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, I've always understood FA-level's "well-written"—its prose is engaging and of a professional standard—to be significantly above that of GA's "well-written". GA as you've quoted would seem to require a level of quality above "some weak prose": clear and concise is frequently not particularly engaging but I wouldn't expect it to be weak or repetitive if we're calling it "good". (Personally, I've always had trouble elevating my workmanlike prose to "engaging" or "of a professional standard". With some care and self-editing, however, "clear and concise" is well within my wheelhouse, along with a bit of variation in structure.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably not the right forum for an extended discussion of GA prose requirements, but I've started being stricter about prose in my reviews, just because that seems to be the community norm. However, I think "clear and concise" doesn't mean the same as "good" prose; I think a sentence can be grammatical, not repetitive, and not ambiguous, and hence meet the "clear and concise" standard, without being considered good prose. A lot of Doug's prose is like this, in fact; he is not a fluent writer, and his sentences can be stilted and awkward, but they're usually not ungrammatical or ambiguous. It's moot as I'm going to raise the standard of prose I require in a GA review, and it appears other regular reviewers are also requiring a higher standard than my original interpretation would support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 9 September 2022 (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.

Florida International 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 • GAN review not found
Result: the result was delist. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This GA since November 2007 needs substantial additional work to remain at modern standards. Several sections are ten years or more out of date; a handful have uncited sentences; and there are bare URLs and "Archived copy"s all over the place. This page can be rescued, but I can't do this alone. Even though I have the ability to add newspaper references, that is not all that is needed to rescue this page from removal. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the basics (currently on mobile), the things I spot are a trivia-filled film appearances section and an inappropriate gallery of notable alumni photos (choose just one). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:18, 21 August 2022 (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.

Once Upon a Time (game)

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: the result was delist. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been raised in the BTG WikiProject in a discussion with Piotrus, IMHO improvement is needed for this to still be a GA. After this was passed as a good article long ago, new edits were made, including a dot-pointed list with list of minor awards the game won, according to its publisher (non-indepedent and self published). I've changed that to a paragraph, Guinness323 did another cleanup, but IMO there are more problems.

2b) Several refs are poor. I've rm the citing for RPGNet, an user forum (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, in the cases when the statement was also supported by another ref, but it's still used. Also unreliable is the 4th ref. Ref 15 is also another SPS talking about itself, which per the guideline, is all right when The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, this is a bit debatable, as talking about awards it won itself seems to be meeting this IMHO, but this is a minor concern.

Othermore optional issues: a) 5 of the 15 refs are from the publisher, mostly for gameplay, but per WP:RS, Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources, it's understandable as the majority of these refs are for mundane details and rules, but IMO this is still a bit too much. Also, its review section formatting is like a ref section, but the layout IMHO does not follow notes and references layout (maybe it's similar to external links?)

3b) IMHO this isn't followed. The reception section cites very minor awards won by the 3rd edition, all just refed to the publisher. the Development and release seems also to be way too detailed, listing all of the cards and modules, and needs trimming. The review is almost all quoted with attribution, which is fine, but also IMO doesn't follow summary style (this is also cautioned by the MoS for Video Games, but the latter isn't relevant to GAs).

I'll update for more suggestions, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2022 (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.

Mail chute

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 is that the article should be delisted. Epicgenius (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look at the Mail chute article as it stands, it doesn't appear to be at a GA level. Some issues I notice:

  • The article does not broadly cover all aspects of this topic as demonstrated by the singular "History" section being the entirety of the article.
  • Heavy reliance on old, regional newspaper articles rather than more modern works - there are six references to Rochester paper Democrat and Chronicle. This in itself is not bad but for a GA you would hope that more up to date sources or scholarship have been consulted. This also probably leads to some strange anachronisms like "modern mailrooms" - which are not really modern now and are probably disappearing.
  • Small mistakes like the Art Deco Mailboxes source not being properly cited - one of the authors is missed off.
  • Awkward phrasing eg "London's Savoy Hotel featured the first installation of a Cutler chute in England when it was expanded in 1904." (What was expanded? London, the hotel, the chute?) and "Cutler was acquired by the Florence Corporation, a manufacturer of mailboxes in 2000, and this..." (what occurred in 2000? The acquisition or the manufacturing of mailboxes?).

I'm not a GA expert at all (just put up my first article for review) but this doesn't seem at the right standard. I realise some content has been removed recently which may have effected the article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vladimir.copic, I have a lot to say here as prologue. This is not a typical article to come to GAR, but it could be the shape of things to come.
I don't know how aware you are of the situation surrounding Doug Coldwell, but it has been quite complicated. He has a lot of GAs that are substandard (and a lot of GAs—234 in all!), and copyvio questions have come into play as well. The community has just enacted a topic ban barring new GA nominations and DYK nominations from him, and it is quite split as to whether a full block is merited (see ANI).
I reviewed six of Doug's GANs since 2021 and, after extensive work (including me digging up sourcing), passed two of them: Mail chute and Shelby Gem Factory. (Yes, I failed four of his pages—only for some to be renominated and even passed by other reviewers.) Because of the copyvio question (which has spawned a very, very large CCI case), I have taken it upon me to rewrite these two articles with new and existing references to mitigate copyvio and try and keep the pages at GA status. It is very possible that a flood of Coldwell GAs will have to come to GAR. I just did Mail chute today, and the gem factory is next to get this treatment. The rewrite, at least, brings the page back to the point of not having the CV issues which could be present in hundreds of titles.
I am committed to doing what I can to keep this page (and Shelby Gem) at GA standard, even though it is far outside my realm of expertise. I invite the GAR nominator to read some of the prior revisions to understand what the page looked like when passed (it had "Original design and usage / Current use / Popular culture" as sections), material Coldwell added immediately after approval, removal of cruft by subsequent editors, etc.
I have corrected the citation issue (which was in the original citation written by Coldwell) and the "mailboxes in 2000" issue (a typo on my part). I believe the Savoy "it" is clear enough. I am not familiar enough with the literature in this field to find books that discuss the topic at length. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've only really just become aware of the issues regarding Doug. I was just looking around at other GA noms to give me idea on what can be done to improve my own and ended up looking through Doug's noms/GAs. Didn't mean to contribute to a pile-on. The article as it stands really doesn't look GA. Interested to see what other editors think. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic, I currently have 40 GAs (linked from my user page) with another 50 pages pretty much completed and being nominated in batches to reduce the pressure on GAN, but they're almost all in my primary topic area of U.S. broadcasting. That's where my heavy use of newspapers comes from; in the articles I work with, a barrage of newspaper citations can be positively transformative to a page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Points:
    • The nominator's second bullet is really the problem with so, so many of Doug Coldwell's articles. Old local newspapers have to be used with great caution at best even for local events, and they're very close impossible to consider reliable for national events and issues. Then when you consider that Cutler had been the mayor of Rochester, so almost certainly had considerable local influence, then DUH, it's no surprise that a local Rochester paper ran numerous stories agitating for the Post Office to loosen its regulations on chutes and telling horror stories about the unfairness of the status quo. I'm sorry, but this shows a complete inability to judge the appropriateness of sources.
    • The writing is often wretched e.g. The firm's grip on the technology was so firm that
    • Worst of all, after the first two sentences the article says absolutely nothing at all about, well, about mail chutes -- it's a long, torturous history of the Cutler company. That history certainly be addressed -- briefly -- but if you can't say anything at all about the nominal subject of the article, then there's no point in having an article.
I'm afraid this is just another example of this particular editor picking a topic (which definitely deserves to have an article), searching a newspaper archive, and stuffing every random fact in that pops up, no matter how discursive or incoherent -- and with no regard for source reliability. EEng 05:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your final point. After reading the article, I'm still not really sure what a mail chute is or how it works. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily there are pictures. EEng 05:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topic seems to be devoted to the Cutler company and has a heavy USA (in particular New York) focus. Article could be easily adapted to become an article about the company instead and a new stubish article placed here. I would also expect a GA on mail tubes to at least mention the use of Pneumatic tubes for delivering mail, hopefully talking about competition and how they worked together. Or perhaps just that they are for different things... Gusfriend (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, tortured prose such as updated its voluntary codes to bar new installations. Plus letters and mail are collected for distribution from within high-rise buildings, such as offices and hotels. makes me wonder about the differences between letters and mail and doesn't really get across that it is just about being able to post letters for collection from the Post Office rather than being sorted on site by building employees.Gusfriend (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend I'm trying to improve the prose, so these comments are very much appreciated and have been taken into account.
  • Pneumatic tubes were not mentioned in the original and work on a different basis—I have added a "see also", though.
  • The "voluntary codes" was actually in response to someone else's comment reading through the page.
I've also restored a Design section, but I can't find much material discussing design. There's an Atlas Obscura piece, but I don't know if it's an RS. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pneumatic systems would be something to list under "See also", but certainly not to be treated directly in this article -- that would be like having a combined article on bicycles and automobiles. BTW the article completely omits to say the true motivation for these thingamajibs: there was about a 70-year period during which mail was both collected, and delivered, several times per day in major cities, and this was also the time (hard for young people today to imagine) when mail was almost the exclusive means of business communication. Thus getting a letter "in the mail" this second, versus waiting until the end of the day when Joanie from the typing pool could take the day's outgoing letters to the corner mailbox on her way home, was critically important. EEng 20:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great point... The only item I can see in the sources is from the Crain's New York Business one (which I found and added).

But clogs always have been a problem. Long ago they were usually fixed quickly because mail was so important and delivered as many as 12 times a day in some cities before World War II. When the Postal Service cut back to one daily delivery in 1950, "the populace was not happy about it," said Nancy Pope, a curator at the Smithsonian's National Postal Museum.

@EEng, I'd add it, but that doesn't make the logical link from "cutbacks in delivery" to "decline in chutes". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Atlas Obscura is mainly user generated so most likely the piece is not reliable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's not. I'm sorry, it just can't be said too often: Doug Coldwell seems to think that anything in print, or on the net, is fair game. He sucks it all in like a vacuum cleaner, then chews it up into slurry of phrases and clauses which swallows and then regurgitates into an article. After waiting for this mess of vomitus to congeal, he nominates it for GA. EEng 08:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be OR issues too. The sentence The merged company continued to defend its portfolio of patents; in 1910, the Cutler Mail Chute Company won a patent infringement lawsuit against the United States Mail Chute Equipment Company. (emphasis mine) is sourced to this newspaper clipping [25]. The source does not directly support the italicised assertion but describes a standalone event that has been woven into the article to create a narrative.
Likewise Concurrently with the growth of the company within the United States, it was also selling systems internationally. London's Savoy Hotel featured the first installation of a Cutler chute in England when it was expanded in 1904. is sourced to this newspaper article [26]. The article, about the Savoy Hotel, only briefly mentions the mail chute and doesn't talk about growth in the US or international sales. I guess these are not the only two examples. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this, Vladimir.copic. I'm just trying desperately to keep this page on the rails. I just feel...unappreciated for trying to save a Coldwell page. That's all. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The word quixotic comes to mind. EEng 08:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely appreciate your efforts to improve this article but, on a fundamental level, this article is not GA. It will take a significant work to bring it up to GA. To keep it listed would not reflect well on the project or serve as a good example for other articles. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that there is a Scientific American article if someone has access.
Also a couple of articles about people being (historically) hurt in mail chutes at postal facilities in Australia:
which means that at least in Australia the context of mail chutes historically included sorting facilities, post offices, etc. and not just the vertical in building stuff.
Building a "skyscraper" in Sydney in 1911 with mail chutes in it, https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/15221265, but even better is this PDF, https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/data/UQ_716905/early_brisbane_skyscrapers.pdf which talks about the use of mail chutes in Brisbane (and a little in Sydney) as skyscrapers were built over 1911-1939.
I hope that that helps. Gusfriend (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that PDF on early Brisbane skyscrapers is unavailable to me, @Gusfriend. Could you send it directly to me? You can send an email or also find me in WP:DISCORD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it out this morning, the system doesn't allow deep linking (which is why I added the via option in the citation for the article below). If you click on the link and then type "Early Brisbane Skyscrapers" in the search at the top of the page then you can click on the file to download it after showing that you aren't a robot.
East, John W. (2018). "Upwardly Mobile in a Branch-Office City: An Architectural History of the Early Skyscrapers of Brisbane 1911-1939" (PDF) (Report). Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved 15 September 2022 – via espace.library.uq.edu.au.
Gusfriend (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great read but not terribly useful for the article. Thanks for suggesting it, though. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:08, 15 September 2022 (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.

Hilaria Baldwin

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 does not appear to be a consensus at this time for the article to be delisted. The concerns raised about the article should be discussed on the article talk page. Gusfriend (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good article. If it was only not-so-good while still meeting the Good Article criteria fine, but it's a terrible article. I get that "Good Article" has its own rubric, but I don't think a "Good Article" should be an actually awful article. This would be confusing to readers.

It's a bad article because a quarter of it -- the "Allegations of cultural appropriation" section -- is an egregious tabloid hatchet job. My recommendation is that the section titled "Allegations of cultural appropriation" be removed, and the material in it be cut down to a couple-few anodyne sentences and stuck at the end of the "Personal life" section, or something to that general effect.

This section probably doesn't violate either WP:BLP, exactly, or WP:NOTGOSSIP, exactly, but it sure does skirt close to it. Beyond that, it just sucks. It sucks to punch down at this private person, and it double sucks that other media have picked up on this article and spread the egregious and very detailed defamation we're engaged in here. If "a good part of the article double sucks" and "It is a Good Article, which we want to display to the world as some of our best work" can coexist according to our rubric, then something's really wrong with our rubric, and until and if that is fixed, we are not a bureaucracy here and let's fix this particular problem right now. I have more to say, at length, I'll hat it, but it's probably worth scanning if you want to engage.

More

Altho it's arguable whether the section in question truly violates WP:BLP, at the very least it's skirting the edge, and also the edge of the policy WP:NOTGOSSIP ("Wikipedia is not a newspaper... not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:... Celebrity gossip...", altho the rest of that section does let you get away with it. The woman is not close to being a public figure, she's a rich man's wife who has done this and that and been on this or that show because she is, and wants to enjoy that. And BLP says "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restrain... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

Sure, truth is generally a defense against libel, but I mean "We shred this person in excruciating detail, but not in a way which crosses the line of being actually criminal" isn't what you'd want to see in any article, let alone one we want to crow about.

Who gives a... gosh-freaking-darn... if people want to have some fun with their persona. Jeepers creepers, half the people you meet are like "Oh I have some Cherokee blood" or "My people came over on the Mayflower" or "Actually I'm descended from Eric the Red" or whatever. Who knows if its true. Probably not. People put on airs, people say that they played an a band with Trent Reznor years ago, people hide that their parents were poor, etc etc etc. We all have different faces. So? Who is this woman harming, with her chosen face. Spain is a first-world country for crying out loud. They can watch out for their heritage without our help I am quite confident.

But wait. It gets worse. There's a "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" tag here, and the media says horrible things about this person which I don't even want to repeat here, and apparentlythey are getting this from us in part at least. We are actively popularizing and spreading this... shinola.... I mean, for marginally notable persons, we are the biggest part of their public face. We are the second google hit on this person, after her instagram. We describe her to the world much more loudly and widely than any other source. And for centuries, maybe.

We are a huge, huge organization read by millions of people and which helps shape the zeitgeist. She is just a little person, a marginally notable person, who has her own inner life and her own reasons for doing things. Writing stuff like this at detailed length is punching down, punching way down, and it's not a good look. Let other people be egregious... scamps... and revel in shaming people. Let the National Enquirer do it. We don't have to. We really don't. We are free people on this earth, and we don't.

You know, there's a lot of facts and other material that we don't publish. A lot. See WP:NOT. We don't have to publish this.

I have been here a long time and I know the counterarguments. You can make them again and will. I know that I didn't hardly cite any WP:RULES. I know about beep beep boop boop, so I don't expect to win this one. But I'd be ashamed if I didn't try.

Anyway, I'm sending this article back for reconsideration until the nothingburger "cultural appropriation scandal" (yes, this Good Article says that, and in our words) is removed as a section and cut down to a couple-few anodyne sentences at the end of the personal-life section, or something to that general effect.

Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the reason you want this article reassessed is because "People put on airs... She is just a little person... who has her own inner life and her own reasons for doing things"? The article passed GA review after an extensive review with updates to the prose, sourcing, and formatting. This reassessment is basically an IDONTLIKEIT argument, as it's not based in policy whatsoever. WP is not a reputation management company; it's just the facts. --Kbabej (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not a reputation management company, why are we going so far out of our way to manage this person's reputation? Herostratus (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't. Your suggestions would be. This article was written to cover the subject's life in full, not keep information out that could potentially embarrass her. It's weighted well, and passed GA review with that information included. --Kbabej (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are so. If we put in information out that could potentially embarrass her, on purpose and at this length and level of detail, we are managing her reputation, just in the the other direction. It's out of proportion and its POV. If she'd been convicted of a serious crime that'd probably be different. But she hasn't. Heck I'm not sure that even Grey Owl gets raked over the coals like this. Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2022 (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.

Haskelite

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 22:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article about anything post World War II and it gives no indication whether or not it is still being manufactured (although I suspect that it isn't). It also doesn't include information about what happened to the product when the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation was split up. Also, was it ever produced by Haskell Manufacturing Company? The Haskell Manufacturing Company says that it is but this page is unclear about it. How did it relate and compete with other plywoods? There is only a single reference after 1965 which I suspect is part of the issue. Gusfriend (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the final paragraph, from "One of these airplanes..." forward, is lightly-rephrased copyvio from the cited Chicago Tribune source. e.g.

  • Our article: One of these airplanes received a commercial license to fly daily, and 500 hours of testing proved its worthiness.
    Source: One of these ships has received a commercial license and is flying daily. More than 500 hours has been flown in the plane and it is proved to have superior performance.
  • Our article: The fuselage was molded in 2 hours 35 minutes, which was 1⁄30 the time required to construct an ordinary fuselage.
    Source: The fuselage of the plane was molded in 2 hours 35 minutes, about one-thirtieth of the time taken to construct an ordinary fuselage.
  • Our article: It was without longitudinal or cross bracing.
    Source: It is without longitudinal or cross bracing and is very light.

That took 30 seconds to identify, and there's no good reason to trust the policy compliance of other text in the article. To the contrary, if this is what we see in the easily checked sources, we might safely assume that the sources we can't easily access have been treated in the same way. A ground-up rewrite is probably necessary simply to comply with our basic copyvio policies, regardless of any other issues. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering if the best approach is to propose a 3-way merge between this page, the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation and the Haskell Manufacturing Company. This would give us a single longer page with more information and rewriting to deal with at least some of the copyvios as they were all largely written by the same editor. Gusfriend (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if you want to stubify the articles, RD1 the copyvio, redirect two of the titles to the third and write the article from there, sure, sounds great. This article's essence could be captured in no more than a paragraph or two, I would think, which means it would fit tidily in a company article's "Products" section. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed a merge from Haskell canoe into this one as a starting point for future work. Gusfriend (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can actually be a 4-way merge between Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation, Haskell Manufacturing Company, Haskelite, and Haskell canoe. It appears that we have four articles about what may be, at most, two notable subjects:
  • Haskell Manufacturing Company, which formed a subsidiary called the Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation - although the Haskell building may merit its own article if it has a history that's substantially separate from the company
  • Haskelite, from which Haskell canoes are made
However, it seems that Haskelite Manufacturing Corporation was the main or only manufacturer of Haskelite. Furthermore, the Haskell canoe could be easily merged, given that it's a minor product from the Haskell Manufacturing Company that was made out of Haskelite. The Haskell canoe article has a grand total of five sources (three from specialized trade journals and two from local newspapers), which don't really convince me of its notability. Even when the canoe article passed GAN, it was sourced mainly to wood-related trade journals, plus an archive collection and a local newspaper.
That brings me back to this article. To be honest, I'm not sure that Haskelite is notable, either. Even if the article did not contain copyright violations, there are only two paragraphs about the type of wood itself (even in the version of the article that passed GAN). The rest of the article is about the products made from this wood, which go into extreme (and arguably even excessive) detail. I think this article should be delisted on copyright concerns alone. Nonetheless, it seems like the reader would be much better served if these four articles were merged into one, more comprehensive, page. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My slightly longer term plan is a 4 way merge starting with the canoe and this one and then the two companies then all together but I am doing it bit by bit to try to avoid overwhelming the GAR and other processes. I think that you are probably right about the building being worthy of a standalone article as it is on the NHRP. Gusfriend (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's becoming more and more clear that we need a special process to deal with DC's creations. It's more than just a question of GA delisting -- everywhere I look it's WP:TNT for copyvio, nonnotability, misuse of sources, etc. Part of me feels bad for the guy but his defiant IDHT at ANI makes it hard to be sympathetic. EEng 00:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen a 1920 reference supporting "the largest plywood sheet ever produced", related GA articles saying different things, statements not supported by references and more I agree. There needs to be somewhere that we can table all concerns and tick things off when they are done and it seems to be outside the scope of the CCI work and the GAR. I would be happy to be involved but have no idea where I would start suggesting it. Gusfriend (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a page for the building at Haskell Manufacturing Company Building as a stubish level article. Gusfriend (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haskell canoe has been merged to the Haskelite page. Gusfriend (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2022 (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 Railway's Spencer Shops

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: Unfortunate, but looks unavoidable at this point. Hog Farm Talk 15:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is laughably incomplete. The Spencer Shops were in operation from 1896 to at least the 1960s. The article, however, abruptly ends at when the shops first opened and dedicates not a single sentence to their 60+ years of operations. This is ridiculously far from meeting the GA requirement for broad coverage of the subject, and should be delisted unless it is massively expanded from what it is now. The primary source used for this article, [27], gives no indication is is a reliable source, and I have noticed several instances of close paraphrasing of the source in this article's prose. This article should be delisted, it needs to be completely rewritten and massively expanded before we can say it meets the GA criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if Cedar Hill Yard (my own FA, but I've picked it as it's one of the two existing FAs on a railroad facility, the other being Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works) ended after the "The yard is expanded, 1917 to 1920" section. See how much more material would be missing? I hope that gives an idea of the extent to which this article is incomplete and does not give its subject an encyclopedic treatment, or even come close to doing so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to the main web source being used, I found the site index which notes; "Copyright © 2007 GoRowan.com All rights reserved and protected. DanTana Enterprises, LTD. Rowan County Information OnLine ® ... We are not the EDC or the Chamber or the Visitor Center. We are better and do it for free!!" This is actually discouraging, because if it was the old website of the county chamber of commerce or an official visitor/tourism center I'd lean towards reliable. This indicates this is a private project. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: I have added some information information on the shops' later history. Not enough, but it's a start. I've also found the Arcadia book had a different opening date for the shops than the web source, which is not encouraging. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The page is lacking the detail required from a GA. There are plenty of book based sources that can be used to build it back up again. Gusfriend (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I agree with TAOT that "this article is laughably incomplete", but for a much different reason. This property is on the National Register of Historic Places, yet there is no description of either the complex's architecture or the layout of its component buildings. I don't think we need an example to see how absurd this is, but I would expect, at the very minimum, a paragraph on the architecture/layout of the shops. This alone should have been a quick fail under WP:GACR criterion 3a, not to mention the sourcing and close paraphrasing issues mentioned above. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2022 (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.

Kitch-iti-kipi

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the one who reviewed this article for GA originally, but in light of issues brought to light here about Doug Coldwell's tendencies in the GA area, I went back to have another look. In retrospect, I do not think I should have promoted this article in its current state. There are minor prose and formatting issues, but the bigger problems are with sources. I accepted Doug's half-baked justification for using ExploringTheNorth.com, a site of unknown reliability that the article heavily relies upon. UpperMichiganWaterfalls.com is also a poor source that is clearly promotional and probably unreliable. The article should be delisted as a GA. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Within the critical eye brought on by the CCI issues for the author the wording in the second paragraph in the Native American legends section is a little too close to that at Exploring the North for my liking. Gusfriend (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2022 (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.

Buckeye Manufacturing Company

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the demise/closure of the company is on this page and another related GA page, Lambert Automobile Company, is inconsistent.

  • Buckeye Manufacturing Company was nominated for GA and accepted on 6 June 2022 ([28]) and has defunct in 1917 in the infobox and under "Demise" says that that is when they stopped making "Lambert vehicles" and they were a defence facility from 1917 to 1919 then renamed "Lambert Incorporated".
  • Lambert Automobile Company was nominated for GA and accepted on 3 July 2022 ([29]) (which itself said defunct in 1916 in the infobox and 1917 in the text) says that Buckeye Manufacturing Company stopped manufacturing automobile parts permanently in 1922.

These may be the only errors or there may be other issues with these pages but I believe that it is worth re-evaluation. Gusfriend (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2022 (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.

North American river otter

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: delist due to a silent consensus. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 08:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swath of outright copy and pasted content from a PDF source; it was either GA'd before scrutiny for CV or the reviewer AGF'd on the source. It probably has other issues, and unless someone wants to rewrite the article it fails to be broad enough. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the nominator and the reviewer are long inactive. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:56, 27 September 2022 (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 Ludington

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article relies heavily on the 1907 work by Johnson which mentions being written by their relatives and is said to be unreliable. Gusfriend (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree on a second look. Hunt's commentary is particularly convincing about the reliability of Johnson. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 in defense of your GA review, at the time you passed the article, Johnson was listed as being published by Harvard University, so it appeared to be a reliable source, but the citation as written was misleading. The archive.org version was uploaded from Harvard library, although the title pages state it was published by his grandchildren. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting this. Very interesting. Thats... still frustrating to me. I will endeavor to be more careful in the future. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 I don't see any way that you could have been expected to pick this up; we are somewhat dependent on AGF, this was not easily uncovered, and it was the editor who wrote the citation and the article that should have taken greater care. I only became aware of the debacle that Wikipedia has created throughout the Ludington family series after seeing reports about Sybil Ludington as the "female Paul Revere" on Facebook that didn't pass the duck test, and discovered from there Wikipedia's role in promoting that meme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, for the same reasons, Shearonink might want to have a fresh look at Ludington family, another GA in this series. (I haven't looked closely at it for undue promotional statements based on Johnson's book and followups to his work.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia - Taking at look at all that article's sources, the Ludington family article does not primarily rely on the (somewhat/basically/charming but not reputable?..) refuted source of Johnson's "memoir". The Sybil section should be re-written according to editorial consensus and Johnson's memoir cite removed from other sections but at this time I think the Ludington family article should retain its GA designation. Am happy to reassess more in-depth though if needful. Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shearonink I'm quite swamped IRL right now, so apologies for the brevity. If memory serves, I already corrected at Ludington family the worst parts of Sybil, but what I don't know is whether other sources used at that article are just parroting the dubious Johnson work (as are some of the sources in this article). A deeper dive in to some of the other sources might be warranted, but I really haven't taken the time to look closely. My recollection aligns with your impression (that the GA there is not in jeopardy). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the issues with the nominator of the Luddington family page (who also nominated this page and a number of other GAs that are being re-examined) I suspect that a more in depth analysis there will be required if only from a CCI perspective. Gusfriend (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OH, dear. I had forgotten that there is a CCI on the original editor <sigh> ... I fear that my extensive corrections already throughout the Ludington family suite could have obscured any original copyvio that might have been there before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With a very heavy reliance on a source that is not third-party or independent, and is not viewed by historians as neutral, I don't believe this article should be a GA. Further, as described above, several of the other sources used also rely on Johnson.
According to Paula Hunt, writing in The New England Quarterly in 2015, Johnson's Colonel Henry Ludington: A Memoir was published privately by his grandchildren, Charles H. and Lavinia Elizabeth Ludington. (Hunt, 2015, p. 192) The biography, according to Hunt, "offers a laudatory account" of the colonel's life; Hunt states that it "was certainly not of the order of Johnson’s usual projects", noting that it was omitted from his New York Times obituary. (Hunt 2015, p. 193) She writes that the New England Historical & Genealogical Register reviewed it as a "charming, simple memoir", which she says was intended to "remedy a belief that the Revolution-era militia and its officers had not received the recognition they deserved and to ensure the colonel's place in American history", citing page vii of the Memoirs. (Hunt, 2015, pp. 193–194) She characterized the work as a "not wholly reliable source". (Hunt, 2015, p. 189)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 3 October 2022 (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.

New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. The claim that this locomotive set a speed record is widely contested in reliable sources, but this article treats it like an undisputed fact. In addition, this article was created by Doug Coldwell who habitually included major instances of close paraphrasing in his articles. An article which utterly fails to consider all viewpoints in reliable sources cannot be said to meet the GA criteria. This should be delisted unless someone is willing to put in significant work to improve the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some tidying up on the related pages but I had left this one alone. Needs major copy editing to tidy up the record or to be delisted. Gusfriend (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2022 (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.

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist With 14 of 24 references coming from the MIGA or the World Bank Group there is too high a ratio of use of primary sources with some paragraphs only supported by primary sources.Gusfriend (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2022 (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.

North Carolina Transportation Museum

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The reference from https://www.nctrans.org which now redirects to https://www.nctransportationmuseum.org is the only reference for the Heritage railroad and Events sections but:
    1. It is the URL of the North Carolina Transportation Museum itself and is a primary source.
    2. The reference has a date of 2015 but the archived version is from 2007 (admittedly the archived URL could be removed) leaving it unclear what information was used for the reference.
    3. Neither the archived version links, archived versions from 2015 or 2016 or the current version supports the text with what is on the home page although it may have sub pages of the site may support it.
    4. The Heritage railroad section mentions events from 2016 and 2017 which is after the date of the only reference for the section.
  2. The Steam and Diesel sections of the Collection have no references supporting them. (possibly replaceable by references in the Coleman book).
  3. The Electric Boxcar reference comes from the page http://www.bera.org/pnaerc-orginfo.html which is a list of "Organizations Preserving North American Railway Cars" which has not been updated since 2006 (according to their page) and may be considered user generated as it asks for people to email the page owner.
  4. The museum information reference is a press release from the museum and a primary source. (possibly replaceable by a reference in the Coleman book).
  5. The North Carolina Department of Transportation - Awards: Railroad Depot and Roundhouse Renovations reference has some great information but is from the NCDOT which partnered with the NCTM for work so could be considered a primary reference.
  6. There is also no real reference on the fact that the former Southern Railway's Spencer Shops is on the NRHP. I also wonder if other buildings are heritage listed.

Given the WP:CCI of the nominator for GA status and close paraphrasing that has been found in other recent GARs of their articles I am reluctant to try and solve the identified issues. I am not saying that there is any incorrect information in the article and the books Coleman, Alan (2018). North Carolina Transportation Museum. Charleston, South Carolina. ISBN 1-4671-2775-2. OCLC 1007842710.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) and Galloway, Duane (1996). Southern Railway's Spencer shops : 1896-1996. Jim Wrinn. Lynchburg, Va.: TLC Pub. ISBN 1-883089-23-9. OCLC 36152758. may have enough information to support everything especially with some local news reports but absent some significant effort this article should be delisted.

I expect that someone could turn this into an amazing article with some effort as I suspect that the references are out there but it is not there yet.

I will be posting a message about this GAR on the Railways Wikiproject. Gusfriend (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2022 (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.

Elon Musk

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. No valid reason for delisting provided. (t · c) buidhe 04:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk is considered to be very influential to many, as he has contributed a lot to technological advancement in spaceflight and technology, most notably electric vehicles and near-future enhancements. Musk is without a doubt a respectable individual in these fields, but his recent actions and past comments on various social issues and perceived problems has generated a good amount of warranted controversy. A good article is meant to document various things that are well-received on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but by allowing him to have a good article status does not reason under our current social climate

Musk is known to have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. If Wikipedia aims to document individuals who are professorial in science, then including a denier of vaccines and lock downs as a "good example" is pretty strange. We have a zero-tolerance policy on fringe science and conspiracies, so why must we include a proponent of hoaxes as a "good article"?

Elon recently acquired Twitter, and fired an employee responsible from preventing a coup by Donald Trump. If Wikipedia aims to be a place to get accurate information on extremely sensitive events such as the attempted coup at the capitol, then why do we wish to promote someone who advocates the restoration of a major proponent of de-democratization in the United States? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Elon has made continuous references to far-right politics. Far-right politics in the United States have been recently responsible for many mass shootings and huge political disinformation, such as QAnon and Trumpism. If we aim to be a neutral space that presents individuals at their best, then why must we include a "meme lord" as a good article? It just shows how out of touch we are.

Musk no longer deserves a good article due to his behaviour and actions, which will unfortunately account for the restoration of Donald Trump on the biggest micrblogging website, which will be a direct threat to democracy. We need to reassess this article for the betterment of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alohaidled (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. We care about the GA criteria, not "behaviour and actions". Unless you can show how this article doesn't follow the GA criteria, the article won't be delisted. The article is considered "good" because its content and quality is good according to the GA criteria, not because the person is good. Btw, QAnon is a GA too. Skyshifter talk 01:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody want to claim that this article no longer meets GA criteria and should be delisted? Otherwise we should speedy close this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Go check out Adolf Hitler. Speedy close. ~ HAL333 03:29, 1 November 2022 (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.

John W. Rogers Jr.

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. Outstanding cleanup banners. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently three unsolved issues with the article's sourcing as shown at the top of the article inside the {{Multiple issues}} template. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2022 (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.

Honolulu (pool)

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. 141Pr 08:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a short article, and there are no images on the page, therefore failing the 6th GA criterion. 141Pr 08:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem like such a tiny thing to open a GAR about. What exactly would you like an image of? I've gone ahead and added an image of a rack of Honolulu to emphasize this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Praseodymium-141, I suggest closing this as "keep" now that an image has been added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:21, 16 November 2022 (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.

Tifa Lockhart

edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: The nominator and reviewers seem to be satisfied, so closing this GAR as kept. PresN 13:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the reception section of the article is overflowing with the often hated listicles (word defined here on Merriam-Webster). While they do come from reliable sources, they are generally poorly written and say little of the character. The reception section in general also gives undue weight towards her physical appearance and body. Outside of the reception section, a lot of the sources are WP:PRIMARY. Due to these factors, I believe it fails criteria 2b at its current state. Also, as a minor point, File:Tifa Lockhart art.png and File:Tifa Lockhart.png could have better fair-use rationale. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would argue given the character and the nature of most of the reception is towards the character's appearance and sex appeal, it's hard to argue Undue weight being pushed towards the character's appearance when that's the first thing most react towards. Also WP:PRIMARY is used in regards to no original research, when the sources are being cited directly for what they're stating in regards to the character's concept and role in the games: why would you need a secondary source to tell you what happens in the game or the developer's rationale for why they developed a character a certain way? And if you're going to do this GAR, at the very least cite specific things in the article to tackle in terms of certain references you may feel are weak or places you feel original research may be occurring, broad strokes like this make it difficult to work with you to bring it up to snuff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is really difficult to point out specific sources as, like I said, the entire reception section makes heavy use of listicles, those being 65-68, 44, 47-50, 52, 54 and 55, 57-59, 70-72, and 75-77. Removing those would probably leave a massive whole in the reception section. Also, there are other things to talk about with the character: [30] [31] and [32] do not really focus on her sex appeal and would be good sources for reception. Finally, sorry if this GAR is lacking, as it is my first. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaned out a lot of those, and rewrote some of the others so they were actually saying something. I do feel list entries are fine to cite as long as they are actually saying something citeable for a person's reaction to the character. When the dust settled though it didn't carve out that much out of the reception section. As for the other articles you mentioned it's a bit harder to work those into the article on the fly, and that's generally better for something brought up on the talk page or with a cleanup tag, not really a GAR. I'll try and get them in there in a bit.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the trimming could still go a bit further. Being on Complex's "16th-best-looking "sideline chick in games" neither noteworthy nor GA material. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree that it's not noteworthy, I would agree that a list of publications recognizing a character for their sex appeal amid other lists of publications recognizing a character for other reasons is not compelling prose, nor summary style. I think most of those types of mentions could be summarized in a line or two, rather than being listed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I could see it being used as a source for a more broad statement on positive reception for attractiveness, but with a character as mainstream and popular as Tifa, with decades of attention and high level coverage, neither Complex nor "16th place" is particularly of note. As is, it's more of a "let's save this obscure character at WP:AFD" type addition, not a modern GA. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if either of you would care to lend a hand I'm stupidly busy on my end. I think even Oinkers plate is full despite starting this GAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranged some parts of the reception and added commentary from Advent Children and Remake. I hope it helps.Tintor2 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing tidying (misuse of commas and fullstops, weird word choices, bad grammer), but got edit conflicted. I'm worried about going on any kind of detail work with small edits going on all the time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Sorry. I won't edit it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: Not permanently stopping, I hope. Sorry if I sounded hostile. Probably too late in my area to try doing edits anyway (past 10 PM). Please continue if you'd like to. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged it a bit more like Aya Brea to separate the sex appeal from other themes related with the character. Now the first paragraph of critical response explores her character in general, the second her relationship with Cloud and the last one her role in the movie and Remake.Tintor2 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's much better, although I think there's more to be done in terms of condensation. I'm not a big fan of spending times on exact rankings and separating publication lists; it'd be one thing if it were The New York Times, but IGN definitely ain't that. (Maybe the EGM one is, especially since there's a little more substance?) So instead of both GameDaily and MSN featured her on lists of "gaming's hottest babes", while noting her looks and appearence while acknowledging the depth of her character and development offset this element.[71][72] In 2010, VideoGamer.com included her among the top ten video game crushes,[73] while Sarah Warn of AfterEllen ranked her as the "ninth-hottest" female video game character.[74] Complex ranked her as the 16th-best-looking "sideline chick in games,"[75] while UGO placed her 13th among the "fighting games' finest hottest women" for her appearance in Ehrgeiz.[76] I'd aim for something closer to Publications including GameDaily, MSN, VideoGamer.com, AfterEllen, Complex, and UGO have ranked her among gaming's most attractive characters. Since there are so many publications, at some point you just lump them into a ref bundle and don't need to explicitly call them out.
I also think the "popularity" section doesn't really separate neatly from the "sex appeal" section since similar stuff is being discussed, and while I appreciate trying to break it out it just feels redundant and sloppy at present. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a copyedit of the whole article at Tintor's request. I think his recent reorganization of the Reception section is really nice and de-emphasizes the listicles that motivated this GAR to begin with. Are there additional issues people have identified or is it time to make a final decision on the GAR? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium: Thanks for the quick help.Tintor2 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@(Oinkers42), Kung Fu Man, Sergecross73, David Fuchs, ProtoDrake, and Tintor2: Tintor did a thorough reorganization of the Reception section after David's last comment, which I think is quite nice. I think the article is in good shape now. Can we move towards a final decision? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it seems okay now. It seems to have been salvaged. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's much better. I don't have any reservations that would hold things up, though I do question the inclusion of the bit that says ''UGO stated their preference for Tifa over Aerith when looking at the heroines of Final Fantasy VII" . On its own, that observation seems kind of mundane, while concurrently, I feel like could be a massive cruft magnet, as I imagine there are countless publications over the decades who have said they favor one or the other for the years. Not sure which direction we should go in fixing it, but I feel like it could change somehow. But again, dont let that suggestion hold things up. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong feelings about that sentence and could excise it entirely without losing sleep. I don't think UGO is a particularly high quality source to begin with. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better. Thanks Alex and Tintor for your work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WWE 2K

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 18:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page no longer meets Good Article criteria in my opinion, reception section in particular is almost empty besides the reviews of the game being listed in a box. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:40, 9 October 2022 (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.

1973 CECAFA Cup

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 improvements after a month. Fails 3a. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled across this GA while looking for examples of tournament articles to use as inspiration for another project. I was shocked to find a complete lack of a prose summary, goalscorer information, and most statistics. As such, I believe this article (and some other CECAFA Cup entries) fails criteria 3a, as it does not address the main aspects of the topic. SounderBruce 06:45, 8 November 2022 (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.

Shelby Gem Factory

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: Delist - While the article is much improved, cruft and unsupported claims still remain. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell GA. I approved it in January, but it has sourcing issues. I have attempted a partial rewrite (which included two SIGCOV sources unavailable to Doug), but this is not my field, and I'm a bit out of my depth here after having seen this page too much. I'm hoping that the rest of the article can be improved—it has great images and concerns a now-defunct operation—but I can't take this much further than I already have. I only approved two Coldwell GAs of six I reviewed; the other one was delisted here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at this through a critical prism so please feel free to ignore any of my comments. FYI, looking at it as the article currently is, this seems like it was a reasonable approval at the time.
Article improvements
  • In the history section it says Larry and his wife Jo later became the sole owners of ICT. Is there some information that can be added?
  • Probably not. I'm hampered here by the poor availability of regional newspapers. West Michigan is not my jam at all.
  • There are a couple of spots where it would be good if it was clearer which Kelley was being described. For example Kelley died on October 24 at the end of the history section.
  •   Done
  • There seems to a mix of talking about the "Shelby Gem Factory" and the company "International Crystal Technology". Would it make more sense to present it as being about the company instead and the factory as the centre of their operations? It should at least have a redirect from ICT.
  • The company was most definitely better known as Shelby Gem Factory, and the ICT name is not used in some of the longer features, such as the 1990 Detroit News article. I believe the article is at the proper location.
  • In the Gem manufacturing section should Czochralski method be a "see also" which might mean that some of the text may be redundant.
  • I've added this, but I encourage you to make the edits needed to reduce redundancy.
Items of concern
  • I am concerned about the statement that they were the "first commercial producer" of Cubic zirconia given that:
    • the reference comes from the "Oceana's Herald-Journal" which apperas to be a county newspaper for a county of less than 30,000 people.
    • the lack of a corresponding statement on the Cubic zirconia page. i.e. if it is true then it should be there as well.
      • I have found a second and slightly better source, the 1999 Flint Journal article, for this claim. I am unfamiliar with this topic area and don't know where I'd look for trade publications.
  • I was just looking at the statement They have a D color rating, the highest rating for diamonds (as determined by the Gemological Institute of America). Although some of the company's products were "simulants", their synthetic ruby and sapphire stones were not imitations; they had the same chemical and crystalline structure that is found in natural stones. The Shelby Gem Factory also manufactured simulated citrine and topaz, along with other birthstone substitutes.[5] and, unless I am missing something, all that refernce #5 supports is that the manufactured gems are crystals and he figured out how to make birthstone gems but in the text it says that that was early on and does not mention when (or even if) they were sold commercially.
  • The statement The factory did not use the Verneuil method of "pulling" crystals, using temperature differences like the process that forms an icicle. Rather, it used the Czochralski method, in which small fragments of mined gems were then used as seeds to re-crystallize liquid into larger gemstones, akin to chemical vapor deposition. Larry Kelley believed that his firm was the only company in the world to use this method. also relies on the same reference which says that they mainly use pulling and growing without mentioning the names of the methods so it comes across as WP:OR. Also the fact that the reference says that they did use pulling but the text says that they did not.
Gusfriend (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking these last two together: This is the area where I'm struggling to de-puff the page. If I could get through this, Gusfriend, I might not have taken it to GAR. I'd encourage someone else to consider clearing out the cruft and unsupported claims. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:48, 8 November 2022 (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.

Geliyoo

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 - while participants agree it would be nice if the article were more broad, no evidence of omitted references were found. The other two proposed reasons for a delist are not supported by the WP:GA criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I came across this page reading through the engineering and technology GA pages, and think it still may need some work.

  1. Having read the page, I'm not confident the page is broad enough in content. The whole company history is covered in a couple of short paragraphs, and quite a lot of detail of interest is skipped over (ranging from more on the founders, early days, iterations, scaling up etc).
  2. The article could be illustrated, which it currently isn't (and the logo not having the background removed could be fixed to make the page cleaner).
  3. I think more citations would be great too, to illustrate the topic. Possibly use of quotes.

To me, the page feels like it would fit B-class. Would be great to get some community insight. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the notification. I did the GA review, and I agree it would be nice to have more company history, but I was unable to find evidence that sources had been omitted. The scandals are what seems to have made it newsworthy, and I think it's likely there's little or no other coverage. Lack of coverage of an area doesn't make an article ineligible for GA, so I don't think there's a problem there. That also means more citations are not very likely to be found. Illustrations are not required for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So first, I honestly couldn't care if this was delisted. I'm not active here anymore, though having it stay would be nice.
  • For more history, there is nothing to add if you don't want to use paid-for non-RS sources. Several of these were removed during the GAN. As said above, the main reason why this company is known is because of the scandal. There are a few RS from before that, and those are already in the article.
  • A screenshot of the main page was suggested on the GAN, but that's currently blanked. I can't think of anything else to add.
  • Partially the same as the first note: no sources. For quotes—I don't know what you'd want. There are a few quotes from the owners, but I don't see them being really encyclopedic.
So yeah, those are my two cents. ~StyyxTalk? 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, if anyone was wondering, the whole point of getting this to GA status was to run it on DYK with the criticizing hook. ~StyyxTalk? 21:56, 5 December 2022 (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.

Batted ball

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 for keep. Steelkamp (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My 2nd ever GA, I'm now taking it to GAR myself. When I wrote this at the beginning of my content-writing career, I was too naive/stupid to realize the source I used the most was user-generated. Those refs have since been removed and replaced with CN tags. As I don't have the time/energy to fix this myself, I think it needs delisted unless someone else is willing to pick it up. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with delisting and also note that there are references that point to MLB that might be better with additional support due to the role that MLB plays in the administration of Baseball. Gusfriend (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to invest some time to address CN tags in the article. How long would be allowed? Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmoore5556: - I think pretty much as long as there's active work going on, it would be good to go. I could probably help to some extent, but I just don't have the time for a major overhaul. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: – that should be fine, I should be able to make progress in the coming week; looking at one section now. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmoore5556, @Hog Farm, @Gusfriend: happy with the GA status now? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is looking a lot better now. Gusfriend (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to add quite a few citations; I'll defer to Hog Farm on overall status. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty busy time for me in RL, I'll try to look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 22:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm? Just had a look myself, and I believe it can be kept if the lead is expanded to a full paragraph complying better with WP:EXPLAINLEAD. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke: - I've added a rudimentary lead in. I still plan on going back at some point in the future and sourcing a few things such as the definition of a comebacker, but it's in much better shape. Thanks, Dmoore5556. Hog Farm Talk 16:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for it to be kept now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2022 (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.

Mamie Eisenhower

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: In two months, no one has expressed any significant concerns with the article - certainly nothing that would necessitate a delist. Anything else can be resolved through normal editing processes, or at FAC if that's in the cards. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Mamie Eisenhower for GA, but it was quick-passed. The subsequent discussion was unhelpful, so I feel it should be reassessed to confirm that it meets the standards or so I know what to fix if it does not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, the article looks excellent. A few comments
  • history.com is not generally considered reliable. Is there a better source for her maiden name?
  • Not relevant for the GA criteria, but I see WP:ALTs are missing.
  • You could argue the Sienna College rankings are trivia. These sections are better written with secondary sources.
  • "Eisenhower did not enjoy the comforts that she had grown accustomed to in childhood" maybe a bit too flowery? I first read this as "she now had comforts, which she did not enjoy".
  • I've checked the use of the book by her granddaughter. In general, it's only used for neutral statemets (I'd be concerned if it was used for positive statements.)
I sampled about 20% of the article's prose. I'm sure a more thorough GA review would find more instances of prose that can be improved, but what I've seen so far makes me happy to say keep. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: maybe you missed my previous comments? Would you have time to address my comments? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification! The rankings weren't there when this became a good article, but I feel that they're relevant, and so far I haven't found any better sources describing historian opinion of her role as first lady. Otherwise I've addressed all listed concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2022 (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.

Rancho Bravo Tacos

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: Second review also found no issues. Furthermore, no one has expressed any significant concerns with the article - certainly nothing that would necessitate a delist. Anything else can be resolved through normal editing processes, or at FAC if that's in the cards. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting the quality of this article, but it was reviewed by a new user who did not give an in-depth assessment. I only would like to ensure that it receives this. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! No problem. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll perform a de facto GA review here. I am familiar with @Another Believer's work and have little question of the article quality. I applaud User:An anonymous username, not my real name for their diligence in catching that review so quickly.
  • Copy-vios- Only quotes flagged on Earwig. Random spot-checking finds nothing.
  • Sourcing- nothing of note, fixed some missing citation info
  • Images- descriptions could be more specific, image rights are in order
  • Prose- MOS:CITELEAD should be removed, all other issues I cleaned up on my own.
@An anonymous username, not my real name I've given this page a solid look through. There are a handful of issues that @Another Believer should address but nothing that immediately would warrant the page being delisted. If you want to close this discussion I'll leave that up to you, I personally give this a Strong keep. Etrius ( Us) 04:53, 28 November 2022 (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.

Higher-speed rail

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large portions of this page are uncited. There are also parts that are poorly written. Steelkamp (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specific problems are as follows:

  • alternatives to larger efforts to create or expand the high-speed rail networks.
  • Lead should be longer.
  • Though the definition of higher-speed rail varies from country to country, most countries refer to rail services operating at speeds up to 200 km/h (125 mph). Should not be in its own paragraph
  • but usually falling short on the intended speeds. Why the "usually". Surely if it fulfilled intended speeds, then it would become true high speed rail.
  • the speed range for India's higher-speed rail will be between 160 and 200 km/h (100 and 125 mph). What's with the "will be"?
  • A table in the middle of a list?
  • In Canada, the assumption about grade crossing is that operating higher-speed rail services between 160 and 200 km/h (99 and 124 mph) would require "improved levels of protection in acceptable areas". This is a nebulous statement.
  • In developing higher-speed rail services, one of those safety systems must be used. This seems to be original research.
  • which regulates the speed limits of trains with Class 5, Class 6, Class 7 and Class 8 Is this grammatically correct?
  • In the United States, railroad tracks are largely used for freight with at-grade crossings. Is that meant to link to level crossing rather than At-grade intersection?

Steelkamp (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no improvement to this article in the last month. I suggest to any uninvolved users passing by that you close this GAR as delist. Steelkamp (talk) 05:29, 7 January 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.

2b2t

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. Clear consensus that concerns have been addressed. czar 08:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is the "context" template at the top of the article, saying that it provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. So, I believe that the article now fails the GA criteria. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, the reviewer, No Great Shaker, was blocked. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It appears NGS performed a good-faith and normal review. His block was not due to incompetence but rather sockpuppetry, which is unlikely to impact the quality of a GAN review he did. So I'm not convinced that this particular complaint is a problem. SnowFire (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think sufficient context is provided, and some edits have been made to the lede since then. I think the maintenance template can be removed. "2b2t is a Minecraft server" is as simple as it gets, with the link to Minecraft server. If someone doesn't know what Minecraft is, or what a multiplayer game server is, they can and should simply click the links. Specific terms like "griefing" and "hacking" now have explanations in footnotes or parentheticals. @Trivialist: Are there further concerns about insufficient context? Leijurv (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Gave the article a skim, and maybe my two cents isn't worth much, but I honestly probably wouldn't pass a GAN that uses so much direct quotation. It's kind of jarring to read; is there any reason these couldn't be paraphrased in prose, especially the two quote blocks down in Reception? ~Bluecrystal004 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Going off of @Bluecrystal004's comment, I would say that the main "issue" with the article is the block quotes, which could probably be broken up or paraphrased for a smoother reading. Otherwise, after skimming through the article, I think it does a pretty good job at explaining such a niche corner of gaming culture. Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnson524. SMBMovieFan (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user was blocked as a sockpuppet. See WP:STRIKESOCK. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 01:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So? The user was on Wikipedia for 8 years according to his profile before he got blocked, just because the user got blocked, doesn't mean the article is bad. TomMasterRealTALK 00:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TomMasterReal I think you may be confused. SMBMovieFan has been blocked a sock of TzarN64. Pizzaplayer has struck SMBMovieFan's comment, because as a sockpuppet of a blocked user, SMB has no right to contribute to any community discussion. Pizzaplayer is not making any comment on the quality of the article. TzarN64 only started contributing in 2022, so I'm not sure where you get the impression that they were an 8-year contributor prior to being blocked for socking. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's my fault, I thought you guys were talking about the person who got the article to be a GA. The guy who got 2b2t to be a GA was on Wikipedia for 8 years before he got blocked. Sorry about that. TomMasterRealTALK 17:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be super pedantic, but No Great Shaker was just the reviewer. Leijurv is the one who did the work to get the article to GA, and they're still around and in good standing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment, but I must defer to Melofors who did way more work than me on improving 2b2t to GA. :) Leijurv (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wandering in here as I'm toddling through the old community GARs. I rewrote the lead a bit, mostly reordering things a bit and incorporating the content that was in the efns into the prose. I intend to start paraphrasing the block quotes into prose next. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right - blockquotes have now been integrated and/or removed. The earlier two were easier to integrate, while the latter two were removed almost wholesale as they added little to the article that a paraphrase could not. I'm now satisfied that it should be kept as a GA (although I don't love the logo section, especially as it has CN tag). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've decided to boldly removed the logo section. It was not present when the article passed GA and was only added in December last year. Steelkamp (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Original nominator's concerns have been addressed adequately by Leijurv. The problem with excessive use of quotes has been fixed. The uncited logo section has been removed. There are no other apparent problems with the article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:41, 6 January 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.

U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina)

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: Delist – There are two reasons given to delist the article: whether an article based almost solely on maps can be a GA and whether there is any OR remaining. There is disagreement about whether the first reason is sufficient to warrant delisting (GAR is not for notability discussions). The arguments about OR are stronger, and there seems to be a rough policy-weighted consensus for a delist. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a maintenance template at the top of the article that says that the article contains self-published sources. Because of this, I believe that the article could no longer remain a good article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find that template to be curious and wonder if it was placed in error. These "self-published sources" are from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and its predecessor agencies. Such sources have been generally accepted as appropriate on highway articles, even at the FA level. Imzadi 1979 → 20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The tag appears to have been corrected now. --Rschen7754 03:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Imzadi1979: All SounderBruce did was that they replaced the "Third-party" tag with the "Primary sources" tag, but the article still could not meet the GA criteria regardless of which maintenance tags the article contains. Do you now agree with the updated tag? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WIAGA criterion 2b says: "all inline citations are from reliable sources". Are you saying that primary sources can't be reliable? Are you saying that these specific sources are not reliable?
    I disagree with the tag. Maps are not primary sources. They are secondary sources distilled from GIS data, aerial or satellite surveys, on-the-ground surveyor's notes, and the like. The only source there that I'd call truly primary is #18, the route change resolution, and yet I would find it odd for someone to challenge the reliability of that source. We may prefer some different types of sources in a highway article, but this one meets our sourcing needs, and that tag should be removed and this GAR closed. Imzadi 1979 → 16:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with and can't explain it any better than Imzadi1979. -420Traveler (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From a little research today I think that the book Pelosi, Carol W. (2008). Connections-- 100 years of Wake Forest history. Virginia Beach, VA: Donning Co. Publishers. ISBN 978-1-57864-525-1. OCLC 244177148. would be a very use source of information here and really what is needed.
I would also consider reaching out to the Wake Forest Museum as they actually have some old photos of Main Street which became 1A (see [33]). The Wake Forest Gazette has a bunch of mundane information including repaving ([34]) and SC98 work would affect a section of 1A ([35]). The information about the historic district mentioned above which is on the edge of it is also relevant. There are also minor works mentioned at the NCDOT page ([36]). NCDOT also has [37] which is the YOUNGSVILLE, NC BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN which mentions how it interacts with 1A. These reference should help with some of the intersection information and other little bits along the way.Gusfriend (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to mention the current ANI discussion at [38] which has some interesting perspectives on WP:OR and WP:V when it comes to maps and WP:MAPCITE which is an essay but does include the statement The author should remember that a good article will describe an object above and beyond what is visible in a map. I think that the tag is there in part because every source is a map and descriptions like North Main Street is a two-lane divided highway with a tree-lined median and runs through a historical residential area. appear to be sourced from Google Maps.

By way of improving the article I noticed that the Glen Royall Mill Village Historic District PDF reeference includes the statement Along the high ground on the west boundary runs Wake Forest's North Main Street (U.S. Highway lA), a historic ridge road connecting the town to communities to the north and in the early twentieth century North Carolina's principal "national highway" connection to the North. which would be a useful addition to the page. Also have there been articles in local news about roadworks or other changes? Even information about where it meets US 1? Gusfriend (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The general routing of US 1A first appeared in 1916, as part of North Carolina's state highway system plan. At the time, the highway was detailed as part of an improved roadway which stretched from Raleigh to an undefined area east of Warrenton. This is cited to an old map. The map does not say "The general routing of US 1A first appeared in 1916", that's WP:OR. Not mention, what is "an undefined area east of Warrenton" and why is it important? Also, saying At Forestville, the highway approaches the CSX S-Line and citing that to a CSX map is textbook WP:SYNTH. There is not a single secondary source in this article. No, maps produced by the organization which built and maintained these roads is not secondary. Delist. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this GAR will be used as some sort of precedent-setting political weapon to say that all road GAs are deficient in some way - that is not the case. There is nothing wrong with citing a map just because it is a map. That being said, I do agree with Gusfriend and the first part of Indy beetle's comments and think that this article falls below even the standards set by WP:MAPCITE. (As far as the routing issue, the proper use is to either say by 1916 or point to a map the same edition from a year earlier.) The use of maps in this article is sloppy. --Rschen7754 15:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the roads articles would be better off if maps were only used where absolutely necessary and to say the most basic facts. Their widespread use encourages OR violations of this sort. It's not always the case, but local media sometimes has articles or news listings on highway construction projects. It might be worth it for roads editors with newspaper.com accounts to comb through old newspapers to look for bulletins on highway construction. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is - if we disallowed all maps as sources, all we would have would be a travel guide instead of the Route section (since that would be all that we could source, and probably through SPS sites saying where they are located) and a history section. Even then, there are some cases where entire years of newspaper archives are missing and we would basically have to just delete the information, no matter how important it was. I am sure that with the recent change in attitude this site has had, they would be happy with slashing up our articles to be POV and borderline incoherent like that, but I am not. --Rschen7754 19:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • POV? Huh? Using newspapers to describe roadway expansion projects and eliminating original research with subjective observations like "then the highway passes X building and Y street [important to the editor who added it]" would increase POV? I have no idea where you're coming from. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm talking about the typical Route description section. The so-called "subjective observations" are what ties the whole thing together and brings cohesion. Without it, we basically have a long list of trivia - what we can cobble together from "reliable" (non-map) sources:
          This road is named after X, a police officer who died on the road.
          The road goes by Disneyland. (sourced to disney.com)
          This road was designated a scenic byway. (sourced to a government document which I'm sure you don't like either).
        • Thus it is basically a travel guide, violating WP:NOT and essentially becoming POV since said points are more likely to be positive than negative. And of the "big three" sections a road article has, I suspect you won't like the junction list (usually sourced to maps and/or government documents) either, so basically the only sections left are "Travel guide" and "History". --Rschen7754 03:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I hear you saying is that the topic isn't notable and we should be having this discussion at AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is a disingenuous misrepresentation of what I am saying. I am just saying that 90% of all newspaper/book sources will be used in the history and not anywhere else. --Rschen7754 00:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • The alternative of what Horse Eye suggests you're saying is "There isn't enough reliable secondary source material for me to write the article I want to write, therefore the rules should not apply to me because I'm special and I should be able to write entire articles using WP:OR." Can't wait to write the article on the street I live on, since I can find it on google maps... For the record, I'm not opposed to government textual sources (used several myself in other articles), but I don't think they confer notability. Textual highway reports of some nature do exist (this is mostly in the planning stage, but I don't see why you could look for similar sources for description of existing routes) -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Since my comments are being willfully misinterpreted, this is what I am talking about. How does this benefit the reader? (And don't say the article is not notable, I hope 20 newspaper articles are enough to pass your interpretation of GNG. --Rschen7754 00:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Original analysis of sources is already disallowed no matter the source. Maps are no exception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is "map reading" original analysis? If so then there's a whole lot of troubles coming for Wikipedia, not just roads but other articles (I think half of our TV articles would have to go). --Rschen7754 03:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          If basic map reading skills fall into "original research", as Wikipedia uses that term of art, then just why are so many highway articles written using such skills listed as Featured Articles. Surely the FAC corps of reviewers over the past decade and a half would have said something about that by now and none of the several dozen of FAs on highways would have been promoted. Since WP:WIAFA is more stringent than WP:WIAGA, if the content can pass FAC, it must be able to pass GAN. If this is so problematic, then I suggest you have about 90 FARs to initiate first before worrying about a GAN. Imzadi 1979 → 04:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Any Wikipedia article written entirely from maps without any secondary source should never be an article, let alone a GA or FA. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • "why are so many highway articles written using such skills listed as Featured Articles" FA reviewers can't override basic policy like WP:OR, if thats what they've been doing then they need to have those privileges stripped. If FA or GA reviews are in conflict with our core policies the core policies win every single time, their aberration can't be used as evidence that the policy is wrong it can only be used as evidence that the reviewers were wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • I also suspect this more a function of roads editors reviewing others' articles at FAC and GAn than it is evidence of a sitewide consensus that the use of maps in this fashion is totally ok. There have been some complaints in recent years from some FA and FAR regulars that the FA process has essentially been gamed by likeminded editors who—in good faith—are promoting their friends' articles without using as much scrutiny as should be desired. I don't see why roads topics should be any different, considering the insular nature of the topic. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                Again, there are FAs using these sorts of sources in this manner. Again, if this is an issue, open the appropriate FAR and start sending FA reviewers (who on roads articles are typically not roads editors) the appropriate amounts of fish; I hear trout would be the species of choice. Until then, I stand by the position that if this sort of sourcing has been acceptable for FA, by definition, it must be acceptable for GA as WIAFA is intentionally mush stricter than WIAGA. Imzadi 1979 → 00:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, I'll bite, @Indy beetle: since you have some FAs. Care to find any particular road FACs that you want to call into question? And I see you're a MILHIST coordinator - couldn't we use the same logic to call some of the MILHIST FAs into question? --Rschen7754 00:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Any that use Google Maps as a source for a route description I'd have some questions about. The Interstate 68 (which is admittedly an older one) uses a Google Maps topographic map to discuss an elevation drop in the roadway, which seems UNDUE coming from a primary source. The more recent Washington State Route 520 solely uses Gmaps to support the sentence: SR 520 travels east across the south end of Portage Bay and its wetlands on the Portage Bay Viaduct, entering the Montlake neighborhood. In Montlake, the highway intersects Montlake Boulevard (SR 513) and Lake Washington Boulevard just south of the University of Washington campus and Husky Stadium. "Wetlands" don't appear anywhere on Google Maps, so original interpretation. At Interstate 205 (Oregon–Washington), Gmaps cite for I-205 then intersects Stark, Burnside, and Gilsan streets via a series of weaved ramps near Mall 205 and the Adventist Health Portland hospital. What is a "weaved ramp", and how is one to know that from looking at this map aside from original interpretation? The statement North of Division Street, the freeway marks the boundary between the neighborhoods of Montavilla and Hazelwood, sourced to a government map (reliable but also primary), also seems UNDUE. If you want to claim wide consensus, call an RfC on the use of maps. This article has zero nonmap secondary sources, and curiously no roads editors including yourself seem to have bothered trying to find any (here's a little, but it's not enough for GNG). Why are you all so resistant to this? Oh, and we over at MilHist are doing just fine. There's been shift away from cruft and the shoddy sourcing that supports it since 2018. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I also suspect this more a function of roads editors reviewing others' articles at FAC and GAn than it is evidence of a sitewide consensus that the use of maps in this fashion is totally ok. Please provide links to the actual FACs in question where you believe this behavior occurred, or retract your statement. Why are you all so resistant to this? Because you are pushing a novel interpretation of sourcing policies that is higher than what FAC has required in the past and what we believe the policies to say, and because this would basically turn our articles into an incoherent collection of trivia, along with a slashed up history section. --Rschen7754 00:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't think I, or anyone, can prove a lack of scrutiny by means of showing conversations which one thinks should have existed but do not exist (I've provided my views of flaws in using map sourcing above, which you have elected not to address). If you have problem with that, take me to ANI. If you think several FA passes are tantamount to sitewide consensus, call an RfC. I'm still amused that you think an article wholly sourced to maps (aside from the route change notice) is worthy of GA status. From another perspective, this article is a collection of trivia. Well written, yes, but not well sourced. At any rate, I don't think there's much more to be said here. I stand by my delist vote, and hope to see this article at AfD unless someone can provide secondary coverage in additional to the blurb I've identified above. I don't think it speaks well of you that so far I'm the only one who's at least bothered to look for any secondary coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Horse Eye's Back: FAs have to be reviewed by several editors, including a source review for reliable sources and source–text integrity. Those reviews are all then digested by one of the FA delegates to both assess consensus for promotion and the appropriateness of the reviews. FA promotion is not a vote-counting exercise, and if a delegate feels that the reviews are not sufficient to warrant promotion, he or she won't promote the article regardless of the number of reviews.
              So in short, if you feel that " they need to have those privileges stripped", I suggest you start an RfC at WP:FAC to assert your claims and recall the full slate of FAC delegates. Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I was just looking for an example and for the article George Street, Sydney and saw articles like [39], [40], [41], and others which talk about changes introduced to the George Street and the history of it and are the sort of references that really add to a page (and I will add them to the page shortly). I also just looked at a couple of random road FA articles, California State Route 67 and Capital Loop which only have a handful of uses of maps as references. My view is that an article should be supported by more than just maps for it to be a GA. Gusfriend (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think reasonable people can differ on that point, just because the "why" of the road is not explained. Personally I think it can be GA but not FA - because of the difference between "broad" and "comprehensive". --Rschen7754 00:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Gusfriend: Capitol Loop still relies on maps for its route description section. Were we to remove the maps as sources, as it would seem suggested here, two whole sections would need to be removed from the article, thus negating the completeness, a higher standard than the broadness expected of a GA. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have trimmed the most problematic statements from the article. As far as the debate on maps, the status quo has long been that they are acceptable sources. I do think it is fair to counsel @420Traveler: to take better care when reviewing articles. --Rschen7754 00:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—and proceed to close this review. Imzadi 1979 → 10:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I am okay with using maps as references in both standard and GA articles but having all of the references being maps is not sufficient sourcing for something that is called a Good Article. Gusfriend (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully - under what criteria of WP:WIAGA is this under? I would agree that it would not meet comprehensive of WP:WIAFA, FWIW. --Rschen7754 01:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A Good Article must be Verifiable with no original research which covers both OR and use of primary sources. There have been multiple discussions about maps being OR, primary sources, etc. but there does not appear to be a firm consensus thus far (I think that someone should take it to Village Pump to help firm things up). With the uncertainty around those discussions I do not feel that an article sourced exclusively to maps meets the esteemed level of a Good Article.
      I am happy for the article to remain a GA if consensus is against me but that is how I view things. Gusfriend (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do what you want, but this argument about any map reading being OR is very new. In fact, WP:NOTOR has had a statement about map reading not being OR for 11 years, and just a few days ago U.S. Route 34 in Iowa passed FAC citing maps. --Rschen7754 02:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The FA mentioned has 9 references to maps but also references things like Transportation in Iowa: A Historical Summary and I have precisely zero concerns with it. This article however only has a single reference that is not a map (but it is a primary source). Have there been any newspaper articles or news reports about 1A? Perhaps plans for traffic studies or upgrades? Historical books about the area? Gusfriend (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we need to distinguish between this argument about "all map reading being OR" and "maps not telling the whole story about the road and that is not sufficient for GA". The former is really problematic and is a novel interpretation of policy, with far-ranging consequences (see Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Roads). The latter is an opinion that some road editors (though not myself) do hold. --Rschen7754 01:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, OR (eg. "Upon the creation of the North Carolina State Highway System in 1921, the highway running through Wake Forest and Youngsville was assigned as part of NC 50.") remains despite two months at GAR. Article seems torn between using "by" phrasing and asserting contiunous states based on the snapshot maps. CMD (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It's not appropriate for the article to be sourced solely to maps. These may be used as sources, but it does not establish notability or true verifiability for the topic. It certainly reads as original research that the history says "by 1929" and "by 1940", etc. This is just interpretation of changes between maps with given dates rather than verifiable coverage in written sources. A good article should have more specific facts with more descriptive sources rather than just analysis of primary sources. Reywas92Talk 04:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that there are some misuse of maps in this article, but they are easily fixable and certainly don't rise to the level of a WP:BLP or similar policy. The most obvious that I saw first is the claim in the history section that the road was paved between 1924 and 1926, cited to a 1924 and 1926 map. As explained in essay WP:MAPCITE that is problematic as the 1924 map was likely drafted few months in advance of January 1924. It's possible the road was paved in 1923. Reliable source, but not properly used. I made a quick fix to mitigate the problem. However my preferred option, and advice and to those involved with this article, is to search old newspaper articles and improve the history section of this article with what is found. Sometimes it is a bit tricky to find the articles in newspapers, as most road construction projects are known and reported with a name first, and not identified by the route numbers involved until later. But while that complicates research, one learns the right key words to search over time. Why not do that, and render this debate moot? Some of the comments imply this GAR is being used as a test case or stepping stone for a bigger plan (or at least desire) to nominate roads articles for AFD/GAR/FAR/whatever. I don't approve of such a plan, so I'll just leave the above as a friendly suggestion, and recuse myself from !voting. Dave (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally support the approach of searching for old (or recent) newspaper articles. Gusfriend (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article meets the GA criteria. Yes, it does rely excessively on maps, but maps are not primary sources (they are secondary sources, the raw GIS data used to make the map is the primary source) and are acceptable for verifying information in the route description and history. However, as mentioned by others, great care needs to be made when using maps to verify information in the history. In addition, it would help if other non-map sources can be used to verify information in the history such as newspaper articles, as they can give more exact dates than maps and can also provide more details about changes to the road. However, the sources that are in the article now should be sufficient for GA, whereas more non-map sources should be found if this article were to become a FA. Dough4872 15:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How does an article that has original research (failing criteria 2c) meet the GA criteria? CMD (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading a map is not considered original research. Dough4872 15:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how that relates to original research for text not supported by the maps. CMD (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you support keeping it as GA if some of the more problematic statements were adjusted? --Rschen7754 16:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd depend on what it looks like then, but it's been 3 months and no-one seems interested. (Which is fine! This is a volunteer project.) I don't think any of the text is "problematic" enough that I'd ask for it to be removed, it's just not GA level. CMD (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed we are all volunteers and unfortunately the main author is inactive. I am just trying to gauge whether it is worth putting the time in to try and fix the article. Frankly, I don't think it is if some consider any use of a map to be OR. --Rschen7754 03:37, 1 January 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.

Black Hebrew Israelites

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, The nominator has become inactive and any potential issues do not appear significant enough to warrant delisting. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a controversial topic which has been in the news regularly in the United States over the past month. It was made a GA in 2008. The article is considerably different now. I would appreciate multiple members of the community to take a look at it. I don't really have any interest in the subject, but I think it is important to make sure this article is reassessed. Thriley (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley: is there a particular GA criterion you believe is not met? If you don't specify any deficits, the GAR may be closed as keep. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley Please update on what exactly is the issue with this page. Apart from one, rather small, issue with the page, I don't see anything warranting GA reassessment. I'll give this the weekend but seeing how you're not active, I'll chalk this up to a procedural close come Monday. (implicitly this is a keep) 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:27, 7 January 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.

Railway surgery

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 this GAR open for over seven months, and neither side willing to engage, I am closing with no consensus. My own personal checks showed a general alignment between the sources and the article; there may be minor source-text irregularities, but the major accusation of 'severely US-biased' is not justfied enough for a delisting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Severely US-biased, confuses railway-operated hospitals with doctors paid by railway companies to represent them in legal cases involving medical matters, contains blatantly false statements like "in Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured" that because of the way the article is written are very hard to remove without major rewrites or massive excisions. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is biased towards the US because the detailed sources are American. What's more, those sources explicitly state that railway surgery was espeially (even uniquely) developed in the US. The alleged blatantly false claim is what the source says. There has been a discussion on this on the article talk page, but new sources have not been offered. It may be untrue that US railway surgery was unique, but without sources showing that, we can only write from the sources we have. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work isn't it? SpinningSpark 18:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can say that it's due to lack of sources, but a) have you actually looked for foreign sources, and b) that does not justify the confused presentation of the article that fails to clearly delineate between countries where railways actually provided medical care and those that did not. Second, the source for the blatantly false claim does not say what it you say it does - it divides railway injuries into four categories, but absolutely nowhere suggests that they are ordered by frequency, or that the author had any great knowledge about accident frequency in the first place. That you misread the source so badly makes me skeptical that you have represented the other sources accurately.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I looked for sources quite extensively. I'm not very competent in languages, but did not turn up much at all outside the US except a few scraps in mostly 19th century sources. The Great Britain section (and by extension Western Europe) makes it very clear that railway surgeons in that country had a radically different role "...primarily as medico-legal consultant regarding injury claims rather than practical surgery." I'm at a loss to understand why you think it doesn't say that. India is the only other country with a specific section and there the emphasis is most definitely on treatment of the injured.
On the statistics, Bond does give an indication of numbers "Accidents belonging to the first class enormously preponderate..." That is, passenger injuries. That this is different in the US and employee rather than passenger injuries predominate is given in Herrick with some statistics. (Note I have just adjusted the page range in Herrick to include the numbers he gives). SpinningSpark 09:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also reworded this to avoid the claim these classes are in statistical order. SpinningSpark 09:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have still kept the completely erroneous claim that passenger inujuries outnumbered employee injuries in Europe, which the source says absolutely nothing about. Further, with regards to countries, the article spends far too long talking in terms of a mythical international "railway surgery". Most of the article should be placed under a US heading. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have seen this on the GAR page and read the page a few times in the last few weeks and finally realised why I kept on coming back to it. Specifically I have been wondering where the dividing line between Hospital train (plus adding in Rail ambulance) should be and if, perhaps there should be some sort of merging of content? Gusfriend (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eldomtom2 and Spinningspark: It seems as if nobody else knows enough to know which side of this dispute is "correct," hence this GAR being stuck in an unclosable position. Since it seems like you two are the ones who care the most about the article, is there any sort of compromise that could be had here? Nobody else has even edited the article in the past 6 months. I think you're the only people who can resolve this. SnowFire (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really have any more to say than has already been said. The closer needs to assess for themselves whether or not the article meets the GA criteria, in particular whether or not it fairly reflects the sources available. I'm willing to do further work on the article, but I can't do it from sources that don't exist. SpinningSpark 10:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no knowledge of railway surgery, and am only looking at this article because this GAR was mentioned at WT:GAN, but it seems to me that Eldomtom2's objection to the source for the claim about relative injuries in Europe versus the USA is legitimate. The article currently says:
    In Europe, the majority of injuries were due to collisions, hence passengers rather than employees formed the bulk of the injured. For instance, in Britain, accidents on the line such as crushing between wagons and being struck by trains (accidents suffered mostly by railway staff) were far fewer than passenger injuries through collisions in 1887.
    The source given says accidents belonging to the first class enormously preponderate. The "first class" is contusions and shocks resulting from slight collisions; the source does not say that the victims are mostly passengers. Nor does it say whether this enormous preponderance applies to Britain, or to Europe as a whole (which is it?) Nor does it say that it is referring to 1887. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:50, 2 January 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.

Madagascar women's national football team

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: Delist on poor prose quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for nomination can be seen at Talk:Madagascar women's national football team/GA2, an individual reassessment that I performed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated the article. That constituted getting rid of the empty lists (where the information is not known), and adding three tournaments for the main national team (COSAFA from 2017 to 2019). I checked if the youth national team participated in any events since the most recent one mentioned and I don't think they have. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the other points that were raised in the individual reassessment (which I was believe was poorly done) do not disqualify the article from GA status per the instructions "Many problems (including not meeting the general notability guidelines, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting". Also some of these changes are simple enough to make yourself per the instructions "Those who add an article to good article reassessment should feel free to fix problems with the article; this is not regarded as a conflict of interest". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is sufficient to close the article as keep. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I saw Indy Beetle's concern about whether there is too much information about football in Africa in general. I don't agree with that. We have hundreds of "small countries at the Olympics" articles that do basically the same thing (i.e. repeating more general information) for the background section, and it looks fine in those articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2022 (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.

Ikata

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: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so bad it's actually embarrassing. Most of the article is an unsourced mess that I doubt can even be fixed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Ugh, this one just hurts to read. There are so few sources it would be easier to list what is sourced. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agree that it is not at GA quality at this time. Gusfriend (talk) 11:10, 8 January 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.

2007 Balad aircraft crash

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 use in beating about the bush waiting for an inactive editor to miraculously show up. Consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article made a GA back in 2007. Though this was nominated for GAR request by an IP, after checking through the article, the numerous uncited statements are bad enough for me to open this GAR. The main problem i've noticed is the uncited statements that should be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that as stands the article has a lot of problems - most of the uncited statements are due to the removal of Newsblaze as a depreciated source [42]. The article is also very dated - it refers to the investigation being ongoing (apparently in September 2007), but nothing since that.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look and did some minor clean up. This page is a cluster. I did some searching on a specific quote and all I found was Newsblaze and 911 Truth movement as citations. The original review is very symbolic of early Wikipedia and wouldn't fly by today's standards. Virtually every addition post 2009 has kept uncited info that I am either unable to find or unwilling to invest the time into. It should also be noted that the original reviewer is long since banned and the nominator is inactive as of 2020. I'll @Blood Red Sandman: just in case they happen to notice this. I am of the mind that we should Delist and be done with it. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:50, 8 January 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.

Parental Advisory

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: All minor issues raised in the nomination have been fixed or removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. {{original research}} - tagged since 2018 without improvement
  2. Even before official adoption of the label, Frank Zappa... - unsourced
  3. Several unsourced sentences in the "Edited counterparts" section
  4. MOS:CAPS violations in the "Edited counterparts" section
  5. Unnecessary sourcing to Best Buy and FYE sales sites
  6. Although the BPI adopted this, there's no mention of this elsewhere

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:43, 20 December 2022 (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.

Switzerland

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: Four editors make a strong consensus for delisting. Huge amounts of work needed for regaining GA status; would suggest that a greater emphasis be placed on high-quality books and reliable scholarly articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made a GA in 2010 and last assessed back in 2013. This article has major sourcing problems with massive amounts of uncited material. This will need to be addressed for this article to remain a GA. Also its lead is way too long. MOS:LEAD dictates that a lead should be four paragraphs. This has seven. So that will also need to change. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I wholeheartedly disargee with the original passing but there's no need to flog a decade-old review. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this article does not meet the good article criteria. In addition to the things said above, there are many instances of poor writing and short paragraphs. Steelkamp (talk) 04:45, 7 January 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.

Dwarka

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2015. There's quite a lot of unsourced material that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:33, 7 January 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 L. Buie

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. Article satisfies the GA criteria; many objections seem to fall foul of WP:WGN ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Reference 1 which is in multiple sections is classified as a generally unreliable source but it is ultimately sourced to the IEEE which is also used as the basis for Lee (reference 16) and some other references. Some of the issues may be solved by going back to a WP:RS at the IEEE. See comment below.
  2. Lede:
    1. Used going into 21st century would need reference later in page.
  3. Early life:
    1. receiving a BSEE in 1950 - Neither degree or year supported by reference #3
    2. Text says PSI in 1951, reference #3 says 1954. I suspect that reference #3 is suspect.
    3. BSEE and year comes from unreliable source #1
  4. Mid life (probably more issues but stopped after these):
    1. Headed LSI is referenced to #1 which just said that he helped establish it
    2. Close paraphrase: Wikipedia patents in integrated circuit microelectronics were dielectrically isolated integrated circuits, single integrated circuit parallel multipliers, single integrated circuit analog signal to digital converters, and triple diffused bipolar integrated circuit devices., source (ref #1) His other innovations in microelectronics included dielectrically isolated ICs, single-chip parallel multipliers, single-chip analog-to-digital converters, and triple-diffused bipolar devices.
      It's a quote and it has quotation marks. Paraphrasing this technical jargon/descriptors is almost impossible. 19:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
    3. In line above article says patents which is not supported by reference.
      There is a reference for patents. Look again.
    4. Close paraphrase: Article His TTL circuitry became the dominant integrated circuit technology in the 1970s and early 1980s, source Buie developed and patented TTL circuitry, which became the dominant IC technology in the 1970s and early 1980s
      Copy edited to restructure and rephrase. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Later life and death:
    1. Reference does not support where he is buried which I suspect is from FindAGrave which is not a RS.
      There is a newspaper reference for Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, and Find A Grave is highly specific, has a picture of the headstone, and is corroborative. It notes that the original memorial was created by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Reference #18 is a letter to the editor by his wife and marginal from a WP:RS point of view.
  6. In personal life:
    1. Reference 5 does not mention election to IEEE Election to IEEE now supported.
    2. Used going into 21st century drawing a long bow and dates to 1988 reference, #5.
      Eliminated the language, since it isn't in the source. It is true, but it's gone now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Buie's integrated circuit chip technology was used in various electronics of space satellites and computers into the 1990s not supported by reference, #18.
    4. Reference #18 is a letter to the editor by his wife and marginal from a WP:RS point of view for some of the items.
      It's supported by the references I put in. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the issues raised are fixable but I am not sure if all of them are without significant effort.

Note: This is a Doug Coldwell article. Gusfriend (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the information He went to the local public schools and graduated from Hollywood High School. He then attended the Los Angeles City College and received an associate's degree. in the Early Life section is not supported by the reference (i.e. #1) and it is unclear where the information comes from. Gusfriend (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a brief comment: The "Computer Pioneers" link (reference 1) looks reliable to me, and a mistake of the reliability classifier. It is an online and updated edition of a published (both editions) book by a major academic society. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment and I would tend to agree. Gusfriend (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's another usable-looking source in "James L. Buie". Obituaries. Annals of the History of Computing. 11 (1): 49. 1989.
I was able to replace the source for the fact that he was an IEEE Fellow but not the year of his election. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed Put in sources for his election. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@7&6=thirteen: Really? I see a letter to the editor from his widow asking for support on a ballot measure [43]. Where in that clip does it say anything about the 1973 date for his election as an IEEE Fellow? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here. "James L. Buie, 68; Scientist, Inventor". Los Angeles Times. L.A. TIMES ARCHIVES. September 28, 1988. Buie, who retired in 1983, was a graduate of USC. He was elected a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 1973. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 05:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, unlike your previous attempt at sourcing this claim, this one is valid. Was there a reason you made another copy of the reference instead of re-using the one we already had? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the quote Buie, who retired in 1983, was a graduate of USC. He was elected a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 1973. is only in this version but not in this version of the same article. I suspect that the difference is due to the different editions of the paper and that looks to be the only difference between them. Gusfriend (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had found the quote, which answered your query. I assumed that they were the same article (didn't want to clutter our article), and so I did not put in the new one. I should have. My bad. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. There was nothing to reassess and no valid reason to engage in the exercise. Grudges don't count.
Good articles do not mean "perfect" articles. That is only an aspirational goal. This was a misguided effort, even if we WP:AGF.
The better approach, IMO, is to not get them demoted from WP:GA, but improve them promoted to WP:FA. That would be a worthwhile and highly praiseworthy accomplishment. Everybody would benefit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Characterizing the reassessment of Coldwell's GAs as a "grudge" is a mistake and an exercise in assuming bad faith. Coldwell had a well-established pattern of copying text from sources old and new, of cobbling together any random junk he could find vaguely related to the topic into an unstructured mess and calling it an article, and of bludgeoning reviewers in nomination after nomination until he found one who was either superficial-enough as a reviewer or tired-enough of the bludgeoning to pass it as a Good Article. In the best case, the reviewer did all the work of bringing the article up to GA standards and the result was really a Good Article, but the other cases resulted in a lot of articles labeled as Good Articles that were not in fact good and did not adequately meet the standards. We need to clean out this mess and this assessment is a valid part of that cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@7&6=thirteen could you please redact the implication that this GAR was created as part of a grudge or report me to ANI?
I also wanted to say that the first part of improving any article is identifying issues with the article and, if you do not have the bandwidth to fix them yourself, to bring them to the attention of the community. Gusfriend (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes and added templates such as citation needed and until when at places as appropriate to indicate my remaining concerns. I am not going to !vote about listing or delisting due to avoid any perception of a COI. Gusfriend (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article's claim in the lead that "The integrated circuit industry came into existence as a result" of Buie's work is far overstated. The integrated circuit industry was well underway in the late 1950s with the work of Kilby and Noyce. Buie's invention of TTL is very important, and our integrated circuit article writes that "TTL became the dominant integrated circuit technology during the 1970s to early 1980s.", I think accurately. But it did not create an industry. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements about the sources and the long term effects of Mr. Buie on the industry may be correct, or not. Reasonable minds may differ. That is a mattter of professioanl judgment.
WP:Verifiability should control, not WP:Truth.
Wikipedia is not a Zero sum game. WP:Drop the stick. WP:Dead horse. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Article improvement should be our guiding light, not retribution or recimination. Why continue to pick on those article reviewers? Just askin ...
I am suggesting a better way, in which everybody comes out a winner. Particularly our readers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're doubling down on your violations of WP:AGF, I take it?
Everyone comes out a winner when good content is recognized as good content and distinguished from non-good content. There is an abundance of targets for articles in need of improvement. If this article requires significant additional effort to reach the good article status it has long been claimed to have, or to reach the featured article status that you think it should have, you are welcome to put in that effort. You are not welcome to demand that other editors drop whatever other priorities for article improvement they may have in order to fix up this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No.
Speaking of doubling down. Look in the mirror and what you just wrote.
I was trying to fix the problem, not fix the blame.
You are free to edit as you like within policy. You can lead a horse to water ... You can accept a good faith suggestion, or reject it. But you cannot impugn my motives; that is neither welcome, civil nor needed here.
You chose to disregard my statements about the content about the article. That too is your privilege. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is words like "grudge", "retribution", and "recrimination", that impugn motives. Those words are yours. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No point in pointing fingers. Not constructive. I'm done here. Move along. Happy editing and Happy New Year! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather get the feeling I've thrown a cat into a massive flock of pigeons. Having had a look at the sources (keeping in mind who wrote it) I am fairly satisfied with the article. As this GAR has been open for a month, I am closing it with no consensus to delist. I would however remind 7&6 that many of Doug's articles will probably come to GAR in the future, considering their low quality, and questioning the validity of the process every time that happens is probably not the best idea. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 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 Houston

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 as failing criterion 2; lengthy reworking needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2007 listing not up to standard, with many unsourced paragraphs, possibly verging on OR. On a related note, the university has many sub-articles which may fail WP:NFACULTY. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Yeaaaah, this article is really bad. Doubt anyone will go out of their way to save this. Even if they do, it would likely take a very long time, longer than what GAR should go for. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Fails criteria 2b, University_of_Houston#Campus's campus layout section appears to be basically unsourced, so is University of Houston#Student life which has statistics such as house 1,100 students that are unsourced, this section similar has problematic unsourced statistics, including which has won 16 NCAA National Championships; the women's soccer team, which was rated as the top first-year women's program in the country in 1998. The Notable people section is additionally deficiently sourced and clearly fails criteria 2b, additionally, the article also has three valid citation needed tags. IMO this is somewhat difficult to salvage but if anyone addresses these concerns please ping me. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:38, 10 January 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.

Cambodia women's national football team

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: GAR ongoing for half a year; closing with no consensus to delist. Major issues have been resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for nomination can be seen at Talk:Cambodia women's national football team/GA2, an individual reassessment that I performed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist per PCN02WPS's individual GAR, particularly their points re:1b/2a/2c/3b. I would actually probably fail this on 3a as well, as there is almost no coverage of, well, the team's actual competitive history now that they've competed in three tournaments. A {{trout}} to Sportsfan77777 for this as well, as these are not reasons why the individual GAR shouldn't be valid: #1/#5 are irrelevant, #2/#3 are contrary to policy, and #4 is untrue (PCN02WPS notified the relevant wikiprojects, and the main contributor is vanished). These GAs were all created in 2012 by the same author who is no longer monitoring them--they're the exact sort of article that a quick individual GAR is best for. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article does have editors who regularly update the statistics. You just need someone to put those statistics into prose. It's not a lot to do. We have at the top of GAR instructions: "Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fixed the main issues, and updated the recent tournaments the team has played in. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sportsfan77777 your edits look good and resolve the majority of concerns in my opinion. However, there is the single-sentence section about "Team image". Is there any more information about their public image? Nicknames, fandom, etc? I recognize the difficulty of locating sources in a foreign language, but having that section be so short feels awkward. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 5 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_67&oldid=1132770493"