Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 71

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 70)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 72) →

Coronation

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

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

Result: No improvement. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. There's quite a lot of uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:23, 6 May 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.

Norman Whiteside

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: Man, this has got to be one of the most self-sourced articles I've ever seen. (t · c) buidhe 00:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly referenced, GAN is more than ten years old. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:59, 4 May 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.

Troop sleeper

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. (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last assessed in 2009. Multiple areas missing citations and I am concerned about depth and breadth of coverage as well. This exclusively covers WWII troop sleepers but I've found evidence [1] [2] [3] they were used in WW1 as well. Even if they weren't quite the same as the purpose-built WW2 sleepers, there should be at least some basic background information given. I am also not impressed with the small number of sources in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:42, 4 May 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.

Rowena Webster

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: Outstanding cn tags are among the issues with this article. (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last listed 11 years ago. Contains quite a few uncited statements and has a significant gap of career detail from 2014 to present except for the Tokyo Olympics. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 4 May 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.

Ashleigh Southern

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

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

Result: Does not meet the GA criteria. Additionally, some information in the article is out of date. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11 years since listed as GA. Article is not up to date as it does not reflect career post 2012. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 5 May 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.

Place name changes in Turkey

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 per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this is how the article looked like when it first passed the GA review. Much of the content remains from the reviewed version, and the review was quite quick, so I have some questions about the GA review itself.

There is a table under each sub-section in Place name changes in Turkey#Notable geographical name changes, showing the changed names supposedly from the listed language. Every table includes the reference to Index Anatolicus, which is not RS, since it can be edited by anyone signed up. Much of the content on the tables are also not found on that site. Sevan Nişanyan, the creator of the site, is also not an established scholar. In all sub-sections except "Georgian", there is another reference to a report by the Turkish state, and there is very little doubt that such a report would not back up non-Turkish spellings and etymological explanations. There is a clear problem regarding verifiability with reliable sources. This doesn't even scratch the tip of the iceberg, because I have not scrutinized most of the remaining sources yet.
- Note: This problem was also present at the time of the GA review this article passed.
Large numbers of references lack page numbers, include dead links such as this and this, which aren't particularly RS as well.
According to Commons, the source for the maps in Place name changes in Turkey#Notable geographical name changes is page 55 of Adını unutan ülke by Sevan Nişanyan, but as far as I can see, that page covers the place names in Bartın, nothing that includes these maps or gives an overview that could back up the maps. These maps were also clumsily drawn and contradict with Index Anatolicus in many instances, which is the updated web version of Nişanyan's book.
- Note: This problem was also present at the time of the GA review this article passed.
One questionable aspect about the article is that in some cases, ancient or alternative names are presented as names that were changed recently. These names are not and should not be this article's focus. Nişanyan's book and Index Anatolicus do not in any way, justify that and distinguish these names as having been changed as part of a deliberate policy. One of the countless examples is Izmir. According to Nişanyan's Index Anatolicus, the name "Izmir" was attested by Ibn Battuta in 1333. A problem with Adını unutan ülke and Index Anatolicus is that it largely lacks commentary and just includes lists of names per a certain year when a particular source used that name. It seems any non-Turkish name/spelling, regardless of its age, was assumed to be changed as part of the campaign of name changes.
- Note: This problem was also present at the time of the GA review this article passed.
There are some excessive citations, many of which do not back up the content. For example, in the lead, this news article was left next to the statement that the languages of origin of the changed names included Syriac, but this article only discusses Yazidis. There are 0 mentions of Syriac or Assyrian.
It's pretty clear that this article needs a good clean up. The earlier reviews have not addressed many valid questions. The first GA review barely discussed the reliability of the sources or confirmed that at least some of the statements were verified by the given sources. Still, the article failed due to lack of action. The first review misled who made the second review so that these points still weren't addressed. A reassessment should not be aimed at delisting an article, but this article is very short of passing a GA. Maybe the standards were much lower in early 2010s. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am worried there may be some original research in the article. For example, see the "Notable name changes of Kurdish geographical locations" section. Prior to Turkey being founded, many of these towns and cities had a multiethnic population with many Turkish, Armenian, Syriac etc. residents. Are all of these names post-1923 coinages or was it a case of adopting a Turkish name when multiple had been in use previously? Kızıltepe is listed here as changed from Kurdish but the pre-1915 name was actually Tell Ermen.

Examples of Assyrian/Syriac names changed are Qudshanis (now officially Konak), Gülgöze, Midyat (formerly Iwardo), and İdil (formerly Azakh). I believe these are genuine name changes but don't have the sources to prove it. (t · c) buidhe 07:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have 0.0 doubts that the article has original research, given that as I listed above, in many cases, references do not back up the content they follow. For example, Index Anatolicus, the reference for the table listing "changed Kurdish names", does not tag "Riha" as a name that was changed to "Urfa" as part of the Turkification policies. There, "Urfa" is shown as an alternative name to "Ruha" from the year 1665. Furthermore, on that site, "Riha" was tagged as an Arabic name from 870, since it was attested in Ibn Khordadbeh's Arabic work Kitabu'l Masalik wa'l Mamalik from 870. Anyone can view it by hovering the mouse on the open book icon next to "A870". This is one of countless obvious cases where "unideal" sources were misrepresented with original research tucked in. Aintabli (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for context it should be mentioned the Geographical name changes in Greece and Hebraization of Palestinian place names as, for better or worse, this type of name change is quite common in the region. (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tables and maps

I have removed the tables per the first point I listed above. Anyone disputing their removal feel free to discuss those here, though there isn't much to truly dispute, since the OR is pretty obvious. Best option is to recreate those tables with verifiable examples from RS. Aintabli (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the first table in Place name changes in Turkey#Comparative analysis that showed the number of name changes per province and added those numbers to the map for better readability. Aintabli (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The map I'm talking about

Related question but Aintabli do you think the maps are accurate? I used one of them in a FA rated article and if the sourcing isn't good it should be removed there (as well as here). (t · c) buidhe 16:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, I actually found the sources for these maps. However, much of the declared sources on Commons aren't accurate. For example, the map you shared supposedly comes from Adını unutan ülke: Türkiye'de adı değiştirilen yerler sözlüğü, but I couldn't find that map on the specified page. Another book by Nişanyan, Hayali coğrafyalar: Cumhuriyet döneminde Türkiye'de Değiştirilen Yeradları includes similar maps more or less on the same pages. So, I think if we correct the citations (which I will do in a bit), we should be good. The maps could be more precise, but it's not a major problem for now. Aintabli (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli and Buidhe:, where does this GAR stand in your opinions? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It needs quite a bit of work. The earlier reviews ignored much of the article. In order to bring this article to the GA level, I would thoroughly check each source and verify the content, tweak the wording, and introduce new sources to make up for the removed content. This is equivalent to a full-on GA review, if not more than that. I will be able to get back to the reassessment a week later, though. Aintabli (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1, I concur that the article is not close to meeting the criteria and would support delisting unless anyone is planning to make dramatic improvements. (t · c) buidhe 19:47, 8 May 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.

Composite bow

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 due to sourcing issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2011 promotion that doesn't meet the modern criteria. Significant uncited text that isn't to the level of WP:BLUE, and some of the sources aren't really all that great. For instance, the Karpowitz source appears to be self-published, and several of the other web sources are dodgy. One footnote commits original research, as " Tutankhamun: Anatomy of an Excavation. (The notes were made in the 1920s and describe composite bows as "compound"; the modern compound bow did not exist at this time.)" is sourced to a source that simply refers to things as compound bows. Will need some work to get back up to the modern standards. Hog Farm _Talk 03:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, there are various issues with citations. For example, one citation is used to cover three volumes of a work published over several years, which rather defeats the object of being able to verify the cited facts. Many others lack page numbers. Some areas are thin on citations - for example there are many definite statements in the modern usage section which ought to be independently cited. The popular culture section seems pointless. That said, if someone is willing to put in the work, the bones of a good article remain. Monstrelet (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for helpful comments. Before I dig in to the relevant books (in storage, behind twelve years of newer books), a minor point: Karpowicz (Karpowicz, Adam (2008). Ottoman Turkish bows, manufacture & design. ISBN 978-0-9811372-0-9. Archived from the original on 9 August 2017.) is indeed self-published, but he is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, e.g. http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai/Scythian_bow_ATARN.pdf Archived 18 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine. SCYTHIAN BOW FROM XINJANG. Adam Karpowicz and Stephen Selby (first published in the Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, vol 53, 2010). Would you agree that it's reasonable to use his self-published work? Or not?

I wonder if Tutankhamun's bows being composite and not the modern definition of compound could legitimately be covered by WP:SKYBLUE, since the excavation reports say what they're made of and modern compound bows weren't invented until the 1960s? If so, what would be the appropriate way of saying so? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a degree of subject-specific knowledge required by an ordinary reader about the change in meaning of compound bow that moves this outside WP:SKYBLUE. Monstrelet (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, probably best to remove the entire comment then. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:19, 2 May 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.

Winchester Model 1200

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

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues: inline citations missing for certain claims, some sources unreliable or failing WP:V. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, could you be more specific please. It would help in addressing these issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources are incomprehensible if you don't speak Russian, one citation links to a 96-page document in Polish with no detail/quote/page number, the variants section is almost completely unsourced, there are statistics unsourced by inline citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, I agree re the variants section. I think I have fixed two of your other concerns. Could you please be specific as to which material (statistics) give you concern. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The specifications in the infobox need to either be sourced in the body or in the box itself; thanks for your other improvements. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brief lede, lacks content. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is scope for improvement. I have done some editing, including adding some references. I would observe that the volume of content is not a criteria but whether the content is adequate for the subject. It might be useful if any deficiency in content could be identified. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this in my sandbox. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved version in full from my sandbox. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citations still need work: some are from unreliable sources such as YouTube, some are inaccessible such as those from olive-drab.com, and some are dubious such as the numerous gun websites; I cannot comment on the reliability of the latter, but I will have to ask for expert opinion if they remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AirshipJungleman29, there are two Youtube videos cited for their visual content only. The first is a cut-away of a Model 12 which clearly shows it has a tilting breechblock. It also show only one slide rail. The second, of a deer combo as supplied by Winchester, with box label and corresponding contents. I would think these are both fit for purpose. Olive Drab is a legacy source which I have retained on face value, in that while it is now dead, it was verifiable. It is used to support that the AR-7 was the first using a rotating bolt and the years that the 1200 was acquired by the army. To the former, that might be removed without detriment to the article (IMHO). There are a number of published sources (google books here) but they cannot be viewed and I do not have access to them. In short, I have tried to do the best I can with what I have. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 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 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak

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: I'm not sure about the need for a "non-tornadic impact section" (see the note in 3a of the GA criteria). As no work has been done for three weeks, closing with no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an older outbreak article with several dead links and no non-tornadic impact section. A review is necessary. ChessEric 06:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: The article appears properly cited and 3 dead links, while not ideal, aren't a major issue that would merit a delist on their own in my opinion. Which of the GA criteria do you believe this article fails to meet? Broadness? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I wanted to make sure this article would still meet GA standards. The NWS changed all their links in the mid-2010s and that has left a lot of tornado articles with dead links, so I was just making sure it wasn't a problem. The only thing I think this article needs is a section dedicated to non-tornadic impacts from the storm system. I know this article is about the tornadic supercell that caused the disaster, but I thought that the article could use some more information about what else happened. ChessEric 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, could you leave a notification at WT:WEATHER? Hopefully we can get some input from editors there. Weather is not an area of expertise for me and I'm not familiar with the general standards for weather event articles. I'd imagine someone would know how to resolve those dead links. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok um...how do I do that? ChessEric 20:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} to do so, filling in the article name and the number of the reassessment page (1, in this instance). I added this directly to the GAR instructions template at the top of the GAR page as I realized it was missing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links repaired. @ChessEric: For reference, any storm event that uses the same source can be pulled from the newer NCDC Storm Events Database. Chlod (say hi!) 21:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know that. Thanks! ChessEric 21:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 2009 North American storm complex

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: If the only question is over a subsection heading, I think this can be kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This mostly has to do with updating refs and removing dead ones, but there are also WAY too many sections with too many paragraph breaks. There are also points where it is overly detailed. ChessEric 21:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to bear with me on this as it may take some time to get things up to par. I wrote this almost 14 years ago when I was in a phase of including minute details so it hasn't aged well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! It's alright. We all aren't that good in the beginning and I for one, as you've seen with my recent tornado summaries, have trouble with being too detail-oriented. ChessEric 12:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: Make sure that if you're going to combine tables, please make sure it doesn't mess up the entries on the list page. ChessEric 20:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit and ChessEric: where do you feel this article stands now in relation to the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that its gotten WAY better. The only question I have is why the impacts from Texas to Louisiana being called West South Central states. ChessEric 16:09, 15 May 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.

Mount Vesuvius

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: Delisting per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. Numerous uncited material in sections such as the Formation, Casualties, Later Eruptions, National Park, and more amongst other problems. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: The article is in bad shape. Here's an example: an entire subsection that cites no sources. Hardly fit of a Good Article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Concur. Ifly6 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 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.

R. Mika

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: Withdrawn after improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedent when there was a physics GAR glut, it seems that this GAR was opened a bit prematurely. Since GAR nominator has agreed this was premature, this review is put on hold until May 23.

As noted by Kung Fu Man at the article's talkpage. This article shouldn't passed on GAN since 2014, due to lack of significant coverage (not a broad in its coverage) added to the article. The article looks shoort and some important details were not added to the article. Tagging author MoonJet who worked on this article before, zero or poorly worked at the article shall be delisted. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glator this feels unnecessary. Yes, I said it shouldn't have passed, but at the same time your plate's running over and you know it's already being worked on. My comment was more on the fact of "if it does get delisted it can be put back, the info is out there" not "do it now!" Give it some time to be re-developed and if it still isn't up to snuff, then worry about this song and dance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we should close the GAR and just give the editors some time to fix it up. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was out of line abd exaggerated by opening this. Apologize, but anyway GAR could wait and give editors some time. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 18:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I should be able to get this up to snuff in about a week. Frankly my goal is to try and get a majority of the fighting game character articles up to B or GA (preferably the latter, though some like Ryu would probably be a nightmare to wade through), so it's on my radar to dig into. And that GAN backlog does not help :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help with the character backlog, but unfortunately I'm not a native English speaker x). GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, no hard feelings. We're all just trying to make the project better. - `Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article now looks fine unlike before, thanks to KFM for cleaning up all the mess. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:49, 19 May 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.

Mona Sax

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: Withdrawn by nominator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old GA that is mostly relying on listicles like "top 10 hottest woman" or "hottest babe" and passing mentions. Some of the referencing was also poorly made. This is not even close to GA criteria now with this modern standard. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problem here is with the character's notability, not the quality of the article's writing. I see nothing wrong with the article itself, it reads perfectly fine, even if the reception is largely trivial passing mentions that do not demonstrate she is an important character at all. Basically; do a merge discussion instead, GA criteria do not include notability, this is the wrong forum for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would AfD be fine instead of merge discussion? That doesn't attract attention that much. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're worried about that, posting about it in the WP:VG talk page tends to get attention even without an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I guess gonna withdraw this. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 02:00, 20 May 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.

The Federalist Papers

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: Delist per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous uncited sentences, a bloated lede and missing information in the "Judicial use" and "Popular culture" sections. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement with Z1720 above on the poor condition of the main article for this important book of papers. The article appears to have suffered significantly from over-edits over the past 15-20 years, when previously it did achieve peer reviewed status. At present, without significant effort from editors, then the article looks like it should be de-listed. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:38, 16 May 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.

Brian Halligan

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 per consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2011 that does not meet current standards. It has a heavy reliance on primary and non-independent sources, which may also be WP:SPS. The prose also has an odd mix of promotional tone and critical tone, rather than integrating all information in a more WP:NPOV appropriate style. CMD (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the independent sources are related to the Daniel Lyons business, while most of the core bio uses non-independent sources. Wondering why there is not an article on the book, with that content covered there. Also considering the history of COI/socking at this article, the bio seems unlikely to be brought to GA status, and delisting is probably the best course (along with more eyes going forward). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, sourcing is quite poor. Hog Farm _Talk 18:13, 23 May 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.

Sharabha

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

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has seen many changes. It no longer meets any of the GA criteria. Dhawangupta (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhawangupta, please note which of the GA criteria are violated in your opinion. This is standard practice when filing a GA reassessment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All are violated in my opinion.

Dhawangupta, please provide examples to support your opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

see this statement in lead:

Vaishnava scriptures that Vishnu assumed the form of the ferocious Gandabherunda bird-animal to combat Sharabha.

Is this statement, grammatically, correct? I don't think so.

Corrected. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Then, see following in section Buddhist scriptures:

The King was deeply touched by the compassion shown by the deer and thereafter promulgated a decry stating that hunting was an illegal activity in his country.

This one is also not grammatically correct.

Corrected. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. There are multiple uncited statements:

In Maharashtra the stone cut Sharabha idol is placed on the outer walls of the entrance gate of many historic forts.

Removed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. See following statement:

It also shows the Narasimha beneath Sharabha's legs as a lion-faced human with anjali (hands folded prayer gesture). (See Infobox image)

Now the attached image does not seem to show Narasimha in anjali mudra.

Narasimha has held his hands in anjali mudra over his head. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5. See statement:

The Skanda Purana considers Narasimha as a mere irritation to Hiranyakasipu and not a threat to the world,

Now, when we look in the cited source, the text infers that Narasimha is a nuisance, but not to Hiranyakasipu, but to the Devas. Certainly it can't be inferred that the being who killed Hiranyakashipu is a mere irritation to Hiranyakashipu.

Restored as in GA version.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk

@Redtigerxyz Kindly take note.

Possibly, the article can be improved to reach Good Article status again. But, in its current condition, it requires reassessment. Dhawangupta (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhawangupta, thanks for your observations. Remedied.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few uncited sentences, but overall the article appears in good shape to me. If the nominator won't work with us I'd be inclined to procedurally close as keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhawangupta, thank you for your interest. Please provide a detailed list of actionables to improve this article further.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:33, 27 May 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.

Georgia Tech

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: It has been more than a week, and the outlying issues still remain. Unfortunately, that means that we cannot, in good faith, continue to declare this to meet a standard that it no longer does. That being said, I will be boldly closing this discussion. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for GA reassessment. It has been sixteen years since this was promoted, and a lot of issues have accumulated since then. The biggest is a lack of adequate citations, which would be an automatic fail in a GA nomination. There are two {{more citations needed}} tags, one of which has been there since 2010, and has somehow flown under the radar since then. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:25, 26 May 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.

How to Rule Your Own Country: The Weird and Wonderful World of Micronations

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: Article improved to sufficient level, after thorough review by VickKiang and others. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was reviewed by Jack4576, who has an ongoing AN/I thread about not understanding basic Wikipedia policy, civility and bludgeoning, and reviewed in 20 minutes without any suggestions for improvement. I'm not confident that this is a GA level, as a lot of the article is sourced from the book itself, and in my opinion, the prose could be improved. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JML1148: I understand this is not a place for GANs, but if I was to copyedit this article to a theoretical GA status would its status perhaps be allowed to remain? Or, because of the nature of its passing would its status have to be stripped regardless of quality? I apologise in advance for being unfamiliar with the GA reassessment process, but the last sentence of your above message implies the latter. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEatsTuna: I would say the the prose is the main issue. It's in a pretty good state, but I think some things could be improved. I also am somewhat concerned about sourcing, as a lot of the page is sourced from the book, and I'm not certain about some of the sources. Because of a few different issues and the dubious review, I would say that it should go through the whole GAR process, which means it will keep its status for now, but it may be removed if changes aren't made. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, there's no "official" procedure for quickpassed articles like this. But I think there's agreement that the best case scenario in situations like this is if someone is willing to go in and fix any issues so it can keep its GA status. After all, that's what improves the encyclopedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will defer most to other more experienced GA reviewers, a couple of brief drive-by comments:

The summary of the book is long. Technically, a non-fiction book isn't governed by MOS:FICTION and MOS:FILM, which generally state the maximum length should be 700 words. Still, the summary is way too long and should be condensed.

E.g., the summary repeats the number of pages, how many chapters the book has, the inclusion of referencing etc..., while it might be useful, I think it violates 3b of the GA criteria, if these are removed readers could still obtain the same amount of context without needing these specific sections.

Also, the summary for the ninth chapter is very long compared to that of other chapters, occupying three paragraphs. Is devoting this amount due weight and satisfying summary style? I.e., if the reviews focus on the final chapter it might make sense that this is long, but I think this could be simplified for better compliance with 3b.

Nitpicks:

While saying that a book/film/game received "positive reviews" is fine if other RS or aggregators say so, some editors might consider the statement of receiving "generally positive" and "positive reviews" here violates WP:SYNTH (I personally do this frequently, and maybe wrongly, for stub/start/C-class articles, but for GAs it's best to have a source for the claim or remove it for now.

Very minor nitpick on criteria 1a), there does not seem to be commas preceding "which" for many instances in the content section, e.g., Chapter four is about the Republic of Minerva which built an artificial island in the Minerva Reefs 1972 by importing sand, Next, the authors write about the Republic of Molossia, a satirical benevolent dictatorship run by Kevin Baugh which was created for comedic value. There should be commas as these are nonrestrictive clauses.

Otherwise my main issue is that the length of the content section could be construed as violating criteria 3b, that out of the way, IMO this is a solid article satisfying or close to satisfying other criteria, still, I'd like the community decide. VickKiang (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping so that they can see feedback: @LunaEatsTuna: JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: thank you for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I removed the positive reviews sentences and shortened the content summary by 400 words among other content changes. How does the article look now? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the summary is still on the long side at slightly longer than 800 words it's not too bad IMO, and all of my other brief concerns have been addressed, so thanks for making the article significantly better. I will have a look at prose of the new content section tomorrow. VickKiang (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, I think otherwise the article looks good. I still have a few very minor nitpicks possibly with regards to criteria 1a, but either way I think this should be kept. A few minor notes:

Simon Caterson, writing for the The Sydney Morning Herald's weekly newsletter The Booklist- the is repeated twice here.
its subsequent history including an attempt takeover- shouldn't the correct grammar here be attempted takeover?
Spotchecks:

Ref 4 is fine

Ref 5 also supports the claims

I can't access ref 2, but the material here is quite uncontroversial (mainly just a few quotes) and I am willing to assume that this is accurate.

Ref 10 is fine as well.

VickKiang (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely outside of international waters should be in international waters, no? XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typographical error on my part—fixed. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 02:23, 23 May 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.

Paul McDermott

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: Considerable uncited information remains, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has sections missing citations, in particular the Television career section is uncited, and many sentences in Live Comedy. It is an immediate fail for Criteria 3 of WP:GAFAIL and the "Verifiable with no original research" criteria for good articles.

As a side point, since it was listed in September 2008, his career has evolved quite a bit, and he has been involved in television since 2015 but this is not covered in the article. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the Television career section with sources that were already on other sections, @LibStar. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 07:41, 24 May 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.

One Foot in the Grave

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: Fails GA criterion 2, as outlined below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006, reassessed in 2009. I notice a lot of unsourced and/or poorly sourced content (IMDB, etc) and possibly a lot of cruft. It also doesn't follow WP:MOSTV in some sections. I'd be happy to help save the article, though I might not help much for sourcing as some sources may be region-locked. Spinixster (chat!) 07:35, 26 May 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.

Sarah Kerrigan

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 issues resolved. Thanks to the participants. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the statements were unsourced. The article is outdated and also suffers from WP:PLOT and perhaps out of date reception section. Also, some of the contents from reception isn't talking about her directly. So as per that, I believe the article no longer meets GA standards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GlatorNator: I don't disagree with you at all, I just wanted to say I intend to try and fix the issues to prevent de-listing. Can you tag what you'd like sourced? If you can, giving me some more specific examples of what's wrong with other sections would help me fix them quicker too. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also what's outdated outside the reception section? She hasn't appeared in any major games since the ones covered. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is only unsourced. The reception was also flimsy, it only got big with listciles that doesnt talk directly to her. Thats it. Best of Luck. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, the article still haven't recieved substantial improvement. The plot still needs to be trimmed (some of them are unsourced) + it is still not broad on its coverage since sources/scholarly books at further reading and more at WP:BEFORE wasnt implemented yet. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GlatorNator: While I already added citations outside of the plots, it was my understanding that plots don't need to be sourced. I thought this would be unnecessary, but in any case I've now both sourced and trimmed them as well.

Broad statements like "and more at WP:BEFORE" are extremely unhelpful to anyone trying to address issues. I note in your initial nomination you said the article was "outdated" without giving any more context, though then retracted that allegation as soon as more clarification was sought on what the issue was. So considering that, I'm going to have to ask you to be very specific about what is wrong with the article, rather than just saying there are "more" issues without clarifying what they are.

You did point out the sources listed at further reading haven't been integrated into the article. Accordingly, I'll start working on that. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is now better unlike before. Thou, I think the only issue might be about broad on its coverage at reception. I think if you implemented the sources from further reading, and reword some of the listicles like "included her or ranked her at the top" then that's it. If you can find more per WP:BEFORE, it'll be better. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GlatorNator: I've done my best to improve the reception section. If you think the clean-up tag there can now be removed, please consider doing so. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on that article. It is way better than before. So, I will prefer this GA article to be Kept or withdraw this GAR. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 07:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thou, I was hoping to see your another GA article, Max Payne (character). I think that article still doesn't show that the article passes notability or broad on its coverage at reception seciton. 1st paragraph needed to be rewritten and it mostly contains ranking and listicles, again. It might be nominated at GAR soon if the article hasn't been fixed yet. Thank you. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't have time to work on that at the same level as I did on Kerrigan straight away, but thanks for the advanced notice. I'll keep it in mind and will try to improve things here or there as time permits, regardless of whether it is nominated for GAR or not. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This GA article will be Kept anyway. Nice job. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of Singapore

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 per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. The campaign for merger sections has a refimprove tag while numerous other areas are tagged with citation needed tags. Bambots reports "Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (July 2013, October 2015, October 2019, October 2020, October 2021, September 2022), Dead external links ((dead link)) (May 2020), ... (September 2022)". Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:08, 31 May 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.

Shrewsbury

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: A significant amount of unsourced material, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. There's a lot of uncited material including lots tagged with citation needed and some refimprove tags. Bambots reports "CS1 errors: external links, Dead external links ((dead link)) (March 2016, January 2019, May 2019), Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (April 2022, January 2023, April 2023), Failed verification (February 2023), ... (April 2023)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:19, 28 May 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.

Nicola Zagame

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, no improvement over a month. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was listed as a GA 11 years ago. As noted in article " Was still active in tournaments 2013-2016. " article contains this significant gap in information. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not close until June, to prevent topic overload for willing editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 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.

Hannah Buckling

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, major issues unaddressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for GA 11 years ago. Article is not up to date. Missing information from career post 2012 with the exception of 2020 Olympics. Article says she is "currently studying" but that is for 2012. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not being updated not a reason for GAR. If it is not properly updated, it fails the broadness criterion. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not close until June, to prevent topic overload for willing editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 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.

Kelsey Wakefield

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, no improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11 years since listed as GA. Article is not up to date as missing career information since 2012. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not close until June, to prevent topic overload for willing editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:55, 15 May 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.

Eliminative materialism

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: Closing with no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has had two banners on it for two years, and the raised issues raised on the talk page by @Schazjmd: about content added in 2020 seem to have largely gone unaddressed. Additionally, the majority of revisions since then have been hidden for WP:COPYVIO, from content added in those same series of edits. WP:QF criteria 3, and possibly 2. - car chasm (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The copyvios that have been hidden are not a current issue. The Schazjmd talk page thread mentions a vague feeling of copyvio with precisely no evidence; that is no ground for GAR, especially if the matter has been addressed by removal/hiding since then. On tone, I've fixed a minor issue. I've also removed a small amount of uncited material. On the tag's vague charge of being essay-like (always a personal judgement, very hard to verify), I note that in a philosophy article, it is correct to explain the arguments in plain language, and these naturally appear as descriptions of thought, which will sound to the uninitiated like an editor "thinking aloud", but will not be original research as long as they are properly and genuinely cited to reliable sources. In short, I can find very little wrong with the article as it now stands: that does not mean it did not have problems earlier, but that does not concern us here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. I agree that it's best to write out the arguments in plain language, but what about, for example, the section on Quining qualia? Dennett certainly meets the criteria for a valid WP:RSOPINION, but almost the entire section is based on his paper "quining qualia" with no other sources outside of the criticism section. Possibly I'm being too nitpicky here? - car chasm (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have Dennett stating a view, and a criticism section attempting a rebuttal of that view. I'd say, what's not to like, really. It's certainly fair. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 2 June 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.

Leicester City F.C.

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: Although the MOS:OVERSECTION and WP:RECENTISM has been (mostly) fixed, the article still fails GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. There's quite a lot of uncited material in the article that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:38, 30 May 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.

Ilaiyaraaja

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 unsourced material, with additionally poor prose (GA criteria 1a) and 2). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. Suffers from a lot of uncited material, and other issues such as an additional citation needed tag, a copy edit tag, a when tag, a clarification needed tag and other issues. Also, is the snippets section really needed? Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:27, 30 May 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.

Lothian Buses

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 per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2013. Article tagged for needing additional citations because this article is very poorly cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom, tried my best fixing it up once before and I really don't think this now supports GA status. Heck, by today's standards, I'm not entirely sure if it constituted it in the first place. Thank you for tagging it, anyway, as I'd planned on doing it about a year ago, but could never wrap my head around the system. Hullian111 (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. This article was poorly referenced when it was originally nominated for GA assessment in 2013. Re-reading my review, a huge amount of work went into ensuring that all of the article was properly referenced. In my opinion, it met the requirements for GA at the time, but at that time it was only about 44kB. It is now up to 62kB, and it appears that very few of the subsequent additions have been adequately referenced. (This seems to be an issue with quite a lot of GA articles that were reviewed a long time ago.) I think I agree that it is not at GA status in its present state, so would support delisting it. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:48, 5 June 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.

Glencora Ralph

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: I believe the broadness criterion is now just about met, assuming there is no information about Ralph's life after 2016. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as a GAR 11 years ago. The article is not up to date and contains no information of her career post 2012. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not close until June, to prevent topic overload for willing editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reason because that would fail the broadness aspect of a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore a whole decade of a person's life? Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we actually verify that anything noteworthy happened after where the article leaves off, though? It's not uncommon for sportspeople to return to private life and stay out of the public eye. "The team of seventeen players will be cut to thirteen before the team departs for the Olympic games,[23] with the announcement being made on 13 June." needs updated, but it's quite possible that she didn't make the list of 13 and then nothing noteworthy happened after that. That there's actually noteworthy information missing needs verified before taking to GAR. Hog Farm _Talk 15:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm she competed in the 2016 Olympics https://olympics.com/en/athletes/glencora-ralph so the article is missing her water polo career between 2012 and 2016. And is she still working as a dental therapist? If not, the article is factually incorrect. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be blunt here. Commenting "Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies." on a bunch of GARs is pointless and unhelpful. The whole purpose of GAR is to fix articles so they don't need to be delisted, ideally. It's not an attack, it's flagging concerns about the article potentially not meeting the GA criteria to a wider audience, improving the chances the issues are rectified.

Not everyone has the time, expertise, or energy to fix every article they find. That doesn't mean they're forbidden from bringing articles to GAR. I'm not a fan of how a bunch of these athletes were brought here at the same time, but posting the same comment on a whole bunch of these is no better, quite frankly. If there are indeed major aspects of these athletes' careers in the decade since their promotion that are not discussed, that would be an issue for broadness. Nobody is arguing for FA standards here.

This article has an unresolved update tag from August 2017, and upon some digging I see Glencora Ralph was a member of the Australian team at Rio in 2016, which placed sixth [4] in water polo. The article completely neglecting this is absolutely a concern for comprehensiveness. Even more concerning, the prose also fails to give any attention to her participation in the 2012 Olympics competition, instead giving us the 11 years out of date sentence "The team of seventeen players will be cut to thirteen before the team departs for the Olympic games, with the announcement being made on 13 June.". Ralph did compete as part of the 2012 team which won bronze, according to the Olympics website. Aside from the infobox, there's zero mention of her involvement with the 2013 FINA World Aquatics Championships, either. There are obviously major gaps in this article's coverage. Quite frankly Hawkeye, I'd expect better from someone with such a track record of quality content than coming in and denying any issue exists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Trainsandotherthings:, you put it better than I can say it. Good articles are a mark of quality, and if for a BLP significant gaps in their career are missing, it doesn't deserve to be a GA, if we keep such GAs it devalues the concept of GA. It can lose the GA status and re-assessed once updated info is provided. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't have the time, expertise, or energy to work on the articles, then they should not be bringing them to GAR, especially masses of them at once solely in order to minimise the prospect of their being worked on. There is near zero chance of an article being re-assessed. I am not denying that the articles have not been worked on since 2012, but if the whole purpose of GAR is to fix articles so they don't need to be delisted, then Libstar should step up and work on the articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your issue is more to do with GAR as a process, Hawkeye7. If the only people who can bring articles to GAR are those who are going to fix them, then there's no point in GAR at all. To me, your attitude's a bit like saying "what's the point of doing GA reviews? If there are problems with the article, WP:SOFIXIT. If there aren't, award the GA status". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is no point in GAR at all. The original idea was to workshop articles to keep them up to standard. The nominator was expected to participate in the process. This is the way FAR works. What we have here is mass nomination of dozens of articles with no actionable work items solely in order to delist them. By mass nominating you can minimise the prospect of their being worked on. In future, we can expect hundreds of articles to be nominated at once, with little or no rationale. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry. Any articles of similar topic that come to GAR at the same time are kept for longer to allow people to work on them. See for example Albert Einstein, which was kept on hold for two months so that physics-related GARs for Universe, Astronomy, and Electricity could be finished first. The GAR talk archives hold further discussion of this topic. None of this present glut of Australian water polo-playing women are very long articles, or require that much in the way of WP:SOFIXIT, so they'll be given a month in total, instead of the usual week. Anything else, Hawkeye7? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is mass nomination of dozens of articles with no actionable work items solely in order to delist them We have exactly 12 articles at GAR right now, so this is patently false. I said previously that I don't approve of them being listed all at once, and they don't have to be closed after 1 week. You are implicitly accusing people participating in GAR of acting in bad faith without evidence. If nobody wants to work on them after we've kept them open for a while, the long and short of it is they have to eventually be delisted. You seem to think that everyone has to fix any problems they identify themselves, which is not how a volunteer project works. In future, we can expect hundreds of articles to be nominated at once, with little or no rationale is actually complete bullshit, quite frankly, and you need to stop with the theatrics and absurd slippery-slope analogy that has no connection to reality. Obviously we would reject nominating that many at once as out of process. Your participation in this space is turning into a negative, and I'm asking you to reconsider your approach. You are doing nothing to help these articles while demanding others do so for you. Are you really surprised that you're not being seen as reasonable right now? Based on my comprehensive analysis, which you haven't disputed, the bringing of this article to GAR was 100% proper and I would have done the same had I come across it.

Again, we are all volunteers and there's not enough volunteer time and energy to save every single article. That's just how things are. You don't have to like it (and quite frankly, I don't either) but that's the state of this project and that means some articles will end up being delisted. If you don't like the process so much, you're free not to participate, but we do not need you coming in here and attacking other editors. I've lost a lot of respect for you after seeing your behavior here, Hawkeye. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems like it'd be a better fit for the GAR talk page than this specific reassessment, but I would like to concur with Hog Farm that it would have made things a lot easier if the GAR nominator had gone into a little more detail in the nomination statement, and the same in the other nominations. If the complaint is comprehensiveness, the nominator doesn't necessarily have to fix the article, but the nominator absolutely should verify that encyclopedically relevant events have happened in the subject's life since the article stopped being updated. If updates have slowed to a trickle, that might be because the article is out of date, but it might be because the person has semi-retired, or is simply way more low-profile now. In the latter case, then an article that "stops" in 2010 might still be comprehensive. It sounds like that in this specific biography, there are indeed some events that need inclusion, but the existence of such events should be stated either on the talk page or in the nomination statement, ideally with links showing this to be true. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I make a point to highlight exactly what the deficiencies in an article are when I nominate it, which really should be expected from listings. At least for this article there were serious problems but the barebones listing statement didn't make it obvious. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The water polo articles were created by myself and another Wikipedian in 2012 as Wikipedians in Residence with the Australian Olympic Committee but we were transferred to the History of the Paralympics in Australia (HOPAU) project, which is why they stop in 2012. I am the only one left now. I came here because the articles were still on my watch list. I am very busy at present but will have a look at this article. A list of deficiencies would be useful. I would ask that only one water polo article be processed at a time to give me the time to work on them. I note that I have an articles sitting in the GAN queue for up to six months. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GARs are kept open as long as someone has worked in them in the past two weeks, for a limit of three months in total, Hawkeye7. All have the same deficiencies—all the athletes competed at Rio 2016, and some even in Tokyo, but there is little to no information about their careers provided on the respective page. If you are unable to work on them, they will have to be delisted, as the GA status is public-facing and should be kept as reliable as possible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 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.

Jim Raynor

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: Closing as Delist per consensus. No work has been done to improve the article during this process, and all votes have been a snowball to delist. Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has multiple issues, including being overdetailed in plot summary/written in an in-universe manner and several sections are unsourced. Additionally the reception is very weak, relying mainly on reviews and listicles. It needs to be improved or it'll likely be delisted and merged. Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This outdated article needs a lot of work to meet its GA criteria. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 01:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. For the record, I reverted the WP:BOLD delisting of this article since it wasn't discussed ... but I definitely agree with this. Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Whether or not Raynor is notable, the article does not live up to modern GA standards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist A "multiple issues" tag is not a good sign. This article needs a lot of work. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 8 June 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.

Mileena

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: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has whole sections without sourcing, and several vastly overdetailed sections that can and should be cut down. Article also overrelies on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for, a standard with Niemti's articles. Overall the whole thing needs a vast rewrite. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Despite the recent clean ups of Beemer69, it needs a lot more and the article is HUGE. Some sections are a bit outdated, overdetailed and unsourced. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 01:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. This was GA’d a decade ago when the “bigger is better” mentality was the norm for good VG articles. But now it’s a ton of cruft and unimportant detail mixed in with some useful content. I’ve been just taking out the trash for starters, but it’s definitely time to put up the scaffolding. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: As a person who promoted this to GA in the first place nearly 11 years ago, (wow, has it really been that long?) I would have to be in support of a delist today. I'm going to have to echo Beemer69 on the whole "bigger is better" mentality, along with the fact that at the time, I felt everything was so well-sourced, well-written and so detailed, but this was still during my early days on Wikipedia, and standards have changed since 11 years ago. Maybe this can become GA again someday, should take the time to fix up the article, but for now, a delist is the way to go. MoonJet (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It needs a serious cleanup job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 8 June 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.

Battle of Amiens (1918)

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: Consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006; last reassessed in 2007. It is no longer well-written, having many grammatical and stylistic errors mainly stemming from incomplete translations. Misuse of commas is the biggest problem. I'm inclined to copy-edit this, but don't really have the time to, and even then, have intervening Wikipedia projects in the pipeline. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly I note there are thirteen instances of missing citations and five page needed tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The missing and incomplete citations would seem to be dispositive for unlist. Ifly6 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 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.

Ayane (Dead or Alive)

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: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several sections unsourced and written in an in-universe contexted, article is overly refbombed, with some sources being questionable. While the subject is likely notable it overly relies on listicles and poor sourcing, and much of it needs a full rewrite. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Just like Mileena, this article needs lot of work such as cutting down and remove other trivial contents. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 01:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Echoing GN's sentiment that like the Mileena article, article is way too long due to excessive wording and trivial content that no longer meets notability guidelines. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Despite the huge reception, it may all be WP:REFBOMBing. I am unsure if the character's notable, but even if she is, this is in no state to be one of "Wikipedia's best articles". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:15, 8 June 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.

Bronwen Knox

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as a GA 11 years ago. Article contains significant gaps of her career from 2012 onwards, only lists participation in 2 Olympics since then. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not close until June, to prevent topic overload for willing editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 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.

CS gas

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

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

Result: Kept, issues fixed by splitting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. The uses section has been tagged for needing additional citations since may 2021. listed with "Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (September 2011, March 2012, September 2013, November 2013, October 2019, June 2020), Failed verification (September 2013), Dead external links ((dead link)) (November 2018), ... (May 2021)" on the bambots page. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beside the issue of many unsourced paragraphs, I think the long and indiscriminate laundry list of incidents of usage is problematic with respect to WP:GACR #3(b). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder. The list was a mess, and inappropriate for a text article, so I've split it off as List of uses of CS gas by country and linked that in "See also". I've gone through the "External links" and removed the dead items. Those actions clear all the issues raised above. The rest of the article is fully cited and honestly not too bad (not my cup of tea, but never mind). It covers "the main points", is quite readable (given the subject matter), and is appropriately illustrated. I think it's probably a Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, before I close this, are all the details in the infobox cited somewhere in the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some uncited names from the infobox. AFAICT the hazard statements are acceptable in their current form. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 10 June 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.

Starkiller

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 per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains a lot of primary sources, especially at the fictional history, while some of the claims are unsourced. Article also overrelies on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for. Overall the whole thing needs a vast rewrite. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Does he need a rewrite, or simply a merge? I am not certain he is notable and can't find evidence he is. Looking for "Starkiller" only comes up with Luke Skywalker's original name. But even if he is, the article is actively in need of cleanup, not GA material. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Terra (Kingdom Hearts) and Sniper Wolf (has been recently nom'ed for afd). GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GlatorNator: Would recommend nominating Terra for a merge or deletion rather than GAR, similar to Sniper Wolf. It's an unnecessary step when the article is ultimately not notable. (I almost thought it was FF's Terra, and was about to argue, but no it's not.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terra has been nom'ed for afd already. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nom, and honestly may be a good idea to merge it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:33, 9 June 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.

Iron Maiden

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: Some issues fixed, but violations of 1a) and 3b) remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of this article's 2011 listing, it had 7000 words of prose. Now it has over 22,000, a clear failing of GA criterion 3b) and WP:PAGESIZE.

The image and legacy section is one of the best (or worst) examples of indiscriminate trivia sections I have ever read, while there have been comments on the talk page about incorrect grammar and spelling. This article doesn't need a trim to remain a GA-it needs a chainsaw! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the question about the Image and Legacy cruft section above, and so far it's been ignored. I've worked through a chunk of the article making grammar and language corrections, but it's hard to keep up with the cruft that is being continually added. Intothat darkness 18:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be restored to , January 22, 2023 before all the junk was added. Moxy-

19:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've been too busy fixing the actual functional part of the article to get into the cruft in a serious way. Adding every single mention of every single musician who ever mentioned Iron Maiden adds nothing to the article at all. I see no good reason why this section should be so much longer than, say, the actual section about Maiden's own music and influences. Intothat darkness 19:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy and Intothatdarkness: that version is hardly better—21,000 words, with every person of some notability given an entire paragraph for their quotes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collaborative process, so we need a solid starting point to work from. I'd actually prefer using what we have now, simply because I've cleaned up earlier parts of the article. It's the one section that has been and remains seriously problematic, although there are issues (mainly a fixation with stages and lighting rigs) in the other parts. Intothat darkness 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Speaking of collaboration, even though I've already notified RALFFPL on their talk page, I thought it best to do so again, so any undiscussed reversions become a conduct issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working through the article in sequence, and had made it to the last album section before the reassessment was launched. During that time users have been continually adding content of uneven quality to the Image and Legacy section (cruft, stuff with grammar and spelling issues, and so on). I'd suggest everyone STOP adding content until we determine a way forward here. For my part, I think most of the Image and Legacy section should either be moved to its own article or deleted. You don't need to list everyone who's ever worn a Maiden T-shirt or listened to one of their songs. Intothat darkness 20:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it is pretty obvious WP:TRIVIA. I think I'll remove the section about celebrities who wore t-shirts if I don't see a policy-backed response in 24 hours or so. ~UN6892 ^t_c 23:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun removing huge amounts of cruft and trivia, in addition to unused references. Just wanted to note that if anyone worries about those comments which say that "these figures have been agreed on the talk page, don't change them" or some such ~~bullshit~~ nonsense, it turns out that RALFFPL added them in edits like this without any talk page discussion at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to moderate your language a bit. Intothat darkness 16:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop making grammar and language corrections until there's a stable version of the article in place. It's annoying to fix stuff in a section and then come back and find it's been removed. That's part of the reason I stayed away from the Image and Legacy section...it's such a dumpster fire I didn't want to waste time on it until something had been decided. Intothat darkness 16:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've used enough of the chainsaws and hedge trimmers on the article, Intothatdarkness if you want to start fixing/copyediting. I apologise for the language, but fabricating consensus or the words of other editors is one of the worst things you can do on Wikipedia, and were it not for the fact that I think the editor is just about acting in good faith, I would have called in an administrator immediately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start back in within the next couple of days, just in case there's another flurry of activity. And to be clear, I don't think the other editor was fabricating consensus as much as they misunderstood the difference between talk page discussion and notes added to reverts. There was a flurry of these maybe a year or so ago, and the majority as I recall related to album sales figures. For some reason that seems to be a hot button thing in this article. Intothat darkness 16:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, no flurries have happened Intothatdarkness. Do you want to get back in? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start back in when I have some free time. Maybe this week. Intothat darkness 11:58, 30 May 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.

Holly Lincoln-Smith

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article listed for GA 11 years. Article is not up to date. Missing information from career (if any) post 2012. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, I see you have worked on the article. Do you feel that it now meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is still missing coverage of her career between 2012 and 2016 Olympics. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 11 June 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.

Ralphie the Buffalo

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: We can skip the normal waiting period with this, methinks. Speedily delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord this article is horrifically bad. There is so much unsourced material. Entire sections are just unsourced. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist - there was also a sizable history section that recently got nuked for copyvio. Probably best to delist and then someone can make a fresh GAN out of it if it's rewritten. Hog Farm _Talk 23:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delist per Hog Farm. Three maintenance tags, an entire section that should be formatted like a table but isn't, lots of unsourced content... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:26, 10 June 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.

Zoe Arancini

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 - no improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was listed for GA 11 years ago. Missing info on career post 2012 with the exception of 2020 Olympics. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not close until June, to prevent topic overload for willing editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 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.

Balthier

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: Nominator withdrew, closing as Keep Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article overrelies mostly on passing mentions about game reviews about him and Fran. The article needed some expansion, especially at reception as it also needed to be rewritten. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This may end up being moot if the AfD results in a merge. But assuming the article is kept, it absolutely needs to go through the GA process again. There is no way its current state represents the supposed notability people claim it has. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is making a notability argument for delisting but notability is explicitly not a GA criterion. Article meets the six GA criteria: it is well-written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. This is forum shopping for an AFD that isn't going your way. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we definitely know Notability isn't an issue now after the afd arguments (same argument at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Terra Branford/1), but some ir most of the sources are just passing mentions from the game reviews. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 15:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you know notability isn't an issue, then you should say so at the AFD you started. Where else would you find reception of a video game character? Demanding multiple published books about a video game character seems an impossibly high bar. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~If the character lacks scholarly books then it fails on GA criteria "broad on its coverage". GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, it does not fail broadness by not having scholarly books. That is an impossible criterion for many articles. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess youre right, but the article could stay as fragile like that. Balthier's probably using all those sources from the game reviews what it can. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I do think this character doesn't quite meet notability standards, within what we have to work with for now it does meet GAR standards, so @Axem Titanium: is right in that regard. It's a different case than say Kefka or Terra, where with those weak/bad sources are being used, and we're aware of not only good sources existing but broader coverage. Balthier's used everything available to him, and I think out of the ongoing Square Enix GARs, it's fine to keep.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw seems like the consensus here make sense. Because of that, I'm withdrawing this GAR. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:41, 14 June 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.

NBN (TV station)

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

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

Result: Significant issues concerning GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. This article is really poorly cited with numerous paragraphs that just have no citations. Bambots reports "Dead external links ((dead link)) (January 2016), Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (March 2016, July 2016, July 2021), ... (July 2021)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:19, 7 June 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.

Superman (1978 film)

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: Citation issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Nominating this because of the two refimprove tags. Numerous citation needed tags, and a failed verification tag. Bambots reports "Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (December 2015, February 2020), Dead external links ((dead link)) (September 2017), ... (February 2020), Failed verification (September 2022)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of Minneapolis

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

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There's lots of citation needed tags or unsourced paragraphs. There's page needed tags and a WP:FORUM tag. The great mill disaster and freeways sections are unsourced. Bambots reports "Page number citations needed (December 2017), Style editing needed (October 2018), Unsourced passages need footnotes ^{[citation needed]} (January 2021), ... (July 2022)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SusanLesch: and SandyGeorgia have been at work at Talk:Minneapolis, and have greatly revamped the main article. If Susan has interest, it should be possible to carryover some of the improved content at the main article to this one. Hog Farm _Talk 23:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my hands are full at Minneapolis and this summons is a serious, inoportune distraction. We tried hard to save History of Minnesota and all agreed that we failed. Like Elkman, I don't have any hope this article will make it. We should surrender the star now before any more time and effort is wasted. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as SusanLesch says, for quite a few reasons I shall not go in to here, everyone's hands are quite full at Minneapolis and the hope that someone can restore this article is dim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 9 June 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.

2000 CECAFA Cup

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 per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2014. While there are some citation needed tags, what shocked me was how much "nothing" there was. The article has ZERO information on the actual tournament. It's genuinely astonishing how much this fails broadness. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De-list it quick fails good article criterion 3a, as it's not broad enough in its scope. At a minimum, I'd expect some sort of tournament summary for each phase, like in 2022 FIFA World Cup#Group stage. The "Background" section is about different tournaments and so is barely relevant, and thus falls foul of criterion 3b. There's also almost no referencing, the whole set of stats is sourced to one article (which doesn't verify some of the tables), thus it also fails criteria 2b and 2c. Can't believe it was ever listed as a GA in the first place, the standards in 2014 must have been ridiculously low back then for this to be considered good. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 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.

Matt Hardy

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: Concerns with GA criteria 2 and 3b), as the article, like most wrestling-related ones on here, is too detailed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Contains quite a lot of uncited material including an uncited filmography. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:47, 7 June 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.

Terra Branford

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: Most of the issues were met, and I took care of the rest myself. I feel satisfied with this outcome. Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article feels excessively detailed in terms of her appearance in Final Fantasy VI, and several paragraphs of the article are unsourced. Additionally the reception section feels extremely weak, with a few listicles and trivial mentions in there. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom. The Reception section already looks flimsy. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I'm pretty sure Terra can be improved significantly, but right now it doesn't meet modern-day standards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I restored the FFVI section to the version that passed GAN, which had since ballooned due to an overenthusiastic editor. No paragraphs are currently unsourced. Notability is not a GA criterion. The internet barely existed when this game was published so almost all internet-based coverage is necessarily retrospective. Japanese Culture Through Videogames (2019) is a published book that carries the section. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium: Notability isn't an issue, we both know she's notable. It's some of the material used i.e. Michael Rougeau of Complex barely saying anything, and Tom's Guide which is just being cited for her being on there. There isn't more than that or better sourcing?-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Complex article says that Terra paved the way for characters like Yuna and Aerith. The Tom's Guide article says she's an interesting protagonist because she isn't a natural-born leader but becomes one over time, and that her arc is a mark of the series' maturing storytelling. We agree that she's notable but she falls in a dead zone in terms of coverage because her main appearance came before the internet and people weren't really writing books about video game characters at the time. So we work with the best sources that are available. These are good sources relative to what's even possible (cf. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). As long as they're from RS, Top X lists can be used and Complex is on WP:VG/S. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Top X lists can be used but if they're not saying anything meaningful. Simply being on a list isn't reception, we already went around that rabbit hole with quite a few other articles thanks to Niemti and trying to clean up the sheer mess he left behind. There's seriously nothing on Google Books, Scholar, even searching through wayback's magazines that discusses her? Not a single significant mention on any gaming website? Like I know there are sources to completely rewrite Kefka with a meaningful reception section, so there should be here. "It's from an old game" isn't really much of an excuse when it's one as popular and as re-released as this one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just seeing this GAR today so I haven't spent any time looking for sources yet. On the first page of google books: [5] [6]; from google scholar: [7]. I don't have a huge amount of time today to do a thorough search but there's clearly stuff out there for such a well known character. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well take your time and build it up. I'm not going to rush this on you if you're actively working on it..--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:20, 13 June 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.

IOS 10

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 not based on prose, which was pretty bad but not disqualifying, but on significant unsourced material in version history section, including statistics (GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2017. While the only issue with citations is a refimprove tag at the version history section, i have to call out the prose here. Maybe this is unwarranted but over half the article's prose is just one sentence paragraph after one sentence paragraph after one sentence paragraph. I'm nominating this to see if the prose is enough to warrant a delisting or a rewrite. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:00, 7 June 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.

Battle of Torvioll

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 breach of the reliable sources guideline, specifically WP:AGEMATTERS, and thus violating GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2011. Has been tagged for refimprove since 2020. But its main problem is the numerous non-primary source tags on the article. Would like someone to look and see if the primary sources are an issue. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the introduction of the linked Moore 1850. It seems to be largely a reworking of a 1596 translation of a prior (to 1596) book by Jacques Lavarin (in French). Lavarin's book relies heavily, according to Moore, on a history by Marinus Barletius but is itself constructed from a list of twelve sources. If not largely a mirror of Barletius – a direct comparison with a modern translation of Barletius may be needed to establish whether that is the case – I would think it obsolete. Ifly6 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the tags were added by Phso2 in Special:Diff/813213605. Tagging for possible explanation or context. Ifly6 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moore says his "business has been to concentrate Lavardin's history" (i.e. to concentrate the 1596 English translation of Lavardin's 1576 book); Lavardin says his book is "drawned for the most part" from Barleti. As noted by Ifly6, if the result of this Latin->French->Bad English->Good English successive translations may not be a mirror of Barletius, I doubt it can be qualified as a reliable source. That doesn't mean that academic modern history differs from this account (perhaps not, since Barleti is perhaps the only primary source - I don't know), but the sourcing is questionable at least.--Phso2 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even if modern academic history does not differ from Moore's account, it should the main thing cited regardless; people use Wikipedia's references as a starting place for research. We shouldn't lead them into 19th century dead ends. Ifly6 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 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.

DuMont Television Network

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

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

Result: Significant uncited material, including statistics and potentially controversial information, in addition to issues with verifiability as outlined below, mean that the article fails GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. There's lots of uncited material, some tagged with citation needed tags, and some page needed tags. Bambots reports "Page number citations needed (April 2011, August 2020), ... (August 2012, August 2019, August 2020, October 2021), Dead external links ((dead link)) (August 2017, July 2021), Clarification needed (March 2018), CS1 errors: generic name" Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:39, 8 June 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.

Caligula

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; a thorough rewrite is required. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing is disproportionately sourced to two millennia-old primary sources such as Suetonius, Philo, and Cassius Dio; this is not GA standard, especially considering the hostility of ancient sources to the emperor. Much of the article thus falls under 2b) of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article should be delisted as it does not fulfil the GA standards. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Two full length modern biographies of Caligula are referenced a single time each; two more are listed in further reading. More recent still is Barrett & Yardley's The Emperor Caligula in the Ancient Sources. The fact that e.g. the section on historiography does not cite a single modern source analysing the historiography is a major concern; other sections could also do with much more secondary source support. There are also a couple of uncited claims which I would ask to be cited were this up for GA today. I'd also expect that the section on cultural depictions should be written in prose: WP:GACR#1b requires compliance with MOS:EMBED, which among other things suggests that Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose. A prose discussion of how Caligula has been portrayed in art and literature would be much better than the current list. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Delist. A rewrite would be necessary based on high quality modern sources rather than the current paraphrase of the primary sources. Ifly6 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The current material is good as far as it goes (and on what it covers, does not need rewriting), but the gaps are far too broad to ignore. Still, it's a good place to begin a rebuild. Delist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I was editing this article some time ago, it seemed there were a number of cases where the timeline was broken, material was placed in the wrong place, and some elements duplicated. I wouldn't call the existing content good either. Ifly6 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 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.

Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE

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: Speedily kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible spelling errors, the development section might not be detailed enough for this type of article. reassesment in response to sandy georgia requesting a GAR. --Therealgamer1234 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Just checking, did you actually suggest this? --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a GAR request for someone to check, as I am not that familiar with GA standards, and I wondered if the article had been damaged during the socking shenanigans. If you, as the principle editor, feel it is still good, that's good with me! I didn't think the GAR request would be acted on without someone eyeballing it first, considering the SPI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, nominated by blocked user, perhaps as some kind of WP:POINT. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Axem. I haven't taken a very thorough look at the article, but it appears good enough to be a video game GA. ProtoDrake does a good job making GAs, and it looks to be up to standard. The Night Watch (talk) 05:41, 17 June 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.

Gravemind

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 per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a bit update. There are unsourced claim, particularly the appearances section. Additionally the reception section is extremely weak, with a trivial mentions and primary sources used in there. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The article mostly uses unreliable sources in its reception, and doesn't live up to GA criteria. I maintain this should have been a merge discussion instead and the Gravemind fails GNG. I did find one decent source which I added to the list of characters, but I believe the standalone article is a complete lost cause and needs to be merged or simply redirected. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't unless im so sure its not notable, maybe it will happen just like Balthier. About to nominate The Master (Fallout) for afd later thou since that article is what im sure isnt notable. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 14:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or just nominate it for merge to Fallout (video game) as that is already a viable WP:ATD. No particular need for a deletion discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 11 June 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.

Samus Aran

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

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely bloated and out of date reception section, and inconsistent referencing, among many other issues. Consensus from both talk page and WikiProject Video games that the article no longer meets GA standards. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist article still needs a lot of work, update and clean up.l despite sone editors attempted to clean up. Hold. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not opposed to delisting, but I'd like to ask that it not be rushed to desliting. Kung Fu Man and I are working on both cleaning up the reception and finding strong reception to add, as well as addressing sourcing issues. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold As long as it is actively being improved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Improvements have been very impressive so far. I also recommend holding for now. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin:@Zxcvbnm:@GlatorNator: Improvements seem to have stopped. The reception section is magnitudes better, but the issue of inconsistent reference formatting remains, and there's also citation requests. If this article was nominated for GA for the first time now and I was the reviewer, I wouldn't pass it until those issues was addressed. But since it already is a GA article and improvements have been considerable, I can't say I'm overly opposed to the article retaining its status for the time being and this GAR closing. I'm happy to hear the thoughts of others. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not stopped, just slowed down. I'm doing it bit by bit. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I understand. In that case I won't check in again for a while. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I took care of the citation needed tags. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien Linnane, GlatorNator, Cukie Gherkin, Zxcvbnm, and QuicoleJR: do you feel that the article has been improved sufficiently to retain GA status? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not currently see any major issues that would disqualify it from being a GA. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining issue I see is the inconsistent referencing. As mentioned, if it was a new nomination I wouldn't pass it for GA until that was addressed, but I certainly don't think that's serious enough to strip the article of its current GA status. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things I'd like to do to improve it more, such as trim the Dread plot summary (but I don't want spoilers so), but otherwise I don't think anything there is disqualifying for GA status. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:04, 17 June 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.

Pikachu

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: Honestly even with just the one delist vote, it feels like nobody is interested in working on this, and the sheer workload to make it a proper GA isn't going to be done with just one person. Multiple nudges to have work done on the article resulted in nothing. Delisting this article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article overrelies mostly on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for. It also contains Refbomb, and some of the claim were unsourced. It needs a heavy clean up to fulfill GA criteria. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Reception is really weak for such a massive cultural icon. You'd think it was just another random non-notable Pokemon. The article needs a cleanup and rewrite before it can start to meet GA standards. Less random listicles and clickbait articles saying "Fuck Pikachu" and more book sources denoting Pikachu's cultural impact. Page 38 of Pikachu's Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokemon has a whole section analyzing Pikachu's character design, but is not even cited in the article besides further reading. And so on and so forth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A snippy diversion, apologies.

Reassessment reopened due to GlatorNator's failure to follow the instructions and notify relevant WikiProjects; they are requested to do so in future. This will be kept open for at least a further week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, you don't need to be snippy about it. Panini! • 🥪 02:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am already aware that this is entirely my fault. I don't think this reply makes me "snippy", since I already went in his talkpage. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nono, the other user. "Failure to follow instructions" is technically true, but there's no need to highlight this detail by painting you in a bad light. We all make mistakes from time to time. Panini! • 🥪 04:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, thanks for clarifying. Its fine, I already experienced such thing on Kefka Palazzo GAR page. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes, but some mistakes are more annoying than others, especially when the editor has seemingly shown more interest in delisting articles than keeping them {see their talk). Removed the highlighting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bold of you to say that. I've cleaned up multiple GA articles, thou some of them needed to be rewritten or expanded to meet its GA criteria, thats why I ended up nominating them for GAR like Kefka or this one. I admit im new at GAR thing. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:49, 16 June 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.

I'll See You in Court

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 16:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There are sourcing issues (IMDB, possible user generated sources, etc), as well as missing refs. Thus, it fails category 2 of the Good article criteria. Spinixster (chat!) 07:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist, everything was sourced entirely to user generated or self published sources. I deleted an entire "reception" section sourced to self-published sources and removed the "Bundyology" page which was also a fan site. With those gone, sourcing is all but nonexistant now. The current sources don't give page numbers, ISBNs, etc. so they fail verifiability (and the first one is about a different episode). Also suggest a possible merge after delisting. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - would need significant work to meet the GA criteria. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:02, 19 June 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.

Eagle Cash

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: Consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A decade out of date, and relying on possibly unreliable sources, as mentioned by Hog Farm, thus violating GA criteria 2 and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - issues with sources, tone, and likely with accuracy as the world has moved on. Would need significant effort to be brought up to GA standards. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Monarchies in Europe

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 to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. There is significant uncited material in the article with entire sections unsourced. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely delist: most of the article is unreferenced. I am also not confident that it has broad coverage of the topic. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:24, 15 June 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.

Canterbury

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

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

Result: With thanks to the editors who worked to improve the article, kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Article suffers from uncited statements, outdated statements, one sentence paragraphs, and some sections that could probably be expanded. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've fixed the uncited claims by adding refs and removing text as necessary. Some outdated claims have been removed. Very short paragraphs and sections have been merged. On the "could probably be expanded", well, yes, that's usually true everywhere, but the criterion for GA is "covers the main points", and there can be no doubt that this article does that. If there are specific issues remaining, I'll be happy to address them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The broadness question is interesting, it's true the article doesn't have to be comprehensive, but there does seem to be large untouched gaps. There is a Geography section, but it says nothing on urban geography (aside from a tantalising picture of city walls). I don't know quite what is happening in Governance, but it's briefness seems to leave it jumping between topics with no clear structure (speaking of structures, "After it was declared redundant and de-consecrated" presumably refers to some church structure, but it's not apparent in the article). There's a demographics section, but it's so sparse as to not even mention the "substantial student population" seen as important enough for the lead. The lead itself could use expansion, although here to better capture what is in the article rather than what is missing. CMD (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urban geography: added paragraph, refs.

Governance: Named the missing building, added refs.

Demographics: Added details of student population. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: Edited the lead slightly. It seems a fair summary of the contents.

For leads, I look to see whether topics deemed important enough to have their own section are mentioned. I don't think this is fully there, but the edits were an improvement. The new urban geography paragraph is great. CMD (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a little more. I'm really not going to add that the city has a bus station to the lead: every city has one of those, so the wooden "section = mention" equation won't do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I've promoted it as a wooden equation, but happy to step away from this. As a final note I found a direct piece of copying from a 2008 access date, and feel the lead mention of the UNESCO status should be something worth exploring in the body. CMD (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the improvements by Chiswick Chap. I've not checked citations etc, but prima facie it seems OK, despite some short paras etc. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:10, 19 June 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.

Walls of Dubrovnik

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

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. Tagged for single source usage, needing better sources, and also having a why? tag in there. Bambots reports "Clarification needed (July 2018), CS1 errors: missing title, Dead external links ((dead link)) (November 2021), Cites unreliable sources (February 2023), ... (February 2023)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All tourism-related sources have been tagged for needing better sources; while not great, I don't feel comfortable delisting based on this opinion. Giving extra time for this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 15 June 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.

Pennsylvania Route 237

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: Most of the article is unsourced, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. The main issues are that both the route description and the major intersections sections are unsourced while this article exclusively uses primary sources from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation or Highways for its sources and nothing else, which I believe is an issue. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:11, 14 June 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.

Bugchasing

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: It's clear that there is no consensus to delist, so let's leave it at that (my own thoughts on the matter align with LEvalyn's below). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose/style issues: Stylistically poor sentences include: "It is exceedingly uncommon for men to self-identify as bugchasers, but among those who do, their behavior does not consistently match this identification; instead, they often seek ambiguous sexual situations, rather than ones in which their partner is known to have HIV."

"But it existed by at least 1997, when Newsweek published an article about the subject, followed by Rolling Stone in 2003."

"However, there are four common motivating explanations."

"It may be a subject of pleasure or the ultimate taboo to overcome."

"But among bugchasers in particular, there remain several common metaphors that distinguish them from other communities among MSM: those of insemination, pregnancy, and paternity."

"But perhaps even more to the point of the metaphor, the physical characteristics of HIV infection are similar to pregnancy, as typically some time passes before either diagnosis could be established."

Overall this article has a persistent problem of presenting the posited analyses and concepts of theorists as fact in wikivoice, leading to sentences like "Since HIV is able to spread and reproduce through the sexual activity belonging to bugchasing, its cultural dimensions—institutions, norms, practices, and forms of kinship that, taken together, form a community situated around HIV status—may be transmitted through viral infection, similar to cultural propagation through birth and paternity"

This article does not meet Good Article criteria, and I think it should be reassessed (and fixed!) Isthistwisted (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GA criteria are lightweight, so an article with problems is perfectly acceptable. Prose issues are only a problem if they make the article not "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", not if it's awkward or amateur. I think the wording is understandable, if imperfect and imprecise. I've removed, attributed, reworked some of the stuff that bothers you since you decided to message me twice over this. With Greteman and the HRC gone, and Garcia Iglesias attributed, not sure what else there is to say about neutrality. Urve (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never messaged you? Isthistwisted (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: [8], [9]. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That ain’t no message, that’s a notification for a GAR on their talk page Isthistwisted (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the supposed style errors are in these quoted sentences; whatever may be stylistically wrong with them, it's certainly not wrong enough that it's GA-disqualifying. I notice the nominator has made 9 edits to this article and 18 to its Talk page (making them the second-most frequent editor, behind only the article creator). It is difficult to read this nomination as anything other than a disingenuous attempt to "win" a content dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is my editing the page at odds with the sincerity of the GAR I initiated? I think the page has serious problems, as can be seen from my edits and from this reassessment. Isthistwisted (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garcia Iglesias expressed willingness to talk with me, and I presume any Wikipedians, about the topic. I recognize that WP:OR is uncommon but it is within the realm of possibility to have a recorded video chat with the cited expert and post it to clarify anything here. I have said before but the core problem is that this entire conversation has a bias in a bogus Rolling Stone article which spread the misinformation that a large number of bugchasing cases have been identified. This article would benefit from clarification that this is an uncommon practice. There are many really weird fetishes for which Wikipedia has no article but which are more common than this practice. I recognize the problem with the sources but I expect that any expert would say that this article is incorrect, as would anyone with lived experience.

The problem is that no one wants to assign specific numbers to this, but actually, I think they would give comparative frequency info. For example, if we cornered and expert and named a bunch of weird sexual practices that almost no one does, then they would likely say that those practices are more common than bugchasing.

I recognize that Wikipedia needs to build from sources but there is serious disinfo here that I think experts would renounce. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is your concern that the article misrepresents the number of people involved in bugchasing? The article is very clear that it is very rare, and explicitly states that the Rolling Stone article was bunk. "rare" is the fourth word of the lede. There are sentences like Bugchasing is a rare sexual taboo. I am not sure what further clarification could be necessary. What disinfo, specifically, is not being renounced here? -- asilvering (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added qualifications from García-Iglesias's new book, which I previously only skimmed. The "disinfo" insult is appreciated, thanks. Urve (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea here is that the article fails criteria 1a? The article reads just fine to me. I wouldn't fail a GA for prose unless it was very challenging to understand. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And 4 Isthistwisted (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination only cites prose issues. What are the npov issues? -- asilvering (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of my nomination Isthistwisted (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That particular issue was fixed a few minutes after you submitted this reassessment, Isthistwisted. Is there any other part of the article you feel violates WP:NPOV? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep:

"By 2003, the concept had entered the public consciousness after Rolling Stone published "Bug Chasers: The men who long to be HIV+", an article—since widely disputed for its statistical methods—describing the practice." This seems to be derived from Octavio R. Gonzalez's claim that the article was "perhaps most responsible" for bringing the term bugchasing to the mainstream. I don't think that this sentence should present as fact in wikivoice that the Rolling Stone article brought the subculture into public consciousness, as that's not even Gonzalez's claim—and his real claim is both soft ("perhaps most responsible") and untestable (it's just one scholar's estimate, and if included, it should be presented as one scholar's estimate).

"However, four motivations have been suggested." is an original synthesis of four sources, in violation of WP:OR. The explanatory section that follows doesn't textually attribute the suggested motivations to the theorists with whom they originated. I don't think that "And fourth, bugchasing has been described as a political device and action against social norms (such as those tied to heteronormativity) through transgression of particular ideals, which in this case includes rigid conformity to safe sex practices." should be reported neutrally (that is, as an abstract idea rather than a posited theory by named scholars) (just as one example of a bad sentence in an overall problematic paragraph).

"[Bugchasers'] identities frequently do not align with their actions." is actually not a neutrality issue, but I'll include it here as an inappropriately vague phrase.

"[Barebacking and bugchasing] are not necessarily equivalent activities." erroneously implies (without a citation) that bugchasing and barebacking may be equivalent activities.

Isthistwisted (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be derived from Octavio R. Gonzalez - no, it's from Romero-Paulo & Cuenca-Martínez, who cite Malkowski. It's worth noting that there is no requirement that what our reliable sources state be "testable". is an original synthesis of four sources - no, Romero-Paulo & Cuenca-Martínez, who cite Forsyth, say: "quienes propusieron un total de cuatro explicaciones ... para intentar dar respuesta a qué motiva para llevar a cabo la práctica del bug-chasing". I added "at least" to the qualifier, but the fact that four motivations have been suggested is not only represented in the source, but even if it weren't, it's a routine WP:CALCulation to summarize that which follows. should be reported neutrally - yes, within WP:PROPORTION to what reliable sources say on the subject -- sources generally agree that there is a political element to seroconversion for at least some bugchasers. Romero-Paulo & Cuenca-Martínez don't equivocate here: "Una de las motivaciones del bug-chaser sería la acción política." erroneously implies - does nothing of the sort (an earlier version was about subsets, but the GA reviewer found it confusing, if I remember right, so this was compromise language to get at the same idea) but since you choose to read it that way, I've changed it. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole; let's stop stringing this process along. Urve (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole; let's stop stringing this process along."

Is there something you want from me? As long as I'm queried about my problems with the article, I'm going to respond honestly. If you think that engaging with my comments is "playing whack-a-mole", then by all means ignore me. But if you do care: the passages I've identified problems with are specified above :) Isthistwisted (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You point out "problems", but I don’t see how any of these are NPOV issues that could merit delisting as a GA. (This is a GAR, not an article Talk page.) What is the editorial bias you see here? What is being given undue weight? All of these sentences (including the one you claim is uncited) are cited to RS and reported on from a reasonable distance based on whether they are facts of behaviour or interpretation/theories. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:24, 24 June 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.

Molly Holly

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: Definite GA criterion 2 issues. Who'd have guessed it with a wrestling article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. My concern is with the sources used; there are a lot of self-published and biography/profile sources. There are also some unsourced paragraphs and sections. Thus, it fails criteria 2 of the GAC. Spinixster (chat!) 08:07, 15 June 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.

Subwoofer

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 issues with GA criteria 2 and 3b) (the article is over 11,000 words). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2010. There's quite a lot of uncited material that needs to be addressed. Also, i'm not sure that All About Cars, DIYaudio, A Barking Dog, and other sources used in the article are reliable. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:16, 14 June 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.

Jean de Carrouges

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: Lack of improvement of issues with GA criterion 2 below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. I want someone to take a look at this considering many section are tagged for either relying mostly on one source or possible factual inaccuracies in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion about factual accuracy yet. I don't love that article relies heavily on a popular book rather than a scholarly one (no real peer review), plus original medieval sources (risky business to cite too credulously). But, I wasn't able to find anything else that I liked much better. We could try this diss on duels? Maybe this article?

Reading this interivew with the book's author offers useful context, I think, for how to interpret his book as a source: it likely represents some of the best research into the events in question, while remaining fundamentally an exercise in storytelling. His examples of 'imaginative' additions are things like 'there was a burst of cold air when the door opened,' which he says is a guess based on the fact that it was January. I don't think the book is inaccurate (or getting undue weight in the article) but I do think as a source it encourages lurid levels of detail. Although there are tags for inaccuracy, almost everything is cited; at most what might be needed is to foreground the specific sources more clearly (e.g., what comes from court records vs what comes from Froissart.)

So, I actually think the main problem with this article has to do with criteria 3b, rather than criteria-2 sourcing problems: that exhaustive blow-by-blow of the duel itself feels like "unnecessary detail" to me. Or maybe it feels off because of neutrality (criteria 4) problems. I think everything related to the duel should be cut down into one section, which takes a more encyclopedic approach of indicating key events (and their sources) more simply. To address all the main areas of its subject (3a) it might also be appropriate to have a set-apart section that describes the "reception" of the duel, aka, the way it was a go-to story of a miscarriage of justice, how it's been relitigated by historians, etc. Setting that section apart would also make it easier for the events of the duel itself to be more matter-of-fact, since the interpretation itself would happen elsewhere.

Overall, I slightly lean toward delisting in its current state, though I also think chopping the article down to something more encyclopedic would not be too onerous an undertaking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:27, 15 June 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.

Sinhala script

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: Close to quickfail level. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. there's Significant unsourced material in the article. Also, the article looks like it needs a clean up or at least a major CE. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:35, 19 June 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.

Seton Hall University

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: Issues with GA criteria 2 and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Significant unsourced material in the article and an update needed tag. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:56, 19 June 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.

2013 CECAFA Cup

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

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

Result: Issues with GA criteria 2 and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2015. Just like the 2000 CECAFA Cup that was recently delisted. This article fails the broadness aspect of a GA because there is practically no prose for any of the matches in the Cup, which is something that you should expect in an article about a sports match. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De-list looks like most of the reasons I voted to de-list the 2000 article also apply here. It quick fails good article criterion 3a, as it's not broad enough in its scope. At a minimum, I'd expect some sort of tournament summary for each phase, like in 2022 FIFA World Cup#Group stage. None of the fixtures/results/tables or the goalscorers list have any sources, which mean it fails criteria 2b and 2c. Whilst this article is slightly better than the 2000 one, it doesn't meet the current standard for a GA. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I was the GA reviewer and am surprised that I promoted this. I am more concerned about the lack of citations for the tables etc. than about the summaries; I see the argument for more text about each stage, but there's a subarticle for that so only a sentence or two would be enough. But without the citations this can't remain a GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 21 June 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.

USS Mindoro (CVE-120)

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: GA criteria met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2017. Article relies almost entirely on one source and i'm nominating here to see if that's an issue with this article that could get it delisted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn’t be too hard to salvage - at a minimum, I can add citations for Conway’s All The World’s Fighting Ships. The more significant issue (which ultimately isn’t hard to fix either) is the copy/paste of DANFS text. We shouldn’t be using other works directly (especially since DANFS typically uses biased language). I’ll likely have time tomorrow to work on it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have rewritten the DANFS text, added citations to Conway's (and expanded the design section significantly), along with a couple of other refs. There are likely other things out there, but I'm short on time at the moment. Nevertheless, I think this is in good enough shape now to retain as GA. Parsecboy (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that this was nominated for re-assessment; @Parsecboy: many thanks for improving the article! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to do it! Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 26 June 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.

Track and field

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

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

Result: Issues with GA criteria 2 and 3b) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2016. Significant uncited material including multiple unsourced sections. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:18, 19 June 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.

Romanian Land Forces

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. (t · c) buidhe 04:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There are 3 citation needed tags and many unsourced paragraphs (it may be sourced in the main article, but there are still unsourced paragraphs not based on an article.) Thus, it fails criteria 2 of the GAC. Spinixster (chat!) 04:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've added some sources and I've fixed the citation needed tags. But that's about as much as I can do, I can't do much about the unsourced paragraphs. Alin2808 (talk) 10:05, 20 June 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.

The Untouchable Tour

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: errors have been fixed by MaranoFan and Vaughan J. Cherrell410 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The flow of the Synopsis and reception justg doesn't work, and that should be two different sections. The article includes nothing about ticket sales. In the attendance part of the table, the numbers don't add up correctly. The long - should be used instead of n/a. The dates should be be using ! scope="row" style="text-align:center;" |(insert date here). Cherrell410 (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Everything has been changed now, with the help of MaranoFan and I. We now have a synopsis section just by itself, and a reception section just by itself. — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 06:12, 26 June 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.

Nathan Drake (Uncharted)

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 • (Uncharted)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist. Unfortunately, there are no interested editors and they seems to be edit warring only at the infobox. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be mostly clean up, rewritten and updated a little bit (implementing new sources). Concept and design along has 2 quotes that made the section even more messy. The major concern is the receotion section where it mostly needed to be rewritten and trim something like, removing listicles that aren't necessary or rewrite it instead of "Nathan Drake was ranked as X" and if multiple sources that amount the same thing should be maybe written like (Magazines have described Nathn Drake as one of the best video game character.[1][2][3] and etc.) + some of the new sources should be implemented to fulfill its GA criteria. Rewriting it probably needs a lot of work. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you raise these issues on the talk page before nominating? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this GAR could stay as long as someone is interested working on it. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to first inform recent, frequent editors of the article that you think it falls below GA standards and give them the chance to clean it up before bring it to GAR. GAR can make one feel overwhelmed and as though they're facing a deadline. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, GAR could wait, just like what happen to Samus Aran. Thou, I think your preferences seems reasonable anyway. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Gherkin that time should be given to notify and improve if not improving the situation yourself before rushing straight to GAR, be careful not to start becoming disruptive with your nominations as they should be a last resort. GAR also has nothing to do with notability whatsoever. Drake is undoubtedly notable so there is no question there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I will raise issues first before nominating GAR in other articles soon (of course we're not questioning about his notability). Thou, this GAR would be remained open if someone is interested enough at working on this article. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:02, 24 June 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.

Keith Miller

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: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the honourable tradition of early-Wikipedia articles on mid-century Australian cricketers, this 2009 listing is detailed to the point of insanity, with exhaustive statistics on pretty much every international match Miller ever played.

This leads to a total word count of 14000+ (not counting quotes, image captions, or tables) and a pretty certain failing of GA criterion 3b ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail").

Relevant non-GA guidelines include WP:TOOBIG. Shouldn't be that hard for a cricket expert to trim down to a better length. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that there is a merge proposal on the article's talk page, which involves a featured article. This can quickly get messy, so I suggest that the merge proposal be dealt with first, then this GAR can be discussed. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 17:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the issues with the article are regardless any change from merge. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, the Australian cricket obsession went deeper than I thought. Early life of Keith Miller, really? Regardless, the issues with this article are palpable and I don't think we should put this on hold while waiting for that merge to happen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with buidhe and TaOT, there's no way this article is going to get better following a merge so the GA reassessment will be needed regardless. Might as well address it now. JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1, pinging @Dweller and Z1720: for thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a possibility that the article could get better after a merge, so I would rather evaluate the article for GAR after the merge vote is closed. If editors want to proceed with the GAR now, I'm not too bothered. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for a month now, and buidhe actioned the proposed merge on June 20th. Has anyone's opinion changed? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed mine. Pinging @Dweller, Z1720, Buidhe, and JoelleJay: for their thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with the article have not been resolved. (t · c) buidhe 17:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No change. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think we're approaching a consensus to delist. I generally refrain from personally closing GARs where I've weighed in with a delist or keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: The length of the article has not been addressed yet. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 30 June 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.

Empire State

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: Fails GA criterion 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2011. While there are some things that don't have inline citations like

Historian Milton M. Klein proposed that the name may have accompanied the success of the Black Ball Line in 1818 "because of the signal advantage the regularity of shipping gave to New York's merchants over those in other coastal cities." He claims that, by 1820, it was clear that "Empire State" was in wide use, though he is doubtful that a clear origin of the term will ever be determined.

I have to wonder, is this article broad enough? Sure, there's a good amount on the its possible origin and some of its namesakes. But, what its usage in general? Like how the nickname was used throughout history. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Profoundly fails the broadness criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:44, 27 June 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.

LANSA Flight 502

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

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. Aside from the small amount of uncited material, this article is not broad enough. There is nothing in the investigation section and the article itself just looks smaller than it should be. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the article seems to have deteriorated considerably since I left it years ago. I'll try to fix it up over the next few days, and hopefully return it to GA standards soon. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crum375, how have you got on? Do you feel the article is sufficiently improved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but needs more work. If you have specific points you think are most critical, let me know. Crum375 (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, is there anything you can use to expand the aftermath and investigation. Also, there is some uncited statements in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onegreatjoke, I have fixed some broken links using Wayback, and tightened the Lead and Investigation sections to rely strictly on the actual Final Report (which is in Spanish). Since I couldn't find an official English version, I included both the original and automated English translation of the "Causes" section on the Talk page, and included excerpt of the Spanish original plus English key points as a Note in the article. If you feel anything is still missing or needs improvement, or have any other comments, let me know. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered some more issues, will post here when resolved. Crum375 (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After some more fixes, I think it's OK now, but any critique/comment would be appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Onegreatjoke to see their thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 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.

Evo Morales

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

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

Result: Issues with GA criteria 2 and 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likely no longer meets criteria. There are some immediate failures: citation and clarification needed tags, update tags—the latter being especially significant, given that coverage ends around 2021. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could be dealt with by removing much of the information that was added after GA status was achieved, excepting of course where such information is of vital importance to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:44, 25 June 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.

Kain (Legacy of Kain)

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 • of Kain)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article overrelies mostly on listicles, and some of the cited sources that do not entirely say what they are cited for. It also contains WP:Refbomb and a lot of the sources were primary. I am concerned that almost entire article, especially at reception needs to be rewritten to fulfill its GA criteria unlike other articles. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Does not meet the GA criteria at this time, as the reception of the article actively needs cleanup. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The reception section has a valid cleanup tag, disqualifying this article from being a GA. Ping me if this changes. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR, Zxcvbnm, and Greenish Pickle!: could someone please point me in the direction of the relevant WP policy/guideline for listicles? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy, but the biggest concern of the listicles are, they arent talking to the character directly. Some are quite useful, but most of them are not. So yeah, they are required to be heavily trimmed. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if there is no relevant policy, which part of the GA criteria are violated Greenish Pickle!? And which of the listicles don't "talk to the character directly"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I leave that to Zxcvbnm, since he is more familiar. There a lot of listiciles arent talking to the character directly and is written mostly about rankings, top ten and a passing mention from a game reviews, which isn't a reception at all, like for ex. "A 2000 GameSpot readers' choice poll to determine the top ten video game villains ranked him at #10, and the same site's 2010 All-Time Greatest Game Villain contest included him as one of 64 candidates. He featured in IGN's 2005 Battle of the Badasses, surviving to the "Elite Eight" stage before being eliminated. A 2008 IGN Reader's Choice poll determined that he ranked among ten heroes most desired to appear in a Soulcalibur game, and he appeared in an IGN list of gaming's most notorious anti-heroes, sharing both honors with Raziel. He ranked as #34 in IGN's top 100 videogame villains list, was showcased as #2 on a 1UP.com list of the top five videogame characters named Kain/Kane, and ranked as #4 on the latter site's list of top ten vampires." GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would mostly see the over-emphasis on listicles as going against the "well-written" criteria of Good Articles. An entire paragraph listing one minor award after another pulled from lists would not be of interest to someone who was not a gamer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, a believe a more succinct way to put things is that the reception doesn't adequately describe how the character is important and relies on weaker sources. While Notability isn't outright covered as part of the GA process, there is a paradox in how can an article be "good" if there's a lack of adequate sourcing to illustrate it should exist separate of the main subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a paragraph is of interest to someone who is not a gamer is irrelevant to the GA criteria Zxcvbnm. See this essay—I don't think any non-gamer would find this article incomprehensible. If you feel that the article does not show sufficient notability to stand on its own, nominate it at AfD Kung Fu Man; alternatively, if you feel that it is just this one paragraph that relies on non-RS, why not just delete that paragraph? Would that solve the problem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of those sources talks about detail, but are cited for a ranked entry on a list, while others are bare mentions + needs to be cleaned up/rewritten. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pushed this to GA status ten years ago. At the time, "listicles" were a nonexistent concern on articles such as these to my knowledge. The reception section was modelled on other articles with GA status. Anyway, I see somebody already dealt with the issue cited. If there are other specific concerns, I'd be interested in looking into cleanup. "I am concerned that almost entire article needs to be rewritten" would not be realistic feedback for me, though. LoK Wiki (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This [10] was done poorly. There are some usable sources that was removed, it can be reworded like this [11]. It should be restored and be rewritten. For example, there are so many lists that praised the character for being the best, we just need to simply wrote "Magazines has described Kain as one of the best video game villain", rather than "Kain was listed as the best villain" or "Kain was ranked as top 9 of the best video game villain" with zero commentary. For other article ex. there are so many lists that praised the sex appeal of Jin Kazama that the user simply wrote "Jin was often praised for his sex appeal regardless of clothes he wore". Right now, the article is not yet broad on its coverage after the removal of the contents, even thou it should be rewritten instead. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else has attempted an edit in the meantime. There isn't an abundance of usable character feedback to salvage from those listicles. Some, but nothing dramatic. They're primarily used to help establish notability/popularity. I think reintegrating them with what little can be used or doing away with them entirely would be a trivial task with next to no impact on article quality either way.

With listicles included, there were around twelve distinct sources and eighteen different writers cited in that section. If all listicles were completely nuked, still around eight distinct sources. That's on par with e.g. Mr. X (Resident Evil), a GA character who appeared in 1998 and 2019. The almost complete lack of historical coverage of that character was waived at GA review. I think the historical coverage for Kain is far, far stronger here in comparison, but you have to bear in mind this character hasn't been used in twenty years. VG coverage from the turn of the millennium was generally more niche, less rich in character studies, thinkpieces, etc, and probably more rich in shallow lists like those. LoK Wiki (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You just need reword some of the valuable listicles that was removed here [12] and replaced all the texts "ranked as top X" into a commentary. That's it. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 20:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence does not make grammatical sense, Greenish Pickle!. Could you please rephrase? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. It happens when you edit at 4am. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 20:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind doing the rewording to your satisfaction, Greenish Pickle!? 20:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lol no. That's why it was sent to GAR. Any Rewording/adding commentary seems fine. If they have time no yet, the GAR could wait until they have fixed it. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 20:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For my POV, read above, i.e. 1) there isn't really too much more commentary to extract from those links and 2) the good article status never hung its hat on that particular section anyway. What I'm asking at this point is, what are we currently identifying as major problems to solve under GAR now that the listicles are resolved, regardless of how they are resolved. LoK Wiki (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reload this page again since I reworded. The only problem is the artucle isnt broad on its coverage after the removal. There are some usable sources that was removed [13].You just need reword some of the valuable listicles that was removed here and replaced all the texts "ranked as top X" into a commentary. I already said this like 3x. it can be reworded like this [14]. There is a conmentary akl of the sources, the irrelevant one shall be discarded. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Greenish Pickle!, you believe that the article is now in violation of GA criterion 3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"), keeping in mind the note stating "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.", and should be fixed by adding a few paragraphs of extremely obvious close paraphrasing disguised as "commentary"? You will forgive me if I disagree. In any case, I should ping @GAR coordinators: (the GAR coordinators) since I usually close GARs but am obviously now WP:INVOLVED. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because TNT shouldn't be the option on some of those "listicles" sources. Some of them can be usable and would be again written like this [15]. Folks should go through the sources and seeing what could and couldn't be saved from them. The "can you show me where the policy says not to use listicles?" I mean, can you not see that dude? And the fact your answer was "just delete it" shows even less effort. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary in terms of the GAR criteria to reword and reinsert those listicles? I can't see how this feedback relates to the good article reassessment. Whether they are removed entirely or parts of them are salvaged, it satisfies the issue. Minor improvements like this can be dealt with after GAR. Bear in mind I'm the person who originally put these sources there ten years ago and it makes little difference to me. LoK Wiki (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has cleaned up and I added some of the removed content that can be usable. Its not that hard, and it looks like you're using most of time arguing instead of fixing issues. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:31, 1 July 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.

MTrain Tour

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. Cherrell410 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no setlist, missing outgoing wikilinks where available. Cherrell410 (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close - A setlist is not included because it is not available from any sources. I'm not sure what the nominator wants me to do. I have started an ANI discussion about the nominator's conduct and request this page be deleted and removed from the article's talk history as points 3 and 4 under "Before opening a reassessment" at WP:GAR were not met. A very similar article's GAR was closed as keep two days ago. There is absolutely nothing here requiring a GAR.--N Ø 01:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per above. Missing outgoing wikilinks is not enough to delist a GA if that issue can be ameliorated. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:29, 1 July 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.

Political history of Zimbabwe

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: Fails GA criteria 3 and possibly 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2012. I feel as if this article fails the broadness category since this article has not been updated and fails to mention many important events in the country's political history such as the 2017 Zimbabwe Coup amongst others. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this article has not been updated and it would be a non trivial amount of work in order to bring it up to standard. It is at the edge of my expertise and outside of my time commitments right now and so it would only make sense for it to be reassessed until it can be fixed at a later time. Jorahm (talk) 23:11, 30 June 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.