Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 80

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 79)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 81) →

Stonyhurst College

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) 14:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been tagged as needing GAR since July. It was originally promoted in 2008. There are four maintenance tags on the article (excessive self-published sources, academic boosterism, promotional tone, and excessive detail), apparently each added by a different editor. Two editors have also agreed on the talk page that GAR is needed. From my own cursory review, I've found a handful of uncited paragraphs and a number of page needed tags. I have not gone through the article exhaustively, but the concerns raised appear reasonable, so I am bringing this to GAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also notifying @Epicgenius and Czarking0: who expressed support for GAR on the talk page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tag. I support further investigation in GAR and thank you for bringing it forward. I have occupied with other tings at the moment so I probably will not be able to give this the attention it needs Czarking0 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Yikes, just yikes. I don't think further comment is needed. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: major PoV issues. I'm particularly struck by the description of the Gunpowder Plot as a "controversial event". I would also strongly suspect that parts of the article are out of date, especially that about taking ten GCSEs as standard, which is cited to a 2008 source and is definitely not the norm nowadays, even in elite academic private schools. Other prose and MoS issues throughout, which would be a problem at GAN. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Siege of Szigetvár

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 am also not an expert, but I believe the issues have been sufficiently addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe added the {{GAR request}} tag in May, adding the rationale "Article cites sources from the 19th century, and the ref format has grown inconsistent since promotion more than a decade ago. Also, per above, the siege is only a small portion of the article text. The 2019 book specifically about the siege, which should be accessible to TWL users, could be helpful on expanding the content about the article topic." below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I'm willing to work on this. What would your expected timeline be? I think 30-40 days will be ok here, wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan why did you remove [[1]] valuable information? Emperor Maximilian and 80,000 soldiers were encamped in the vicinity of Győr but did not attack the Ottomans to take the pressure off Szigetvár. Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press ^[1] This information is very important for the battle because no one wanted to help, and the army was nearby.78.0.239.162 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@78.0.239.162, this statement along with the source has been added to the article. @AirshipJungleman29, do you think this article passes GAR now? I have removed all pre-1950 sources, converted all refs to sfn, finished biblio formatting and removed cases of MOS:SANDWICH. Matarisvan (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan, User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors shows numerous errors you might want to look into. Aside from that, what do you think buidhe? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's looking better, the citations in the lead are a bad sign—some of the content in the lead/infobox is not in the article and/or lacks any citation. I'd be surprised if there weren't different casualty figures from different sources. (t · c) buidhe 12:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, the HarvErrors should be resolved now. @Buidhe, the casualty figures were cited in the body so I didn't cite them in the lead. I have done so now, could you review the rest of the article? Matarisvan (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of unsourced notes, if these are fixed I don't oppose keeping it, although I am far from an expert on this area of history and don't feel I can offer a full review. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, should be addressed now. Perhaps @AirshipJungleman29 can do a full review if needed? Matarisvan (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scott Special

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very old promotion, back from 2006 when reviewing was just replacing the GAN template with the GA one without comment [2] and last reassessed in 2008. Significant portions of the article are uncited, and the phrase "equal to $339,111 today" is likely already outdated. The article also includes an "as of 2006" statement and multiple citations to self-published railfan pages that don't meet the standards for GA. Disappointingly, even though an entire book was written about this train, it is only in the further reading section and not cited at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Key Biscayne

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited statements. The history section stops at 1966 and needs to mention recent events. The lede needs to mention information about the history of the location. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I relied almost exclusively on Blank's book when I started this article 18 years ago. The local library has a non-circulating copy, so I can look in it to provide citations for a lot of things. I may be able to gain access to The Book of Key Biscayne by Jim Woodman, although I suspect Blank used it as a source. Donald Albury 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to recent history. Crandon Park and the Village of Key Biscayne were created in the mid-20th century and the Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park was created in 1966, and most of the history of Key Biscayne since then has really been about one of those entities and not the island as a whole. There may be a few events that affected the island as a whole, but Hurricane Andrew is the only one I can think of off hand. There may be something to say about how changes to the Rickenbacker Causeway and Crandon Boulevard have affected access to the island, but events on Virginia Key and along the causeway itself are not part of the history of the island. Donald Albury 13:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably worth mentioning the incorporation of the eponymous municipality as that seems a major event for the island, and some although not all of the municipal history, as this would be in keeping with the existing text in History which does cover the inhabitants and various demographic and infrastructure developments. I also wonder if there is something more to add regarding sea level rise giving the mentioned low elevation, but at a quick look I couldn't find anything not focused on the municipality. CMD (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article mentions the beginning of the housing devekopment that led to the incorporation, but does stop too soon. Some more about the creation of Crandon Park could also be added, comparable to the coverage of the creation of the state park.

A quick Google search found a number of news items focused on the effects of sea level rise on the municipality, more or less ignoring the rest of the island. Google Scholar results are rather sparse on articles about contemporary sea level rise at Key Biscayne.

My todo list keeps growing as I (temporarily) set aside articles I'm working on to deal with the next thing that comes along. Maybe I will get to the library this week to look at the Blank book. Donald Albury 13:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sea level rise does seem to be either municipal level or Miami-Dade level, up to your editorial call as to whether and how it could be included in the article. CMD (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added page numbers to a couple of cites, and added cites for what I could find in the Blank book. I also rewrote a couple of small bits after reviewing the Blank book. There are still things I haven't found a source for, and parts of the article should be rewriten. Donald Albury 22:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Albury, do you still intend to improve this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I hope to work more on it sometime, but I don't know when that will be. Don't hold off on any action waiting for me. Donald Albury 00:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alaska Airlines

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources and have several uncited statements. Real4jyy (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spider-Man

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose delisting the Spider-Man article from "Good Article" status due to several important issues. Many sections lack proper references, and some have no citations at all, which affects the article's reliability. It also needs updates to include recent developments in the Spider-Man franchise. Additionally, the article is too long and would benefit from trimming or splitting into shorter sections. It also contains unnecessary trivia and original research that detract from its quality. For these reasons, I believe the Spider-Man article should be delisted until these problems are fixed. Lililolol (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: same concerns as above. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flag of convenience

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: Taking into account PI71's comments too, consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some uncited text, including entire paragraphs. There are lots of sources listed in "Further reading" that should be considered included in the article. Pl71 has stated that the "Port State Control" section is too long with irrelevant information, and other examples of WP:OVERKILL. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kirby's Dream Land

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements and paragraphs, particularily in the "Gameplay" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I am not even sure it passed the criteria when it was listed as a Good Article, or else the criteria were a lot more lax. Either way, it needs a serious revamp to keep being one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: The GA "review" appears to be nothing more than this message that simply approved the nomination without providing any details. More than 17 years later, the "Gameplay" section is lacking sources, and the article's quality is not sufficient for a GA. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Onion

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is unsourced information throughout the article, some "Further reading" sources that should be considered for inclusion, and some oversection in the "Uses" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I can try to help address some of these concerns so that we can hopefully keep the article as a GA. Is there usually a certain time frame this needs to be done by? Thanks. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eucalyptusmint: There is no timeline as long as improvements are being made. Feel free to ping me when it is ready for a review. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good, will do. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad this is being addressed; I'll lend a hand, and have already asked Cwmhiraeth if she'd like to join in too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it! Looks like you fixed most of the noted issues. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Unsourced materials: have fixed all the obvious citation needed issues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) Further reading: Incorporated the Gripshover journal article into 'History'. Formatted a bit better, and disarmed harv links. We're down to 2 books in the list, which seems reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3) 'Uses' too many subsections: merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - it feels like a GA again, cleaned up as above. Take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review doesn't bring up any concerns. I'd prefer that there was not a "Further reading" section but it is not a deal breaker. Is WiseGeek a reliable source? (ref 35). Citations in the lead can probably be removed. I removed some duplicate refs in the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading - noted, it is not a GA issue. WiseGeek ref replaced. Lead citations removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're about complete here really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bees and toxic chemicals

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 Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some uncited statements and a large use of block quotes that should probably be summarised and reduced/removed. Sources listed in "Further reading" should be incorporated into the article or removed. "Toxic plant honey" suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and these sections probably need to be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited claims: Removed or cited all of them.
Block quotes: removed most of them, cut down the rest.
Further reading: deleted the dead ones, ditto for 'External links'. The one remaining item has a list that may be of interest.
Oversection: merged all subsections of 'Toxic honey' to one paragraph; this is quite enough detail for this subtopic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above has resolved my concerns, I'm fine with this being declared keep. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brain

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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements, including almost the entire "Birds" section. At over 9,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends splitting off the article; since this is such a big topic, it might not be possible but should probably be considered after a subject-matter expert tries making this more concise. The "Society and culture" section is underdeveloped, with only one line about its use in food and no information about its use in literature or the arts, especially its use as an allegory. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pre-Code Hollywood

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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At over 14,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends summarising, splitting and removing article prose. There are also some uncited statements, particularily in the "Home video" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Green Lantern (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 • Most recent review

Result: Closing as no consensus; no prejudice against another GAR being opened with a man-made rationale. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose delisting the Green Lantern film article from "Good Article" status due to several issues. The article is not well-written, with unclear prose, and failure to follow the Manual of Style. It lacks broad coverage, missing important details while including unnecessary information. The reception and production sections are underdeveloped and need significant expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lililolol (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind outlining a rationale with specific issues to be fixed using your own words, not the vague ramblings of a WP:LLM Lililolol? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Swarm (roller coaster)

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails point 2 of the GA criteria (verifiability) - contains original research (marked with citation needed tags currently, I've tried finding sources for these but failed), plus the vast majority of the sources are primary sources or dubiously reliable (such as the Daily Mirror, which is a tabloid with no consensus for reliability). Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – Agreed. Far too much reliance on primary sources, missing needed citations, and isn't even up to modern WP:APARKS standards at this point. The editor responsible for its promotion was a cornerstone of our project nearly 15 years ago in its early days but may have passed on unfortunately. :( --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chemical Bank

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 GA has 8 citation needed templates; unsourced statements notably include entire paragraphs and parts of the Notable employees and executives section. Some book sources are also missing page numbers. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I checked the source for one statement I knew to be incorrect, and the source failed to verify two key aspects of the statement. Added a tag to it. This false statement and non-verified source were present in the article during the GA review 14 years ago. Given the error, I will likely go through and spot check some more sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

BR Standard Class 7

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant portions of this 2007 promotion are uncited. Standards were different back then, as some of the uncited content present today also lacked citations at the time of promotion. An effort would be required to cite the rest of this article to avoid delisting. Unfortunately, the primary authors of this article are long since retired. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1920 Canton Bulldogs season

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several uncited statements and "citation needed" tags from 2020. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lexus LS

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: Withdrawn. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some unsourced statements throughout the article. There are also one- or two- sentence statements that should be merged together more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will fix. 750 h+ 00:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: i've fixed the unsourced statements and one/two-sentence statements/paragraphs. 750 h+ 01:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: I added some cn tags. Once these are resolved I don't think I'll have any other concerns with the WP:GA?. Outside of the criteria, I recommend that some images be removed as there are a lot and it is causing some MOS:SANDWICH and other weird formatting. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: done, i hope the infobox-sandwiching is fine. 750 h+ 02:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: ? 750 h+ 23:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Keep. Sourcing concerns are resolved. Sandwich concerns remain, and I think the only way to solve it is to remove some images. This is not a condition to getting this article to GA status. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

United Nations

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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 18:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has numerous uncited paragraphs, including the entire "Hymn to United Nations" section. At over 9,000 words, WP:TOOBIG suggests that it might be eligible to be trimmed, and the lead (with six paragraphs) might be a good place to start. Z1720 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pennsylvania Turnpike

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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 18:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has gotten out of hand since 2012 promotion.

WP:TOOBIG concerns, article is 227,901 bytes and needs some trimming.
Lots of cases where several sentences in a row begin with "In (year), blah blah happened." over and over, so a copy edit is needed.
"Service Plaza" sub-header has several one-sentence paragraphs and excessive detail, along with more cases of several sentences in a row beginning with "In (year)".
Had an "in popular culture" section of trivial tangential name-drops, which I snipped out.
External links seem excessive.
PA Highways site tagged as unreliable self-published source.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How else are you supposed to write a history section for a road article? They typically announce things at a specific date, even if they had planned to do it a long time before. Same with the service plaza section. Cfeddse (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You vary the sentence structure and length. When literally every sentence begins with "In (year)..." it's boring and clunky and doesn't flow well. It's a basic rule of writing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steak

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited statements and paragraphs throughout the article, some sections are underdeveloped, such as "Production", "Australia", "Ireland" and "Opposition", and the lead does not cover all aspects of the article text. Z1720 (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited: massively.

Small subsections: merged several within 'Marketing and sales', there's easily enough coverage of this side-issue here. Similarly merged within 'Cultural significance'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: needs to be rewritten.

Oppose

Needs work.

The lead claims that hamburgers are made of minced steak, but in fact they can be made of any minced beef meat.

It didn't, it said they could be, but I've removed the mention anyway.

The etymology section is factually correct, but confusing and needs to be rewritten.

........

It is bizarre to say "Livestock for meat to be used as steak cuts may be raised on a farm or ranch." in the steak article, since this is true for any cut of beef.

Removed.

"In Asian countries" seems to be referring to East Asia, which is not all of Asia. It isn't clear that beef strips or cubes used for stir-frying should be referred to as steak, anyway.

Removed.

"In Argentina, steakhouses are referred to as parrillas" is at best misleading, since parrillas serve many kinds of roasted meat.

Removed; it had been properly sourced but may have been a partial paraphrase.

"Beefsteak has been categorized into various cuts." is poorly phrased. I think this means "Various cuts of beef are used for steak."

Fixed.

""Surf and turf", which combines meat and fish, requires more time to prepare." is a strange comment. Doesn't this belong in a section on serving, along with prawn cocktail, steak and Black Forest gateau?

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"a beefsteak shaped into a patty to be cooked after being minced" is a strange way to put it. More like "beef may be minced and formed into a patty for cooking".

Fixed.

I am not sure that hamburger steak, salisbury steak, etc. qualify as steak even though they use the name. --Macrakis (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.

Oppose (continued)

When did steak become popular in various places? The current article suffers from extreme presentism. The "steakhouse" section mentions chophouses (good) but not how they relate to steakhouses.

The Delmonico steak section directly contradicts the Delmonico steak article. Here, it is a "method of preparation" prepared Delmonico style (never defined), while there it is explicitly defined as a "cut, not its preparation". Which is it? Do we have any WP:RS?

"Hundreds of restaurants specialize in serving steak" -- where did this number come from? Does it refer to some particular geography? There are probably tens of thousands in the US.

The article lurches from one subject to another without a clear organization. --Macrakis (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More...

Where is bistecca alla fiorentina? Apparently introduced by Brits into Italy in the 19th century.

Where is steak-frites?

The mushroom steak comment in the lead footnotes a recipe, which is not an RS. The body section is a bit better, but not much. What exactly makes something a steak alternative?

What is "chicken fried chicken"? It isn't discussed in the chicken-fried steak article that the Chicken steak section refers to.

Why are hip steak, shoulder blade steak, and chuck steak covered under Chicken steak? This is apparently a nickname for a chuck steak (??).

--Macrakis (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Yeah, you're right, it's a crock. It reads as a right-wing tirade, almost a manifesto, gleefully ignoring balance and what the author(s) presumably felt were totally pointless and irrelevant conventions of citing sources or neutrality, in favour of a wholly point-of-view celebration of cutting slices of red meat directly from living cattle. The article doesn't need a bit of cleaning up: it needs deleting and rewriting from scratch. The sooner the misapplied GA is removed, the better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agree with the delist, although I didn't "smell" the right-wing tirade-ness of it. It mostly feels like a WP:OR brain dump, "stuff I know about steak and while I'm at it beef in general". --Macrakis (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joan Crawford

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Several paragraphs are one or two sentences long and should be combined. Several sections are too long and should be summarised more effectively or broken up with headings. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The sections on her charitable involvement and portrayals in popular culture both look particularly bitty and could do with rewriting. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The American Israelite

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

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

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have information about its writing style, political leanings or other critical commentary. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article, and the "Subsequent history" has many short paragraphs, which should be reformatted into longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 1, I looked at the time of your "GA concerns" Talk page post on this but didn't find anything solid about writing style or critical commentary. As for political leanings, they are evident throughout the article – the paper was in favor of the growth and connectedness of Reform Judiasm, in favor of civil and religious rights for Jews, in favor of a creation of an educational institution (that became Hebrew Union College), and against the newly formed Zionist movement.

Re point 2, I added a bit to the lede following your "GA concerns" mention of this. At this point I don't know which specific 'major aspects' you now consider to be missing from the lede.

Re point 3, if you look in mobile view, those paragraphs aren't that choppy, and paragraph grouping is a little subjective to begin with. But you, or anyone else who looks at this GAR, is welcome to arrange them the way you think is an improvement. In particular, I suppose the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs could be combined into one, although that pulls some disparate material in one clump. Others may think the 1st and 2nd belong together, but I think publisher and editor Segal is important enough to warrant his own paragraph.

Note that I did fix the "GA concerns" item about the three uncited paragraphs at the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Burney Relief

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text, including entire sections and notes. "Iconography" suffers from oversection, and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean re oversection; will take a look at condensing the TOC. There are also way too many images. Ceoil (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rate this article at Best a B. For one thing it is twice a long as it should be for an artifact which is not all that notable. A lot of text duplicates facts in other articles like Art of Mesopotamia. I would delete the Geopolitical context entirely. To get back on track, no it is not GA caliber. PS I suspect that the mystery "Pauline Albenda (1970)" actually is "[3]Albenda, Pauline. "The Burney Relief Reconsidered." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 2.2, pp. 87-93, 1969" Ploversegg (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To note have removed the "Geopolitical context" sect and condensed the "Iconography" sect. No opinion yet on wheather it is B class vs GA, but this review at least gives an opportunity to get eyes on improving the page. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, still several unsourced statements. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Council of the European Union

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited statements, and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify where you think it is undersourced? There are citations on virtually every paragraph and I only see one citation needed tag. meamemg (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meamemg: I added cn tags for the paragraphs that need additional citations. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is eligible for a {{primary sources}} cleanup tag. Needs a rewrite based on independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@meamemg, do you intend to keep working on this? Thanks (please

mention me on reply) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kelvin Tan

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

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

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

There is a lot of uncited text, and not much information about his recent work. The music career stops at 2019, the personal life stops at 2020, and there are gaps of several years of information. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

British Airways

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several "reliance on primary sources" orange banners that need to be addressed. There are uncited statements throughout the article, MOS:OVERSECTION concerns, and I think the "Incidents and accidents" section can be incorporated into the article's history or removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; can you give me some more detail on some of these items. I'll try to make some improvements. Kyteto (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyteto: The areas with primary source concerns have already been placed. That would be a good area to start. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kyteto do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I've been a bit ill recently, it's why my normal article writing has fallen off in recent weeks - finally feeling better for the first time, but it is still not great. I am also having an issue with the primary source problem, in that in several instances they are extremely trivial bits of info, to the point where I'd suspect nobody but BA would ever care to mention them. I see a very strong case for third party sourcing of any claim that is, or remotely is, extraordinary, such as "British Airways was the most profitable airline in the world in the mid 1990s" (a true fact indeed) while a statement like "British Airways has a class of seating called [X]" is... mundane. Does it really need to even be cited at all? WP:Cite had never demanded absolutely everything to have a cite, technically only that which is challenged; so, can I resolved the primary source tag by simply removing them and leaving them uncited? What's the best course of action for the mundanes? Kyteto (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kyteto, GA criterion 2b) requires that all content that could reasonably be challenged be cited inline. I think it fairly likely that travel websites would mention details of BA's seating classes or loyalty programs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google isn't always complying with that fairly likely... I am trying... Kyteto (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have some specifics of the aspects not related to the areas with primary source concerns please? I have knocked most of those away. Kyteto (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyteto: There are uncited statements throughout the article. These will need to be resolved before I can recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all citation needed tags are resolved. Two were recently added in the lead for items that were already in the body (and cited there), while the other had the relevant cite already on its dedicated article that has been brought across. Are there areas that aren't tagged that are of concern? Kyteto (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(not Z1720) Good work on this thus far, @Kyteto. There are still several unsourced bits, which I've tagged. There are also a few {{Primary source inline}} tags that should be resolved for this to be kept. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated requested resolution of tags, even to the extent of vandalism, has now been implemented. Kyteto (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Forestry in the United Kingdom

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) 09:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria:

3.a) As a lot has changed since 2010 I think the article no longer properly addresses the main aspects of the topic. In particular the topic has become far more political. I mentioned this again on the talk page last month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forestry_in_the_United_Kingdom#Important_info_is_missing_I_think but there is still very little about politics in the article. There are plenty of sources - for example https://www.forestryjournal.co.uk/news/politics/ and it has been a couple of months now since the new government appointed a minister https://www.charteredforesters.org/uk-government-appoints-new-minister-for-forestry

Also the article does not have enough content on Northern Ireland (possible sources https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/information-and-services/forests/public-forests-northern-ireland https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/forestry-in-northern-ireland-facing-uncertain-future/), and there are some cleanup tags and reference errors which have been there for a while now. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have unwatched this article by accident. I certainly didn't mean to. I was therefore unaware of the maintenance tags and talk page commentary, and I haven't satisfied the tagger's demands. I would however note that if changes are needed and sources exist, then the edit button is available... Otherwise I'll get to this in due course.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to edit this myself as I am busy with Forests in Turkey. But I don’t think there is any rush. Maybe people who are out walking in the woods now will take this up once winter storms force them inside. I have notified some other editors but if you know any more who might be interested please let them know. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! I'm coming at this from a botanical rather than commercial forestry angle. The tree list is of uncertain value as it stands at the moment, as a lot of the trees on it (including many of the native species) are not of commercial forestry significance, being little more than shrubs and/or very rare (e.g. the native whitebeams, many of the willows), or only of horticultural interest; but there are also a few species used in forestry that are not included and should be added. I'd recommend changing the order to ! Scientific name !! Common name !! as it makes maintenance easier (the option of sorting to sci name is how found a duplicate in the list just now). The 'Period' is also of limited value, but if wanted, much more precise introduction dates are known for most introduced species; I can add them if need be. I'd also suggest changing the lead photo from Epping Forest (basically, a public park, not a commercial forestry site); perhaps something like File:Timber harvesting in Kielder Forest.JPG which shows more what 'real' forestry is like, and with forestry work in progress - MPF (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF As there is already an article List of trees of Great Britain and Ireland perhaps we should just delete the list in this article to avoid duplication? If this article needs a list it could maybe excerpt the list article? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the lead image as suggested, obviously an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly worth considering, though that list does not include several commercially important forestry species that happen not to be widely naturalised in Britain - MPF (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we avoid duplication?—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make the list easier to maintain if new species entered the UK, for example those better able to tolerate climate change Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Well, this is why we have WP:LST. It's a relatively new feature which we used extensively in articles about the COVID-19 pandemic, so we could update the case numbers once and propagate that information to lots of articles. I would suggest that we convert List of trees of Great Britain and Ireland into one or more sortable wikitables, then merge the lists, and then use the LST feature to selectively transclude the commercial forestry species. That way we only have to maintain one list but we can display a complete set of information everywhere we need to!—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, do you still intend to rework this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I won't be able to do so in a short timescale.—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then in that case (and without prejudice to your reworking the lists one day), I'll just remove the list of tree species now, a link to the other article is enough to be going on with as it enables readers to find the information at one click. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What timescale do you have in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry -- I have no idea when I'll get to it.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Earth's magnetic 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: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of uncited passages, including entire paragraphs. The sources listed in "Further reading" might be helpful for adding inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Civilian Public Service

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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There a lot of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The "Mental health" section relies too much on block quotes and these should be summarised or reduced. There are lots of sources in the "Further reading" section that can be used for the uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ahmad Hasan Dani

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) 10:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous uncited statements in the article, the lede is too short and does not contain information on all major aspects of the article, and a talk page issue about the lack of information about the reception of Dani's scholarship has gone unaddressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - My concerns — raised over a couple of years ago — remain unaddressed. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It appears that even the GA version wasn’t fully prepared for that GA status, as it lacked proper sourcing. I’m surprised a bio was elevated to GA status while still containing WP:OR. Better late than never, though! This should be downgrade now unless someone wants to help fix it up and get it re-reviewed. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hurricane Rick (1985)

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. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural delisting – the article has been merged per consensus at Talk:Hurricane Rick (1985)#Merge proposal. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Survivors (2008 TV series)

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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 GA has many unsourced statements (i.e. DVD extras, parts of the Media section and parts of the Differences section.). I also doubt the article has been appropriately covered, with little information on reception or viewership; expansion is definitely needed on that front. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1920 Buffalo All-Americans season

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, with citation needed tags from 2020. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems all the CNs are from this edit removing a citation to "NFL History 2003" – I can't seem to figure out what that was? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- BeanieFan11 - from digging into old page history this appears to have been an old .net site that was de-linked in 2015 because the site had been usurped by a malware site. Hog Farm _Talk 00:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm... all of the things now with cn tags could probably be cited with newspaper game recaps – would that be all that's needed to 'save' this GA? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - For GA that is probably fine BeanieFan11, although more reliable secondary sources would of course be preferred. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi BeanieFan11 do you still intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh... could you give me, maybe, a week, and if not done by then it can be delisted? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, take longer if you want. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking into it now... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @AirshipJungleman29 and Z1720: I think I got everything sourced. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Citation concerns seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fleance

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) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited text, including entire paragraphs and statements attributed to people without citations. The lead could also use an update for formatting. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to help with this. I haven't been involved with the page previously, so far as I can remember. Some immediate thoughts I have are:
- Is it right that the page should attempt to cover both the historical person and the Shakespearean character? Or are those two separate entities requiring two separate articles? If the latter my worry is that the historical one would be little more than a stub. Is there precedent for this kind of decision?
- Is there a WP:WEIGHT issue in devoting so much of the article to the character rather than the historical figure? (In this regard I would venture a guess that MUCH more has been said in reliable sources about the fictional Fleance than the historical one.)
- Is there a WP:WEIGHT issue in devoting so much of the article to Fleance's depiction in films, when he is equally - or moreso - a stage character?
- I've quite a lot of sources on this so if @Z1720: you can give me an indication of which bits you consider to be unsourced or undersourced, I can start doing some fixing.
Anyone have any thoughts on any of the above? AndyJones (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyJones: Some answers:

Probably two separate articles, though if the historical figure is not notable, then it can't get its own article.
If the article focuses on the Shakespeare character, it doesn't need too much information about the historical figure.
I don't think the article needs to have too much information about its various depictions, especially since Macbeth has been staged and depicted several times. Instead, it should focus on what academics have said about the character's role in the play.
I have added cn tags per the GAR. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll take a look in the next day or so. Would you (or anyone) have any objection to me removing the whole paragraph beginning "Theatre scholar Marvin Rosenberg theorises..."? No doubt we could reliably source what Rosenberg says from his book. But we cannot reliably source from there that he is wrong, and why, which is what the article currently says, in Wikipedia's own voice. My conclusion is that it's WP:OR, and should go. AndyJones (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now acted on this. AndyJones (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AndyJones, do you intend to continue working on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I'd say probably not in a major way, but I will look through my sources again to see if I have anything which helps to address the issues raised here. If I don't repost here by 28th you can safely assume I concluded I had nothing new to say.

I miss Wrad! AndyJones (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mephedrone

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) 14:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pharmacology" section has had an "update needed" banner since 2015 which does not seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the pharmacology section using more recent sources. Still could use more review articles though. Boghog (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia could I ask for your opinion of the sourcing in this article, if you have the time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matt Byrne

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) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has unsourced statements, is missing post-2012 information and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put me down as "will maybe work on this". Please delist if I don't come back in a week. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Virginia Lottery

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) 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a lot of uncited statements, including entire sections and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appalachian School of Law

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" section stops at 2002, there are uncited passages throughout the article, and the lead is too short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the in-line writing is too casual in tone, and there is still course-catalog content, and laundry lists (clubs). The article, on the whole, is not especially well-written nor is it better than average. My vote is to reassess out of good article status. --Melchior2006 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nicki Minaj

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) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article hasn't been reassessed in the twelve years after it was nominated and listed for GA. Not only has the article undergone drastic changes, so has Minaj's career and public image as well. The latest section chronicling her Pink Friday 2 era is twelve paragraphs long.. Clearly there's a content issue here with the bloating, although as a novice editor I'm not sure what. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging music editors like @Flabshoe1, SNUGGUMS, MaranoFan, and Ben0006:. Also @PHShanghai: you are one of the main editors to the article so I'm sure you could help. 750 h+ 14:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to help but the article is so bloated that most of my editing would be content deletion, (12 paragraphs for one career section is insane) and that is usually frowned upon and might start an edit war. I wouldn't participate, but it has the potential to get messy PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a glance, 12 paragraphs is uncomfortably long for one section on Pink Friday 2. That definitely needs a trim. The "filmography" section on the other hand is glaringly incomplete when not listing even half of her movies. Lots of citations aren't formatted correctly (e.g. AllMusic, Instagram, iTunes, Digital Spy, BBC News, Capital, Catholic League, and Apple Music shouldn't have italics while some refs are missing authors), and I'm not sure it's appropriate to use referral links to albums or mixtapes close to section headers. The article doesn't seem very stable at the moment, and either way I reluctantly say delist the article given the many issues it has, with excess detail just being one of them as outlined above. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of the flags of Romania

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) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements throughout the article. I also do not think the "Acts of heroism under the flag" section is written encyclopedically. Instead, some of it seems like nationalist rhetoric, off-topic, or should be redistributed to other article sections. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm Just Wild About Harry

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 seem fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entries in "Use in other media" are unformatted and most are uncited. The lead does not summarise all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Norman Osborn

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) 14:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At over 13,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed or WP:SPINOUT. There are also uncited sentences in the article, and new information has been added since its GAN which should be formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sugar

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 seem fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many sections are underdeveloped, such as most of the level 3 headings in "Health effects", "Consumption" and "Society and culture". There is also some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be very little wrong with this article really. The supposedly underdeveloped subsections within 'Health', for example, are very minor sub-aspects of the topic, i.e.

Sugar

Health effects

Obesity and metabolic syndrome --- main article Diet and obesity#Sugar consumption - it seems entirely apposite that this subsubsection is a brief paragraph.

As for uncited text, it's only a few items within lists, all of which are at least partially covered by sources at the heads of those lists. This does seem to be an extremely thin ground for GAR; there are GAs with order-of-magnitude worse problems than this one. I've removed or cited all the uncited claims that I found. I believe the article is now in a good state. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kekal

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. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 14:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several "non-primary source needed" tags from 2019 that need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, yeah, this article needs some cleaning up. I think someone was over-zealous with the tags, but there is a LOT of material that needs outside sourcing. The page also needs to be updated in general. I'm in the process of working on this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work, how is it now?-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: It looks a lot better. I added some cn tags. Some of the paragraphs are quite long and should be broken up, like the last paragraph of "Early years (formation to 2002)", both paragraphs in "Style", and the first and last paragraph of "Kekal and Christianity". I think the second paragraph of "Influences" should be removed as it is cited to Pintrest. Are there any more recent sources that can be added to the article, especially to replace social media inline citations? Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one missing citation I thought I'd added. It's done, now. I'm going to work on that "Christianity" paragraph, it is indeed excessively long.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done some more work. I'm finding lots of deadlinks, but with Internet Archive having those issues right now I'm having to manually catch them rather than running the bot.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 3family6, do you intend to work further on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Was awaiting a response from Z1720. I apologize for not following up regarding the deadlinks being resolved and my other cleanup work.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: The article looks a lot better. I added some citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Wow, one of those was a line that got left in from ten years ago when I removed a source that I couldn't verify. Deleted. The other statement I corrected to say that the debut album DIDN'T have European and North American distribution, and provided a source for that. Anything else?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no more concerns with this article. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeopardy!

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: Seems to be consensus to keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be suffering from a great degree of scope creep. It's bloated considerably in size since the GAN in 2014, and further changes within the show in the 2020s have only bloated the article out further. Last GAR was closed as "kept", but it's only gotten worse since then as more changes have ensued in the show's history (e.g., the tournament spinoffs, Michael Davies taking over, Mayim Bialik being fired, etc.). Also, I think the gameplay description and host changeover sections are way too verbose and detailed. I should also note that Claire McNear's 2020 book has not been integrated into the article and is only listed under "further reading". I do have a copy of the book, but the rest of the article needs a severe trim first. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick skim of the article, and while at first glance I think it seemed quite long for a tv show. But after further thought it does seem to be necessary for how much information of a show of that caliber should maintain. I don't quite know what information I would cut. Eruditess (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's way too much technical cruft about the ins and outs of tournaments, for one. The section on host changes could also be massively tightened up and do without all the quotes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @SethAllen623: This was 10 (!) years ago now, but Seth and I worked together a bit on bringing this and Millionaire (also recently delisted as a GA, unfortunately) up to GA standards. If I recall correctly, the same reviewer took on both articles and admittedly didn't cover as much detail in their reviews as they probably could/should have. I don't know how much time I have to try to save this one at the moment, though I do have the updated 2022 paperback version of McNear's book and would be happy to at least try to incorporate that into this article where appropriate later this week. FWIW, I donated my copy of the original 2020 hardback version to my college's library, but given I currently work at said library...I can almost certainly get access to that as well if necessary. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Seems to be being worked on currently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SethAllen623 and Bcschneider53: do you intend to contine working on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Hey, sorry, this completely fell off my radar. It looks like Seth's made a few edits just now, so I'll wait a bit to avoid risking an edit conflict...like I said, I do have the McNear book, but as TPH said from the opening, it's probably best to take care of the rest first. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I have removed about 10,000 bytes off of the bloat that's come into this article. This has included removing the quotations and various other details from the discussion of the host changeovers, and trimming the discussion of special tournaments in the "Tournaments and Events" section. These were the two major points of contention that you people have said needed to be taken care of. Have I done enough now, or is there more to be removed? --SethAllen623 (talk), October 16, 2024, 06:02 UTC.

@SethAllen623: I think it's trimmed down a bit. Still pretty long. My only other concern is adding info from the McNear book. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uncited passages are also an issue; since an RfC a couple of years ago, the GA criteria require that all prose in the article are verified by inline citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only unsourced segments I see are under "gameplay", which is treated like a plot summary and therefore falls under WP:PLOTREF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer and AirshipJungleman29: Alright, just skimmed back through the McNear book and added inline citations where appropriate. I also updated the citation to the 2022 paperback version - didn't realize there were some updates in there beyond just the afterword. How are we feeling about things at this point? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:PLOTREF comes under the writing about fiction guideline—a general knowledge quiz show is not fiction. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: In other GA-class game show articles such as Wheel of Fortune (American game show) and Press Your Luck, a summary of the rules was deemed as being equivalent to a plot summary in an episodic series, and therefore the show itself is implied to be the source. So there is precedent here that not every rule of gameplay necessarily needs a citation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the issues I raised in the GAR have been addressed. Pinging @Bcschneider53:. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: It's definitely much better than it was. I will note that I have always tried to cite the gameplay sections of my game show GA and FA articles, but I think we have a good amount of inline citations in that section here as well. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. Mario

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Legacy" section is my biggest concern: the first paragraph is uncited, while the rest of the paragraphs are an assortment of appearances in other media. There are also some uncited statements in other parts of the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note The version when it was a GAN had no uncited things. So the question is, would it be impossible to revert the article to that state and then update as necessary or would it need more major work? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not very desirable to wipe out a decade's worth of edits with a wave of a wand. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the originally listed version in 2011, I don't think that would even be sufficient. I'm not sure that version should have even been listed as was (though I am not saying it should have failed instead). That version also has a completely uncited paragraph in Legacy. Perhaps Salvidrim! can correct me if I am displaying ignorance of the rules working differently here, since he is the original nominator. mftp dan ^oops 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan: It was only recently that GA required a citation after every paragraph (with some exceptions, like the lead). Articles were not "grandfathered" into this requirement, so GAs promoted before this change might require fixing up to meet this higher standard. If there was one or two minor citation concerns, I would not consider bringing an article to GAR. With this article, I thought the amount of uncited text was too much for the article to be considered GA at that time. If someone is willing to fill in the missing citations, I can re-review. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like most of the citation concerns have been resolved. I also recommend that an interested editor read through the prose and split up the paragraphs, as many of them are too long. Typically I recommend a maximum of six sentences. Z1720 (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

HL Anyang

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" section, which makes up the vast majority of this article's prose, has not been updated since 2011. Since then, the team has won six championships. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adriatic Sea

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 have smoothened the lead; there seems to be no consensus on the rest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that some of the text be spun out into other articles, which I agree with. The lead is also quite long, contributing to the word count concerns. Many sections are out of date, using 2012 figures such as the "Climate characteristics of some major Adriatic cities" table, "Most populous urban areas on the Adriatic coast" list, "Tourism in the Adriatic Sea area" table, "Major Adriatic ports", and annual transport volume" table. The "History" section stops at 2006 and "Oil and gas" stops at 2012. There is also a gallery section, which per WP:NOTGALLERY I recommend that it is removed and the images interspersed within the article text. Z1720 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could the nominator please specify which GA criteria are not satisfied. "History stopping at 2006" is not an actionable complaint - what specifically need be addressed? The same applies for all other similar complaints. WP:TOOBIG is neither a policy nor a GA criterion. Regarding spinning off material; again, no actionable complaint, just a "recommendation" without any specific overly detailed section. Regarding the gallery; WP:BRD tells what to do - remove it boldly - it does not indicate to start a vaguely worded GA review. Overall, the nomination is not actionable as it notes no particular GA criteria not met and should be closed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding upon my review:

WP:WIAGA 3a states that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". By not having post-2006 information, it is missing more recent events in its coverage of the topic.
WP:TOOBIG is part of Wikipedia:Article size, a Wikipedia editing guideline: an overly long article is a good indication that the article might not be in compliance with 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Yes, this might mean that the article might not cover all major aspects of the topic and go into too much detail.
WIAGA 1b states that the article "complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections." When looking at the length, MOS:LEADLENGTH (a section in MOS:LEAD) says that an article that is too long "is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway". It also says, "The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words." This article currently has 685 words, and I think it should be evaluated to see what can be trimmed.
When I have been bold in the past and removed things, I have gotten significant pushback. I prefer subject-matter experts who care about the article make the changes instead.

Reviews are a way for editors to give their opinion on if an article meets the criteria. If the article fulfils the criteria, then this will be closed as keep. As it currently exists, I do not think this article satisfies the GA criteria, per my concerns listed above. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that there is some uncited text in the article, including citation needed tags from February 2023, which will need to be resolved to fultil WIAGA 2b. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for specifying the issues. Regarding the 3a: I don't find post-2006 events one of main aspects of the Adriatic Sea history. The GA criteria require coverage of main aspects - and it does not require comprehensive coverage meant for FAs. Therefore, I believe you have misinterpreted the 3a criterion making it more stringent than it is. It is difficult to conclude anything else since you have not cited any specific post-2006 event representing a main aspect of the Adriatic Sea history instead of asking others to come up with a justification for your concern.

Regarding the size concerns: You have partially cited MOS:LEADLENGTH. It also says the figures you cited are "suggestions". Therefore, each reviewer should apply judgment if the particular number of words (and more importantly their content) is in line with various policies, guidelines, suggestions etc. I can only conclude you'd prefer a shorter lede. The MOS suggests the lede should be concise but it does not appear to require a specific number of words.

It appears that the nominator is using the review to prompt others to be bold where they ought to be bold passing on unnecessary workload to GA review processes. To be clear, I think the article could be better (it's not an FA after all), but I also think it still complies with the GA criteria referenced above and the nomination should be closed as keep.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Big Four Bridge

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited prose, including uncited paragraphs, in the article. The "Fires" section seems like information about the bridge's history: I think it should be interspersed within the history of the bridge, not given its own section. There doesn't seem to be any post-2016 information. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Food waste in the United Kingdom

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the statistics are from the 2000s, when this article was promoted, and needs to be updated. There is also some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Terrible Towel

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 05:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text throughout the article, particularily in the "Opposition" section. The "Opposition" section also seems like an indiscriminate list of events, instead of organised and encyclopedic prose. I think much of this information needs to be summarised more effectively or removed. The lead is too short and does not address all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Geyser

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also a "better sources needed" banner from November 2023. Z1720 (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the "better sources needed" issue by finding reliable sources. Which paragraphs are uncited? Paragraphs in the lede that summarize the article may not need citations, per WP:CITELEAD. — hike395 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: I have added cn tags to the article where they are missing. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I fixed all of the {{cn}} tags, removed material I could not source, replaced unreliable sources, and cleaned up the references in general. The article looks GA to me at this point: what do you think? — hike395 (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(not Z1720) @Hike395, good work on this. § Valley of Geysers, Russia has a [quantify] tag which should be fixed before this is kept, and several of the citations in the references section aren't used (you can see which with User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors), which should be moved to a further reading section or removed. Thanks, (please

mention me on reply) charlotte ^👸♥ 05:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen of Hearts:

Done — hike395 (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep charlotte ^👸♥ 17:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, citation concerns resolved, better sources needed banner resolved. Z1720 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Old National Library Building

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements, including entire pargaraphs, throughout the article. These have been tagged as such since March 2024. The lead focuses on the controversy and demise of the building, but does not contain much information about its construction or pre-2004 history. I suggest that an additional paragraph be added to include this information. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked the reviewed version back in 2014 which also had significant portions uncited. Some of the wording is also awkward and unencyclopedic. And yeah, it mainly covers its history and very little of the building design itself. I mean, I've worked on a historical monument Singapore Conference Hall which is modelled upon Epicgenius' work on various NYC landmarks.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ireland cricket team

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text, particularly in the "Team colours" section. The lead is quite long for an article of this size, and should probably be shortened to a couple of paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reel Affirmations

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the article, the festival seems to have ended but there is little information as to why, and much of the lead is written in present tense as if the festival is still happening. Is there any post-2015 information about this topic? Per WP:IMDB, IMDB should not be used as a source. These sources should be replaced in the article. There is uncited prose in the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.metroweekly.com/2023/10/norwegian-dream-review-reel-affirmations-2023/ (one film only) (2023)

https://patch.com/virginia/greateralexandria/nova-dc-weekend-events-boo-zoo-fall-harvest-festival-haunts (2023, listed on a calendar of events)

Washington Blade has coverage including:

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2022/10/20/best-of-lgbtq-dc-2022/ (about a personality about whom it is said they have worked behind the event for 15 years) (2022)

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/02/19/reel-affirmations-screens-nora-highland-feb-26/ (about one film only, but shows the event has at least once adopted a "On Demand" format) (2021)

I have seen the unsourced paragraphs but did not edit the page, just adding this to reply to your question. Format seems to have changed and the event to have been drastically reduced; not sure it really ended (no 2024 coverage though). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has over 13,000 words: WP:TOOBIG says that it should probably be trimmed and WP:SPINOUT. There's also some sections that are very long: if after the trim they are still long, I recommend additional headings. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest culprit in my opinion is the extensive discussion of negotiations before the treaty was signed, including somewhere in the realm of 40,000 characters dedicated to efforts before Kennedy took office. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Berghuis v. Thompkins

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 material remains in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire sections. The article relies on a lot of large block quotes: these should be summarised and reduced when able. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at some of this. I agree that block-quoting the reactions and background material doesn't work. However, I don't see a problem with quoting significantly from the opinion itself. It's an effective summary of a public domain text where the specific language is important. Paraphrasing it risks making the document less useful and potentially less accurate. lethargilistic (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that you follow MOS:Law when evaluating this GA article. As to other comments, the block quotes are limited and appropriate when discussing this legal issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a GA by current standards, in my opinion. For one, it cites few reliable sources and instead relies mostly on the text of the decision itself. For another, it's rather poorly written and formatted. White Whirlwind 12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing primarily to the case in the decision section is well-accepted. Outside of that section, the article cites primarily to other sources. lethargilistic (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, quoting large sections introduces legalise into the article, making it harder for the reader to understand the arguments. If the reader wanted to read the decision, they would have looked up the original text. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be a tertiary source and provide summaries of the decision: if this was a fiction article writing a plot section, I would encourage editors to remove quotes from the piece of fiction and instead summarise the plot. The lack of citations in other sections, including the entire "Legal background" section, has not been addressed yet. Also, the "Media response" section puts a lot of weight on the opinions of three sources, while the subsequent paragraph mentions sources that are only used to state that they reported on the case, without using those sources as inline citations for the information in the article. I suggest that this section be formatted more like the suggestions in WP:RECEPTION: while it is an essay for how to format reception sections for media, it would be helpful for organising and summarising the information in that area more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720:. This isn't a piece of fiction, it's an article on a landmark legal decision by the US Supreme Court. It is completely appropriate to quote a few sentences to show the legal principle decided, especially when you consider the length of the opinion, including any concurrences or dissents. GregJackP Boomer! 04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: It is appropriate to use some quotes from the case, but I think the article relies on quotes too much, as much of the prose is quotes, especially in the "Majority opinion" and "Sotomayor's dissent" sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - You stated that much of the prose is quotes, which is not true. There are just under 6200 words of text in the article, of which only 232 words are in the block quotes, a mere 3.7% of the total. The vast majority of the article is prose. In comparison, in a featured article on a court opinion (United States v. Washington), block quotes make up 3.3% of the total. GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@White whirlwind: Please refer to MOS:Law, which states that for articles on legal opinions can use both primary and secondary sources. Both are reliable sources, and your objection seems to be that their are not sufficient secondary sources. Just under half of the references are reliable secondary sources (20 of 41), and the others are all reliable primary sources (21 of 41). The formatting follows U.S. Supreme Court Style Guide, and is written in the same style as other featured and good articles on SCOTUS cases. I'll defer to others on whether it is poorly written or not. GregJackP Boomer! 04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Like all niche policies, MOS:LAW is inferior and subservient to general policies such as WP:NOR. NOR specifies that articles should be "based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on ... primary sources." White Whirlwind 13:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the document as a primary source in the article about that document to make straightforward statements about its content is not OR. WP:NOR says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, ...an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." When WP:NOR says the article ought to rely "to a lesser extent" on primary sources, that means at least half of the references should be to secondary sources (minimum, of course, and I'm aware that that's an essay). In context, that is an expression that the article needs to "establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." (The latter is operative now, obviously.) In this article, the opinion is being cited for its contents and nothing more. Per WP:NOR, where there is no neutrality issue like undue weight, "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents." The article needs at least one more secondary source to get over the minimum by Greg's count, but it's otherwise fine on this point. lethargilistic (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say using a primary source was OR; I said only that NOR requires articles to be based primarily on secondary sources. Moreover, whether it is "straightforward" to summarize a case using itself as a primary source is still up for debate on this site. I have always been on the "no" side of that argument. There are many benefits when editors follow secondary sources' description of cases instead of trying to summarize cases directly: It avoids problems of WP:WEIGHT, it avoids the wide discrepancies in editors' legal training and understanding, and so forth. White Whirlwind 18:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@White whirlwind: Please provide a cite to a policy that states that MOS:LAW is inferior to WP:NOR, and please point out where in the article that there is original research. GregJackP Boomer! 22:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: NOR is a policy and MOS:LAW is a guideline. WP:PG states, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow" while "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Policy is seen on Wikipedia as superior to guidelines and should be followed except under exceptional circumstances. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - I'm aware of the difference between the two, White whirlwind (talk · contribs) made a statement that asserted that MOS:Law was inferior to WP:NOR, and I'm asking for a cite to a reference that categorically states what he asserted. What you stated here doesn't do that. Neither does WP:NOR really apply to this article, and the sentence he quoted is akin to dicta instead of being on point for the policy he is citing. As lethargilistic (talk · contribs) pointed out, all the article needs is one additional secondary source to be primarily based on secondary sources. GregJackP Boomer! 23:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The categorical fact follows eo ipso from the distinction Z1720 mentioned; WP:NOR is part of the Five Pillars, but the MOS and its subvariants are not. Why any experienced editor would need a cite for that is beyond me. To your second point, I have no idea whether the article currently contains any original research. That is irrelevant here, because neither I nor anyone else (if I understand them correctly) has claimed it does. The provisions of WP:NOR apply to every article on Wikipedia whether they contain original research or not, just like WP:NPOV and the other fundamental policies always apply. Returning to the issue at hand, in its present state this article does not rely on primary sources only "to a lesser extent". That contravenes NOR, and it should be fixed before we allow the article to retain its GA imprimatur. White Whirlwind 14:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think NOR and MOS/Law are that much in tension, myself. In any case, you said this issue of whether or not a description of a opinion can be primarily cited to the case itself is unsettled and that you have always come down on "No." You have also said that nobody is alleging the article has a problem with original research. I don't see any concrete neutrality/viewpoint problems here, and the subject is indisputably notable, so I think the question is moot because the problem that NOR is trying to address is addressed. So, I don't see why your particular, strong interpretation of this question should control right now, tbh. Like, fine, write articles from scratch with this restriction; I certainly won't stop you. What does this really have to do with Berghuis, an article that only I have been working on in the last week? I reassert that the amount of quotations in the case summary is fine, but I haven't copyedited that section yet. I'm going one or two paragraphs per session. lethargilistic (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying this article must have no cites to the case — although that would be my goal if I were working on it myself. I'm saying it must rely on primary (and tertiary) sources only "to a lesser extent", as WP:NOR prescribes. It doesn't, in its current state. The article relies extensively on the case as a primary source, particularly in the section "The Court's decision". That's the main problem that prevents me from calling it a GA, as I said in my initial comment. White Whirlwind 15:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't care about the style guide and the guidelines? Are you claiming that a single sentence in WP:NOR, having nothing to do with the policy's focus on original research, trumps the consensus of MOS:LAW? Sorry, I don't buy that approach. GregJackP Boomer! 23:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bottle pool

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead contains information that is not in the article body, which makes it very long for an article of this size. This information should be moved to the article body (and properly cited), and the lead should be a summary of the body's contents. There is also uncited text in the article, including an entire paragraph, a "citation needed" tag placed in 2014 that should be resolved, and "Illegal shots and fouls" has an external link in the text: is this a reliable source that can be used as an inline citation, or should it be removed? Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be made viable, but I suspect I wouldn't have the time to do so. I don't really know much about this game. I'll take a look and see what small bits I can do without fully researching. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Carrot

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some text without citations, including entire paragraphs. These have been marked with "citation needed". The "Production" section is underdeveloped (currently one uncited sentence long). Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to help fix some of these issues. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word (table) was for some reason missing from the 'Production' section. I've added that reference; the table is as usual cited to FAOSTAT, this is the way for all agricultural produce articles, and in fact the folks who do these tables actually object to having the FAOSTAT table ref. repeated in the main text, presumably because it adds to the burden of maintenance: they update these tables annually in all the articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I've fixed all the obvious things including the missing citations, and said a bit more about Production. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Chiswick Chap: Thanks for the ping. The citation concerns have been resolved. I think the lead should be reduced to three sentences, with some information about the carrot's use in culture, but overall my concerns are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've tweaked the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Show Boat

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text throughout the article, and an orange "more citations needed" since 2015. The "Analysis" relies on block quotes, and should instead summarise the information in prose. The article uses citations from IMDB, and the Amazon citations should be evaluated for its inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stoicism

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There are several sources listed in "Further reading" and some sections that are only one paragraph long: this makes me think that the article might not cover all major aspects of the topic, but would appreciate if a subject-matter expert can comment on that concern. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zinc oxide

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed in the previous topic, this article has accumulated a lot of information that lacks citations. This is less of an issue now than when the issue was first raised, but it is very likely that a lot of the information in the article is out of date as research on the topic moves forward, with a huge swath of literature on nanotechnology that is unaccounted for here. There is also an issue with organization, as the Applications section continues to grow, and some of the information presented under Physical properties ends up being duplicated later on. Recon rabbit 23:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also notifying participants in the previous discussion @Smokefoot and @Z1720. Recon rabbit 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article would just be too much for me. Many or most of the references may not meet our standards. For instance, for this very mature material, WP:SECONDARY is no longer sufficient - one needs to go with books or their equivalent, i.e., WP:TERTIARY. As it stands, the article does give readers a taste of what this material is and what it is used for. So, its in good shape in giving a first impression.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReconRabbit's statement is an excellent analysis of the concerns raised on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1997–98 Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball team

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not mention all major aspects of the article, as it does not outline major events that happened throughout the season. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aerosmith

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 unaddressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At over 12,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed and information spun off, and I think that should happen with this article. There are also some unsourced statements, and sources in the "Further reading" section that could be incorporated into the article or removed, but these are minor compared to the length concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would you like to see it spun off?★Trekker (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StarTrekker: I am not a subject matter expert, but here are some recommendations:

The lede can be reduced, especially the third paragraph
"History" can be spun off or reduced.
"Influence and legacy" can be reduced

"Awards and achievements" already has its own article: some of the information could be moved there.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StarTrekker, do you intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 I would not mind contributing if there is a consensus of what to do. I think moving all awards and similar to the specific article is a good idea. A history article seems like a decent idea Imho. A legacy or influence article I could also see being a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have as much time for Wikipedia anymore, but just my two cents since I was very involved in getting this article to GA status the first time around and contributing many sub-articles and content:

Is there a precedent for spinning off history articles for music groups? Just trying to find a good example.
A lot of the 2007-present history suffers from recentism and can be truncated and/or moved to other articles like tour & album articles. Sadly, a lot of the tour articles were deleted due to notability disputes and mostly lack of sourcing…this is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed, but it kinda ties in with the main article. Since 2007, the band only released 1 album and the Guitar Hero video game. There was also some band conflict w/ Steven Tyler in 2009-10, the Joey Kramer drama circa 2019-20, several tours, solo endeavors, the Vegas residency, and the scuttled farewell tour. Content should mostly focus on those things, but there’s a lot of fluff that can be pared down.
Definitely agree a lot of the awards narrative could be moved over to the Awards article. I actually thought the mindset on GA the first time around was to have more of these narrative sections in the main article, instead of just links to sub-articles, but I guess that’s changed.
Agree on Legacy & Influence sub-article. See above.

Abog (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is precedent for spinning off history articles. Beatlemania and The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show are good examples: events from the history of the band can be spun off if there is enough coverage of the event to warrant an article. Considering the length of the article, this should be considered. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I thought others were suggesting a “History of Aerosmith” article or something to that effect, which I haven’t yet seen with other bands. Definitely makes sense to spin off detailed content into sub-articles. In Aerosmith’s case, I think siphoning off details into the album and tour articles make the most sense. Abog (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arts Club of Chicago

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 03:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 GA needs to be updated (there seems to be barely any new information after the 2000s, even though with a Google search, there are sources on new exhibitions, its 100th anniversary, and more that could at least be mentioned). Additionally, there are 5 parts needing citations, which I've tagged. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 03:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited passages in the article, including entire sections. There is MOS:OVERSECTION at the end of the "Student life" section. The "Rankings" have a lot of prominence; I suggest trimming. "Fall Enrolled Freshman Statistics (Fall 2022-Fall 2011)" needs to be updated with 2023 and 24 statistics. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

International airport

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

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

Result: Per silent consensus, this article has gone without any improvement, so due to this, I am closing the reassessment as delist. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited prose, including almost the entire "Airport names" section. There are also citation needed tags in the article since January 2020. Z1720 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 It seems that the article has gone for more than 7 days without any improvement and there is no consensus; am I free to close it? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with the assessment to close, you are free to close, as the consensus seems to be that no one is interested in fixing up this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I guess I will close this as per the silent consensus rule on the GAR page. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Catalytic triad

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 22:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has uncited statements, including some tagged with "citation needed" since July 2021. The "Examples of triads" section suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources for all the 'citation needed' locations. There are relatively small subsections for specific triads, but as these are highly significant given the article's subject, they seem well justified here. I'd agree with the talk page comment that this is a very well-written article. I think it's now good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

J. D. B. v. North Carolina

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. A large percentage of the "Opinion of the Court" section is blockquotes: these should either be reduced or more prose added to this section to contextualise the quotes. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ned Lamont

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2013. There are uncited paragraphs and the article itself might need to be updated. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

John D. Rockefeller

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The lead is a little long, and I think it can be shortened and the references removed (if the information is cited in the article body). History.com is used as a reference which is an unreliable source at WP:RS/P. The "Legacy" section over-relies upon block quotes which creates copyright concerns: this should be summarised in prose. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amon Tobin

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited prose, especially in the "ISAM and Two Fingers (2009–2018)" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Djibouti at the Olympics

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is tagged with an "update needed" banner, with information about the 2020 and 2024 Olympics missing. Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably fix this up by the end of next week. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I've written the necessary updates. I've also tweaked most of the existing sections, adding some more detail and reducing the NOC section. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a cn tag. The lead should be expanded to cover all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I've expanded the lead as much as I could. For the cn tag, there's no one source that just lists everything in one place, so I've split up the statement in two parts and placed each part in paragraphs whose existing citations cover them. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My concerns have been addressed. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think my changes have fixed everything. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nepenthes rajah

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant amount of uncited text throughout the article. The lead is quite long, and should probably be trimmed or reduced. The article uses long blockquotes: this creates copyright concerns and makes the article more difficult to read. I suggest that these be summarised and reduced. The "History and popularity" has a yellow "cleanup needed" banner which should be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these comments. I don't think the long block quotes give a copyright worry except possibly for the conservation assessment by Rob Cantley, as the others are from 19th-century publications and will be in the public domain. But I agree that they don't particularly aid readability. YFB ¿ 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to see how the long blockquotes can be justified, as they add very little to the article, so I've removed them and cleaned up the 'History and popularity' section, along with quite a few small uncited accretions. I've also tidied up the naming a bit, and trimmed the lead as suggested. The size has come down from 105k to 86k. There remain some paragraphs to be cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits have brought the word count to just over 6,000, which is fine per WP:TOOBIG. I think some paragraphs can be broken up so that they are not too long. Uncited prose still needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I've fixed the remaining issues, I believe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article seems to be fine now. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chester Rows

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 14:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The title of the "Today" section suffers from MOS:CURRENCY, and the prose has lots of short paragraphs that make the prose feel like a list of events. This should be restructured so that the information is organised into longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andrew Fisher

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. charlotte ^👸♥ 14:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains uncited statements, including blockquotes, with citation needed tags dated from 2020 and 2022. The article relies upon two sources as inline citations when there are several sources unused in the Bibliography. Z1720 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist due to the uncited content but I'm not convinced that the unused sources issue is a problem for GA. The breadth of sourcing requirements standard for GA is quite a bit lower than the comparable FA standard. In this case, I think the two sources Z1720 are talking about are a book-length biography by a notable historian (Day) and then the Australian National Biography entry. Those sources are going to be fairly comprehensive about Fisher's life, so a WP:GACR #3a concern for breadth would require specific missing information and the sources covering it in order to be a real problem. Likewise, there hasn't been any claims either here or in the GA concerns posted on the talk page that any of the unused sources are so important as to be a series issue. I think there really needs to be more specific reasoning given when challenging GA status based on unused sources, rather than just the existence of unused sources. There's no requirement to be a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature for GA like there is at FA. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wicked (musical)

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited sections, particularily about the production's history during COVID-19 restrictions. The "Movie" section has large blockquotes which should be summarised instead due to copyright concerns. The article also has over 10,000 words of prose, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be spun-out or reduced. BroadwayWorld is used as a citation numerous times, which WP:RS/P states is an unreliable source. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wicked needs a lot of clean-up, and streamlining, but, as I pointed out to Z1720 elsewhere, while WP:RS/P states that BroadwayWorld is not a reliable source "for biographies of living persons", it is a standard source for use in musicals for basic production information like production dates and casts (though Playbill, IBDB, etc. would be preferred). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above and, looking at the article might I suggest to remove from the cast list the "second US tour" and "second UK tour" casts columns? Although I know it's important to know all casts of Wicked, it has now been 20 years of this production, so removing these columns might leave space for productions where Wicked has never been staged, for example? Musicalge3k5 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cast tables should contain only the original production and long-running, major market productions. The Productions section should name the stars and notable players in all the noteworthy productions (subject to WP:DUE). Alternatively, we could use the more efficient cast table method used in Carousel, a featured article. In any case, every person named in the cast table should first be named in the Productions section together with a WP:RS verifying that the person actually played the role. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers and Musicalge3k5: do you intend to continue working on the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to help more, if I can. I am a big Wicked fan, so anything to share with others. :) Is there anything specific I should be working on? Musicalge3k5 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Musicalge: you can go through it and make sure that all the assertions are cited, and that any text that does not belong in an encyclopedia is trimmed. Wicked is not a priority of my own; I am just watching it to make sure that people do not add even more fancruft to this very crufty article. In the productions section, all the major, long-running productions should name the director, choreographer, principal cast, notable designers, opening and closing dates, all with appropriate references, and if there was something special about the production that the reviews mentioned, describe it, citing those reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Musicalge3k5, do you intend to keep going with the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, I made quite a bit of changes here and there on the article. Happy to keep going though, are there any sections in particular that need looking at? :) Musicalge3k5 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles, Melbourne and Mexico City should also come out of the casts table, as long as the notable players are named in the productions section, with appropriate refs. User:Z1720, what else do you think needs to be done? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers: Sorry for the late response, I missed the ping. There is still some uncited prose in the article, which I have indicated with citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The uncited prose has been removed Z1720 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while still a little long (9,600 words) the unreferenced prose has been removed so it should be fine now. BroadwaysWorld seems to be used for appropriate reasons. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tyrion Lannister

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) 23:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is the character's in-universe actions in the book and the TV show, and I think this should be reduced. There is no information on the character's reception, instead focusing on Dinklage's performance. The creation and development sections contain very long block quotes, bringing concerns about copyright. These should be summarised as prose. There are some unreliable sources, such as PR Newswire, Daily Express, and the International Business Times that should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article would benefit from improvements, but I think it's borderline-to-acceptable in terms of the GA criteria. The article could be more concise, but given the length of the story I think it's acceptable regarding the "focus" criteria. (Maybe the family tree should go?) It would be nice for the reception information to be better-organized, but it actually is present scattered throughout the article, so I'm not sure it fails the breadth criteria either. (I'm least certain about this one -- maybe it does need to get pulled out into its own section.) The single citation to PR Newswire looks fine to me as WP:ABOUTSELF since it's just supporting an award nomination. The International Business Times also looks fine to me because it's an interview with the producers being cited as such, though it could possibly be removed as part of making that section more concise. I removed the Daily Express citation since there was another source supporting that info. So I don't have concerns about the RS criteria. To my eye, the biggest problem is a tendency toward repetition and an unencyclopedic tone, but the prose is certainly grammatically correct and understandable by a broad audience. Overall, I am torn, but I don't quite lean toward a delist. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist work is not ongoing to address the concerns, and I think if this was at GAN it would be failed due to the orange banner and overreliance of in-universe information. If someone is willing to step up and address these concerns, I am happy to strike my delist. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. charlotte ^👸♥ 14:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aristonectes

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: No strong rationale put forward for delisting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : With most of the new publications and especially that in hindsight this article is quite limited in information, I decided to reconsider my decision when to remove its GA label until I bring a complete update of the article. Amirani1746 (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indigenous peoples in Canada

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) 00:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brought this up to GA level way back in 2009 (I was Buzzzsherman back then) with User:Nikkimaria as the reviewer. Not only has GA level requirements improved since 2009, but the article has gone through substantial changes. There are many unsourced statements..... Use of puffery words...and overall layout and presentation is no longer accessible for many readers. I think delisting would be best as there is substantial work to be done. I do have plans in the future to revamp the page, however this will take an extensive amount of time. Moxy🍁 01:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I typically prefer keeping GA status and working over time outside of egregious cases, I don't disagree that this article needs substantial improvements. Besides the layout, maybe go through and tag some of the uncited statements and poor wording and I might fix a couple things if I get around to it. PersusjCP (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PersusjCP: I added cn tags to the article to statements that need to be resolved. I haven't evaluated the other concerns outlined by Moxy above. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Group 5 element

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 have been resolved. ¹⁴¹ Pr -_\contribs/- 16:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started outlining the work that needs to be done with citation needed tags, moved a reference and commented out some info. I didn't see the GA concerns until this reassessment appeared under the GAR listings; for whatever reason it's listed under physics and not chemistry and as such doesn't appear on the Chemistry article alerts. Corrections should be straightforward as a lot of the info is going to come from the main article pages (Vanadium, Niobium, Tantalum, Dubnium) and should already be cited there. Recon rabbit 16:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it looks like a lot of the information that should be in the parent articles (several of which like Vanadium compounds appeared to be copied over in part) is not there. I'll still work on this though. May be useful in maintaining quality of the parents (which would otherwise be subject to similar reassessments). Recon rabbit 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source that at least mentions the configuration. Other obvious issues have been addressed - all that seems missing is a page number for "Inorganic Chemistry" as it's a fairly large reference work and I added the citation based on a preview/ use in another article. Recon rabbit 15:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, it was annoying finding where in that textbook the information on oxyhalides was, but I found it. Everything that seemed clearly missing references has been addressed from where I can see it. Recon rabbit 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citation concerns have been resolved. No other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691119694

[1] Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691119694

[1]