This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 66)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 68) →

Trucking industry in the United States

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

Result: Without objection, delisted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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 In that time, it has become more than a decade out of date (there is a "as of 2005" statement in it) and has a number of unsourced paragraphs and subsections.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

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

Benzylpiperazine

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

Result: kept. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 is about 15 years old and probably outdated, and the information in the legal issues section all seems to pre-date 2010.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

• Delist - no engagement. Hog Farm _Talk 05:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm: I'm going to try to take this on. I've never written a GA before, so I figure that saving one from delisting is a less formidable task. I can cite and update — is there anything else you think needs work? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tol: - I think those two things are probably the two main outstanding items. Hog Farm _Talk 22:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright; thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm and Tol: How are we going here? Is progress being made. Aircorn (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aircorn: Not right now. I'll try to finish this up over the weekend. Thanks for reminding me. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've fixed most of the problems. One problem with updating the information is that there isn't too much recent information — much of its use was before it was prohibited. I'm still working on the legal status section; it's again rather hard to find information. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm and Tol: Another month. Where do we stand at the moment? Aircorn (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aircorn: I think I've fixed most of the issues. What do you think? Is there anything else that I should improve? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a little bit uncited yet, and the legal status needs another look to ensure currency, but things have come along well with this one. Hog Farm _Talk 15:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Did a bit of a tidy up. Not terribly interested in the legal section, but I don’t see countries making it legal after it has been illegal so not sure what updating is necessary. It had a large focus on New Zealand, which I tried to reduce, but would not hurt to have a more global perspective. It seems alright at the moment and would be happy keeping it as a Good Article. Aircorn (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hog Farm, is everything here up to snuff in your view? This has been going on since July so it'd be nice to close it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aircorn, Extraordinary Writ, and Tol: - I'd still like to see binding to 5HT2A receptors may explain its mild hallucinogenic effects at high doses, while partial agonist or antagonist effects at the 5HT2B receptors may explain some of BZPs peripheral side effects, as this receptor is expressed very densely in the gut, and binding to 5HT3 receptors may explain the common side effect of headaches, as this receptor is known to be involved in the development of migraine headaches. and Due to tiredness associated with the body's recovery from stimulants, such as BZP, it is uncommon for users to be able to sustain a week-long intake. but that's it. Hog Farm _Talk 20:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hog Farm, I've added citations for those statements. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, issues have been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 22:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tasks

• Update
  • § History  Done Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • § Effects  Done, though there hasn't been too much recent research here Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • § Legal status  Done as much as it's going to be Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully cite  Done Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Luna

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

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

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

• Skjoldbro I don't see any unsourced sections or cleanup tags. (t · c) buidhe 00:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I hadn't added any, I was unaware that it was necessary for the discussion. I have added some now. Older tags can be found in Assassination and aftermath section. However, I don't believe that the article should ever have received the GA title, as the article has had these issues, at least since the last assessment. The article, therefore, never met criteria 1 and 3. Things like this excerpt is completely irrelevant to the article subject:

He also memorized the Doctrina Christiana, believed to be the first book printed in the Philippines.[4][12] The title of the work literally means "Christian Doctrine", and thus the primary goal of the book was to propagate Christian teaching across the Philippine archipelago. The book consists of 38 leaves and 74 pages of text in Spanish, Tagalog transliterated into roman letters, and Tagalog in its original Baybayin script, under a woodcut of Saint Dominic, with the verso originally blank, although in contemporary versions bears the manuscript inscription, "Tassada en dos reales", signed by Juan de Cuellar. After a syllabary comes the basic prayers: the Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, Credo, and the Salve Regina. Following these are Articles of Faith, the Ten Commandments, Commandments of the Holy Church, Sacraments of the Holy Church, Seven Mortal Sins, Fourteen Works of Charity, and points on Confession and Catechism. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skjoldbro Can't you just remove any content that you consider irrelevant? Wouldn't that fix the problem? (t · c) buidhe 09:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe I don't think so, as I don't believe the article ever should have gotten the GA status in the first place. I think it clearly fails criteria 1 and 3. There are major issues with tone and relevance throughout the whole article, and would have to be wholly rewritten. Making the article unwarranted of the GA status. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if it is all that bad. The tone is alright, but I agree that there are some areas where it can be tightened. Probably not enough to lose GA status over or even have the big orange tags. The bigger issue are the inline tags. The ones I looked at are all reverent and the sources are not readily available to me. @Arius1998: in case they pop in and will leave a note at some wikiprojects. Aircorn (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Maybe it is just me, but I just think that the tone is "off" e.g. After taking breakfast, he ordered a subordinate, Colonel Queri, to prepare arms and ammunition for the ten men. Then, the men boarded a train destined towards Malinta, which was American-held territory. After giving orders to the men, he let them go and watched them with his telescope. The men, succeeding their mission, eventually returned unharmed. Admiring their bravery, he organized them into a guerrilla unit of around 50 members. I just don't think it reads like other GAs. It sound more like a story rather than statements of facts. Additionally, how is anyone able to know the mood of Luna moments before his death? Still outraged and furious, Luna rushed down the stairs [...] These are just two examples from a cursory look. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True some of it gets a bit overly dramatic. I sometimes prefer this than the monotonic encyclopaedic style that is often encouraged here, but yeah it could be toned down a bit. Aircorn (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to have stalled. Any thoughts on whether the article should be delisted, Buidhe and Aircorn? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some copy editing but got half way down and lost a little interest. I agree that some of 5he wording is over the top, but also am not sure that is enough to fail on. Some of the war timeline is a little confusing to me, but that might be because I am not familiar with it. Overall I would say it could go either way. Not much help I know. Aircorn (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NATO

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

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

---

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

Result: Not delisted per Moxy's rationale above. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The problem is that you are mischaracterizing both the material and the discussion.

First - it is historical information. Characterizing it as 'facts', when parties involved have made multiple contradictory claims (found in reliable sources) is a conflation. This is easily exemplified by Gorbachev's vaccilation in discussing the matters.

Second, you have grossly mischaracterized the material in creating Baker-Gorbachev Pact. The word Pact has a specific meaning. The negotiations were in no way, shape, form, characterization, or context, a "pact". Please read up on the definition if necessary.

Third, jumping to the "censorship" argument is facile. You have already violated 3RR in your attempts to push a narrative that you are fond of. That's not censorship, that's ensuring that editors don't push their POV to the top of an article, giving the material greater weight than it holds.

Fourth, you have characterized in your edit summaries justifying your additions that there was an 'emerging consensus' on the talk page - unfortunately, the emerging consensus was that the material was not appropriate to the lead. The Baker-Gorbachev (Shevardnadze,Kohl, Genscher, etc etc) discussions - not even formal negotiations - are an interesting footnote in the history of what took place. Assigning it the importance of a violated legal pact is over the top.

As I have stated elsewhere, these matters are interesting, and deserve coverage; they don't necessarily warrant their own separate article, and more importantly, they are not critical to the body NATO itself, not such that they need to be relitigated in the lede of the article.

The discussion on the talk page has been largely civil. Characterizing it as being 'very low' quality is a misrepresentation, the rationales of all parties have been stated very clearly. That you dislike that you have little agreement doesn't make the discussion 'low quality', it simply means that the consensus thus far doesn't support your additions, specifically in the lead of the article.

There is no need for reassessment. Anastrophe (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked to specifically says that a page being the subject of an edit war should result in the immediate failure of a Good Article Review, only when the edit war is prior to the article being made a good article. It should be obvious that anything Good or higher isn't immediately delisted as soon as an edit war starts. Loafiewa (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees

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

Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Wow this is an old pass. From the days when any editor could just add the status without a review. It's not terrible considering. Have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases and @Ruslik0:. Aircorn (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not GA Intro is bad and sourcing isn't great. There's not photos. The background section is long and poorly formatted. Definitely doesn't give GA vibes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

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

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

Result: delisted, has active cleanup banner (t · c) buidhe 09:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ogre (board game)

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

Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I concur with your assessment, this is C-class, I'd not pass it for B-class due to the issues identified. Only exception is the images - copyright issues make illustrating such topics difficult, although arguably fair use could be involved sometimes. Note the original GA status dates to 2008 (Talk:Ogre_(board_game)#GA_on_Hold), our standards have improved since and the article is not meeting the modern era GA ones, even if it might have been GA level back then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Burundi women's national football team

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

Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Agree generally with the above but as for merging altogether, the team are active in AFCON qualifying this season - if that doesn't confer notability on its own, I'd suggest that it at least indicates the team is becoming more active and warrants a 'stay of execution' for the NT article, pending the evidence of their involvement in other upcoming tournaments? Crowsus (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I see no rush per se -it's not like this is a vandalism magnet or major BLP violation risk- but we don't have a WP:CYRSTAL ball which tells us that Burundi's team is going to get SIGCOV in such an event. At best it's WP:TOOSOON. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this is what the article looked like when it was promoted; 2/3 of what is written is not about a Burundian women's national team. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would delist from GA, but keep the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I remember these African women's team GAs were done as a sort of 'job lot' in a single splurge of creativity which was a very impressive feat. There are some imperfections, for example In 1985, almost no country in the world had a women's national football team is obviously false in light of things like 1984 European Competition for Women's Football qualifying and 1983 AFC Women's Championship. While The senior national football team has never competed in a FIFA-sanctioned fixture seems to be out of date, considering the team is currently competing in the 2022 Africa Women Cup of Nations qualification. I suppose the complained of imprecision will be there until someone writes an academic paper focused specifically on women's football in Burundi. So I could live with a delisting, but talk of AfD or redirection is a bit much.

There is no doubt that the senior team currently exists, they named a 30-player squad earlier this month: [1]. In March 2016 (four years after the article was created) the national team had still never played a match, but its formation was allegedly a priority for the FFB: "The Burundi Football Federation (FFB) plans to expand the women’s game. A priority for the FFB’s 2015-18 development strategy is to get a squad up and running. The national team has never played a match – a frustration for Saidi. Funding shortfalls and the lack of equipment have hampered its development, meaning it has not managed to play the five matches against Fifa-ranked teams that it needs to get an official ranking." They definitely played at the 2016 CECAFA Women's Championship:[2] and I found a pre-tournament friendly in which they were beaten 3–0 by eventual winners Tanzania: [3]

They were slated to play at the 2018 CECAFA Women's Championship ([4]) but when it was shambolically postponed at four days notice, they weren't at the edition which went ahead: [5] They played at 2019 CECAFA Women's Championship and reached the semi-final. It's not clear what happened to the 2021 CECAFA Women's Championship after Djibouti pulled out of hosting it. I can't read French/Swahili/Kirundi and (until today) my knowledge of Burundian football was nil, but I have certainly found some coverage of the matters inhibiting the women's national team. Lack of funding, prejudice against women etc. [6], [7] The coach Daniella Niyibimenya (yes she exists!) has complained about a lack of friendly matches to sharpen up before the tournaments: [8] While Lydia Nsekera says a lack of female representation in the corridors of power has held back the development of women's football: [9]. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the Jimbere Magazine source, I had never encountered it before and it does seem to give good coverage to the women's team. I've added coverage about the 2019 CECAFA Women's Championship to the article, but I don't think there's enough to rescue this GA entirely. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment other African women's national teams have the same problem: see Burundi, the Central African Republic, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Togo and Zanzibar.

I'm not suggesting that all of them need to be delisted, but quite a few do. Depending on how this GAR goes, it could be a precedent for the other national teams listed above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • They all probably need some improvement. The Zanzibar article actually looks quite salvageable, and since Rwanda tends to punch above it weight in media I'd bet there's some sources that could be found to improve it. Others, like the Central African Republic and Niger, probably should have never been promoted in the first place. Same problems with women's programs that have barely gotten of the ground and issues with text and sources pointing to challenges for women's football in Africa generally, but not actually discussing those countries specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar

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

Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Congestion pricing

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

Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The lead needs to cover the environmental and health impact at greater length. The research is clear: congestion pricing reduces pollution, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and has health benefits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little skeptical of "advocates claim" in the second sentence of the lead. Is the research strong enough to just state that in wikivoice? This is an important topic, and it'd be nice to save it from delisting. Chidgk1, have you noticed other problems, or just that the lead doesn't align with the body? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this article compared other articles e.g. Electricity pricing - see e.g. https://learn.pjm.com/three-priorities/buying-and-selling-energy/lmp Too much detail on the London ULEZ but some general explanation of relationship with LEZ would be interesting e.g. why US has road congestion pricing but no LEZ as far as I know. And will the balance change as EV proportion continues to increase rapidly in Europe? Bibliography needs trimming and updating. I may find more problems later. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I oposed the delisting. The topic is still up to date, no much progress has occurred worldwide since it gained GA. Details about the London congestion charge should go in that article, not here. The summary about London is due to more studies and evaluations available, and because it is the onle big city in the world with such scheme, therefore, it is a global reference.--Mariordo (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariordo Do you have an opinion about the scope of the article? I mean whether it should include things other than transport? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the article explains in its description section (supported by the corresponding reliable sources, mainly economic literature), congestion pricing could be applied in several public services, but in practice it is mainly use in transportation services, such as road pricing (most common application) and other transportation modes (such as the scheme in the Panama Canal). In other sectors similar concepts has been applied, but slightly modified because of the different nature of the service (for example, electricity requires distribution, transport does not. Final users of water and energy services pay a monthly fee according to use, road users don't pay out-of-pocket fees for use of the road network, except some toll roadas), and are called by different names, such as variable pricing, water pricing, and electricity pricing.--Mariordo (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you the scope should be wide as explained in the lede. But the body does not have enough on non-transport e.g. electricity has moved on since the article was first written Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On scope, I think that we ought to restrain it to "congestion pricing" in transport, i.e. traffic congestion pricing. This is for several reasons:
  • It allows us to proceed without having to cut or add much to this article, increasing the likelihood we can save it.
  • The broader concept of congestion pricing is already covered in dynamic pricing and variable pricing.
  • The non-transport uses of congestion pricing are often called different things and have different qualities, so it makes sense to discuss them separately.
  • Articles with too big a scope tend to become unwieldy.

I've added a hatnote attempting to clarify this. I hope that helps with scope, but the very fact we're having to discuss it here rather than it being something the original author made clear is a failing of the article (the 2008 version included transportation network in the first sentence definition but then included public utility in the next sentence), and is something that could portend other quality issues. I haven't looked into those, so I can't comment on that yet. I will note, though, that this topic has changed a ton since 2008, so if it hasn't been actively updated, it's likely no longer up to standard. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef

SpaceX Starship

Sea surface temperature

Central African Republic women's national football team

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

Result: outcome (t · c) buidhe 20:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Lady in the Lake trial

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

Result: delist. There is consensus the article lacks in referencing, specifically text-source integrity and original research. There are further concerns with neutrality Femke (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fried chicken

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

Result: kept: the sourcing issues have been addressed. Determining the WP:Primary topic is outside of the scope of GAR. Femke (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

agree Tai123.123 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inanna

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

Result: Kept This has been open long enough and the original issue has long been dealt with Aircorn (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from StainedGlassSnake

• I think this is a very reasonable concern, and it does indeed seem to violate criteria 2 and 4. I'm particularly concerned by the discussion on User:HaniwaEnthusiast's talkpage including the tone and content of Skyerise's messages, and their use of an edit warring notice as part of an edit conflict that they were part of themselves. It does not seem to me that the purpose of the three-revert rule is to ensure that anyone's alterations to an article can stand as long as they have the endurance to keep posting it repeatedly and only one person is opposing them, though the edit conflict should never have happened in the first place. The issues raised regarding the source for the mention of Persephone in an article on Inanna from the article's talk page were never addressed, and lines such as "And try to keep it conversational, I'm not interested in your page long lectures. Don't you know how to talk to people?" are certainly inappropriate under WP:RUDE when an in-depth discussion of the point at hand is being provided. StainedGlassSnake (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is User:HaniwaEnthusiast's "in-depth" discussion is not completely honest. He dismisses a source first by claiming the author had no qualifications: turned out the author was Alumni Distinguished Professor emeritus of History at North Carolina State University. Then HW hints and something about that author having right-wing views and that that makes the source unsuitable. A Google search found no such common knowledge about the author nor any related news items. IMO, HW's complaints are nothing but academic rivalry between himself and the author of the cited source. As for "rude" - HW also started that by referring to my personal beliefs, which I hadn't shared, as "dubious spiritual beliefs." That's an intentional personal attack levied after my information about the author of the cited work didn't kowtow to his desire to discredit the source. I told him quite clearly that unless he retracted that personal attack, I had no reason to humor his long messages which now could not relied on to be entirely accurate. I don't think it's reasonable to ask another editor to read that potentially unreliable pedantry and sort out the true from the false. But y'all are welcome to do that. Oh, any my prounouns are she/her. Skyerise (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author in mention indeed lacks qualifications, and on top of that endorses heinous conspiracy theories such as Gunnar Heisohn's "new chronology" ventures. He isn't quoted in any papers or books about Inanna or Mesopotamian religion as a whole written by actual experts in the field (ex. Andrew George, Joan G. Westenholz, Wilfred G. Lambert, Jeremy Black, Frans Wiggermann, Manfred Krebernik, Gábor Zólyomi, the list goes on - I'm sure that as a self-proclaimed expert Skyerise is familiar with these authors) and his theories stand in opposition to the most basic assumptions (he basically describes Inanna as a child-snatching boogeyman!). Putting that aside: this article never really deserved the star. The sources prior to my attempt at fixing it were to a large degree outdated, fringe or irrelevant, and the overall quality of information presented was pretty low and hardly in-depth. The same can be said about many other Mesopotamian mythology articles on wikipedia, which seem to prioritize haphazard antiquated "interpretations" of myths and dubious Greek parallels, and worst of all until recently even List of Mesopotamian deities was basically arranged according to fringe theories of the Helsiniki school (Parpola and his students) which is an object of scorn from most authors. Also, I'm a woman.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, being a Alumni Distinguished Professor emeritus of History is what we call a qualification. But do feel free to add a rebuttal from any of the authors you mention. If Riddle is so wrong, surely someone besides yourself has actually said so, right? Skyerise (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here are a few summaries of mr. Riddle's work for your enjoyment: "Riddle sometimes departs from careful analysis and forces his thesis on the data" (Michael Walton in The Sixteenth Century Journal), "Riddle accumulates materials which do not always say what he claims," "there are many errors" (to specify - he gets basic mythology information wrong, ex. calling ARTEMIS a goddess of love; all of this courtesy of Helen King, in this review); yet another critical review can be found here. Noticing a pattern yet? All of these come from credible journals in the field Riddle is purportedly an expert in, which it not history as a whole, but merely some aspects of history of medicine, also - not from random websites, astrology magazines or self-published esotericists. I think in the context of this discussion it's worth bringing up your other dubious sources, by the way. For instance, you seem to treat self-published extremely fringe Jungian pseudohistory site metahistory.org as some sort of authority, as seen in the article Simhamukha. I do not think you're the one who should be asking others to muster stronger evidence.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • There you go, insulting me again. Basically this is a disagreement between two editors. Plus there is the editor who added the information in the first place, as I did not add the statement that you object to. The most reasonable step, which I believe I've mentioned before, is to take it to the reliable sourcing noticeboard. As it stands, you don't seem to have support from other editors with respect to the unreliability of the source. In such a case, the content stays until there is a consensus about the reliability of the source. Since no other editors have stepped up to support you, then it's up to you to find that support before removing the material. I've got no vested interest here other than making sure you follow process and have a consensus for the removal. Skyerise (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with them. This content should be removed Remove this content (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC) — Remove this content (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Focus on the criteria

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

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

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

• You do realize that I didn't add the material? This is not a POV I'm pushing into the article. This is material that's been here for a while, added by other editors over time and, given the number of sources for it, should certainly remain in the article despite whatever academic rivalries are leading to calls for its removal. Skyerise (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: I am the editor who originally rewrote this article and nominated it for GA back in January 2018 in the first place. The version of this article that passed GA contained no mention of Persephone in the lede; the only mention of comparisons of any kind to Persephone was near the bottom in the "Later influence" section and it was only one line, cited to the Assyriologist Samuel Noah Kramer. Also, the line was actually comparing Ereshkigal to Persephone, not Inanna, so it was probably not really relevant in this particular article anyway.

The line in the lede comparing Inanna to Persephone that is at the center of this contention was added by Titus III in a single edit on 12 August 2021 without any kind of citation. The line is not present in any version of the article before that date. HaniwaEnthusiast immediately reverted the edit and you immediately reverted her edit. You are, as far as I can tell, the only one currently arguing for the inclusion of this line in the lede.

I do think it might be worth mentioning somewhere that scholars have, rightly or wrongly, compared Inanna to Persephone. Walter Burkert, who is cited in support of the statement in the lede currently, was probably the foremost scholar of connections between ancient Near Eastern and Greek religions in the twentieth century, so, if he has indeed made this comparison, it is certainly noteworthy. It does not, however, belong in the lede. —Katolophyromai (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never argued that it belongs in the lede. By all mean, move it. Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at pg 109 of Burkert's Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, it seems to be making quite a different claim from the sentence in the article. He compares the Adonis myth with Inanna's Descent; the abduction of Persephone (as in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter) does not feature. He actually describes the relationship between the Hellenistic and Roman Adonis myth and the myth of Dumuzid as seeming to be of 'different worlds'. He then goes on to note, however, that in the Christian period, beginning with the Apology of Aristides (an anti-pagan tract), Christian authors began to add the element of Aphrodite going down to the underworld to seek Adonis and of Adonis returning to the living world for part of the year. His hypothesis is that the 'Sumerian-Semitic' myth was added as an appendix to the Greek narrative in the late period. All that to say I don't think it supports the claim made on the page, though it could be used to support Greek authors identifying Ereshkigal with Persephone, Tammuz with Adonis, and Ishtar with Aphrodite in the 2nd century CE onwards. StainedGlassSnake (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair one persons views dominate most articles, but I agree that Skyerise needs to follow consensus. You are unlikely to find experts here either though and I am usually happy to defer that knowledge to the editors that have done the work getting it to GA status (in this case Katolophyroma). It seems to be overkill to suggest delisting a pretty decent article based on one disputed sentence. Aircorn (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that the fighting was out of proportion to the issues with the article. (Which is a common state of affairs...) -Apocheir (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing?

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

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

Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil

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

Result: Delist: While work has been done to improve the tone of the article, overquoting remains. Femke (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@SaturnFogg: Have you notified major contributors, such as User:Lecen, and any related WikiProjects? I will look at the article soon and try to save it or support its reassessment. FredModulars (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The first issue that jumps out at me is the overuse of extended quotes to express basic facts that could just be written in wikivoice. For example:
  • It "had an economy that was rapidly developing in 1880s".
  • To give an idea of the economic potential of the country during the Empire, if "it had been able to sustain the level of productivity achieved in 1780 and managed to increase exports at a pace equal to that verified in the second half of 19th century, its per capita income in 1850 would be comparable to the average per capita income of the Western European nations"
  • The "countryside echoed with the clang of iron track being laid as railroads were constructed at the most furious pace of the nineteenth century; indeed, building in the 1880s was the second greatest in absolute terms in Brazil's entire history. Only eight countries in the entire world laid more track in the decade than Brazil."

And that's just from the first two paragraphs of the body. The whole article is written like this. There is no reason these long quotations couldn't be replaced by paraphrase (see MOS:QUOTE). This has the effect of making the prose difficult to read (GACR#1a). In cases where direct quotes are used, they should generally have in-text attribution (they currently don't). I would be inclined to delist for this reason. Colin M (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Colin M above. Not only does it fail the prose requirements the over quoting is borderline 2d (copyright) as well. A bit of a shame as it is a relatively easy fix if someone is interested in saving the article. Aircorn (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FredModulars

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

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

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

WIN Television

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

Result: Delisted -- Problems with focus and sourcing remain largely unaddressed. Femke (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delist clearly way short of current GA requirements. It's been almost 3 months and none of Sammi Brie's suggestions to improve this look like they're being implemented. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Joseph2302 I did add some of the first table and made some changes, but this needs someone with a bit more knowledge on where to get Aussie TV sourcing, especially historical regional Australian newspapers (a Wollongong publication is sorely needed). Trove has the Canberra Times 1926–1995, so there is some coverage post-aggregation of WIN Canberra, but... That's potatoes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist No sourcing for 2021–present: Return to Nine affiliation and some of the other sections suffer from single sentence paragraphs. Aircorn (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American popular music

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

Result: Delisted -- Clear consensus the article is far from meeting the GA criteria. Femke (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delist Deficiently sourced article for its length; for the Popular jazz and swing section, four paragraphs are devoid of a single ref. I am nebulous on the ref style; one of the external links (http://www.americanmusicpreservation.com/songs.htm) is extremely poor. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per WP:GAFAIL #3. Needs significant work to remain a GA. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man (2002 film)

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

Result: Keep. All concerns have been addressed. Femke (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@SirDot:, IMDb is cited in the Accolades section. Sahaib (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahaib: Thanks. I've removed the ref. — SirDot (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Cod

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

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

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

• I've suggested before that you look up the term run-on sentence so you won't keep embarrassing yourself by showing you don't know what it means.
• There is no reference to Lovecraft's "opinion", rather the article simply states that amusing is the term Lovecraft employed, which is true. That he put it in the mouth of his narrator is irrelevant.
• What's an "image quote"?
• What "image size" problems are you talking about?
• You say there are "innumerous" dead links. I checked all the cites and found one dead link. Are you unable to count to 1?

EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No answer. Huh. EEng 02:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine to me, I must say. There is one silly cn for the direction the cod faces, which is clear from the illustrations. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It has clear MOS violations and a "tedious" and "tongue-in-cheek" (improper) writing style, as admitted by one of the article's editors on its talk page. ɱ (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  as admitted by one of the article's editors on its talk page – I did not "admit", or even say, that the article has a "tedious" or "tongue-in-cheek" style. What I said is that The sources are tongue-in-cheek, and the article, by quoting those sources, simply reflects that for the reader [11]. Tell us now whether you can see the difference between those, because if you can't then you're not competent to participate in these discussions. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No answer. Huh. EEng 02:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's your opinion, evidently a strong one. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, page seems fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got to say, the crazy amounts of "quotes" and what can only be attributed to inside jokes aren't really encyclopaedic. The lede is particularly bad, as it uses so many tounge-in-cheek puns to explain what the article is about. We aren't an April fools joke - this should be re-written from a neutral tone without the puns. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What puns in the lead? So many? One, maybe, 'Cod-napping', and that is discussed and well sourced later in the text. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because William F. Galvin refers to it under the pun "codnapping" on a single subpage of his gov't website (actually a digitized version of his weasel-word-filled tourist-oriented guide to the building) does not warrant us to use it throughout an encyclopedia that aims to be neutral and serious. The fact that this article attributes it to "State House officials" is misleading. ɱ (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth seems official enough. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote that solely for a tourist guide. If I were to quote everything from official tour guides of the tours I've been on, Wikipedia would be a hot mess. ɱ (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if everybody went to the same restaurant on the same evening and ordered blintzes, there'd be chaos, but they don't [12]. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: I can't make sense of the "it's fine" comments that don't address the points raised in the GAR nomination and don't make any case for why this article is "fine" despite the obvious violations of the MOS and the GA criteria. The caption on the Infobox image seems to be an original creation and quite inappropriate. The second sentence on the "Sacred Cod nickname" sentence makes the claim "[w]ithin a few years authors, journalists, and advertisers‍—‌even those far from New England‍—‌were using the term routinely", but this is only cited to primary sources from the era; that seems to be at least skirting WP:SNYTH if not an outright violation. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't agree with the most specific claims at the top; I'm fine with the "in-line quotes, block quotes, image quotes" also the images. I don't see any "weasel words" (WP's most miscited policy). User:Ɱ obviously has a beef with the article, but I don't share it. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you are fine with it does not make it in-line with Wikipedia guidelines and norms, nor does this April-fools joke fit in-line with the GA status, which represents some of the very best work Wikipedia has to offer. Perhaps reevaluate your standards to align with Wikipedia's, as Wikipedia will not spontaneously align with yours. ɱ (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, which of us has 14 FAs? GA status does not "represent some of the very best work Wikipedia has to offer" - that's FA. There's a huge range of quality in GAs. Also, WP:NPA. You seem rather intemperate over this; perhaps you should go off & calm down. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAs that are a decade+ old goes to show you might not understand how things have changed in the last few years. Especially for the FAC process. ɱ (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where I still regularly participate. Yeah, right. Sadly one thing that hasn't changed much is the uneven quality of GAs. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My "fine" was also maligned. The article gives due weight to acknowledging the seemingly lighthearted official policy of the state in its honest honoring of a 'sacred cod' while, at the same time, it adequately encyclopedically covers the importance placed on this rare 238-year old wooden sculpture (the third in an established lineage). In assessing this page about an American-formation era artifact, doubters of its quality should reread the beautifully-put opening caption while keeping the existence of that level of local respect for tradition and symbolism in mind. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost as humorous as the puns in the article, and undoubtedly just as serious. ɱ (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Meant every word. It is a 238-year old beloved American artifact and that sense is captured throughout the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The central issue here seems to be It is clear that the editor(s) are reflecting the silliness of the topic in the article prose, which is improper. It is not improper. There is no rule, in GA or elsewhere, that Wikipedia articles must be dry and humorless, and even less is there such a rule for topics that are notable for being silly (such as this one). The rule is not that humor is outlawed, but rather that the humor should not interfere with being accurate or informative; here I don't think it does. Indeed, I rather suspect that readers of this topic are likely to come to it as a way of seeking out humorous anecdotes about it, and are likely to leave disappointed and uninformed if the humor is excised. This desire to avoid silliness has led the nominator to overreach elsewhere; for instance it also appears to be untrue that the images are poor, repetitive, or barely relevant; they all look relevant and distinct to me. It is also not true that the dead links are innumerous, too many to be counted: I count zero ((deadlink)) tags in the article, a number that is easily small enough for most people to count. I don't think a GA reassessment with such a flawed basis is likely to lead anywhere productive, except as a referendum on Wikipedia:Humor, for which the talk page of that essay might be a more appropriate venue. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: That is not the central issue, I equally listed many. Editorial bias is clear based on the overly generous way the editor(s) portray it and its story. Your analysis is not correct either - we do not need an image of a real codfish, we do not need block quotes or similar obtrusive media in every section, and the images of the exterior of the state houses are completely irrelevant, and do not supply the reader with anything relevant to this "artwork". It is clear that this comment follows a cursory scan of the article. "Deadlink tags" are not necessary to make links work, have you even clicked on the reference links? ɱ (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well for that matter, an article on the Sacred Cod isn't something we "need", nor is Wikipedia, nor (for that matter) is the entire human race. This isn't about what we "need" but rather what best serves the reader's understanding of, and appreciation for, the subject. You're not speaking to that, just complaining that this article doesn't look like lots of other articles. Vive la différence! EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, as nominator, this article has extensive problems with specific GA criteria. Keep votes have largely thus far not analyzed the criteria or problems discussed in the nomination, and have simply agreed with the unusual writing style. The use of sources, with many unreliable or improperly used to support information, and with many nonfunctioning links, needs to be addressed and fixed. The use of irrelevant images, news clippings, external photographs, etc. needs to be addressed. The issue of unclear prose, cluttered in with first-party narratives in quotes, needs to be addressed. As well, the article violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch more than most any I've read. ɱ (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just in the lede itself, fitting MOS:WTW: "to the life" - euphemism, "important" - state significance instead, "historic" - simply state years, "creature of tradition" - poetry, "natural habitat" - editorializing, euphemism --ɱ (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...

• "to the life" - euphemism – Better look up euphemism in a dictionary, or ask your teacher.
• "important" - state significance instead and "historic" - simply state years – The article text reads "a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" (i.e. Massachusetts, of which cod is officially the "historic and continuing symbol"). The importance is explained in its own section of the article, and aside from the fact that it's a quotation, how in the fuck are we supposed to "simply state years" instead? What are you even talking about? You seem to not understand what the subject of the article is.
• "prehistoric creature of tradition" - poetry – Again it's a quote, and one which perfectly transmits what's intended. You seem to consider lifelessness a sign of quality writing.
• "natural habitat" - editorializing, euphemism – For the nth time, PLEASE look up euphemism so you can learn what it means. And editorializing too while you're at it. I openly admit that "natural habitat" is meant to make the reader smile, and if you don't like that, tough. Don't smile if you don't want to.

Apparently you've been inhabiting a drab prison of grays and browns so long that you're forgotten there's a big, colorful world out there. Lock yourself in if you wish, but pardon the rest of us if we don't join you there. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a matter of personal taste whether the verbatim quotes make for choppy reading or, alternatively, give the prose enough verve to be readable instead of impossibly dry. What I'm not seeing is a failure to be, well, encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Dunning-Kruger effect, WP:MISSSNODGRASS. Nominator throws around terms such as euphemism, run-on, bias, weasel word, and editorializing without knowing what they mean; seems to think WTW is a list of forbidden words; believes quality articles are written by filling in blanks on a form; etc etc. EEng 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by others who can see the light of day, this article reads like an April Fool's joke, as humorous as your attempts to insult me. ɱ (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're enjoying it. Will you be rebutting any of the points I've made, as I've rebutted yours, or will you just sulk off? Either way is fine. But remember to look up euphemism and so on. EEng 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• [13]
• [14]

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

• Users are allowed and encouraged to post discussions to encourage a fair consensus. You may be pleased to know that these comments are disheartening, and the widespread endorsements of this absolute mess are holding me back from actively editing here right now. ɱ (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What I'd be pleased to know, rather than that you're disheartened, is that you've taken on board what Tryptofish said below: One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The Rules^TM, rather than substantive ones about page quality. But you'll probably just ignore that and keep yelling "run-on" and "euphemism" and "bias" at random. EEng 23:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "skillful and distinctive" is not evident here. It's clear that what amuses some editors in a positive way is seen by other editors as improperly amusing for a site that is meant to seriously introduce facts. We have a bad enough academic reputation as it is. ɱ (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  By "some editors" you mean numerous respected editors and admins -- half of them published (academic!) authors themselves -- with extensive experience shaping and applying Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and editing articles on a wide range of topics. By "other editors" you mean the kid with 5000 edits who rates himself en-2, the snooker editor, and the editor formerly known as Voiceless Labiodental Nasal Stop (whom I will allow others to characterize for themselves). EEng 02:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, forgot to add: Feel free to sputter on about how this is the end of Wikipedia, but until you point to a specific, intelligible issue I won't be responding further. EEng 03:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just for the record, although I might be a fish (and even a sacred snooker), I am also a retired university professor, and I think I understand academic writing and academic reputations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My point exactly. EEng 00:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and endorse EEng's logical explanations of the good faith nominator's points of concern. Being fair, Wikipedia would be enhanced if the page were featured. Every element works in tandem, and to answer just one concern, an image of the building seems topic-relevant as a further understanding of location and artifact importance. One strength are its all-too-Wikipedia-rare notes, which round the page out as a fully informative encyclopedic article. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I'll wire the money to the usual numbered account. EEng 03:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe toss in an extra 10%, for the Big Guy. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolve facing The issue of which way the fish faces and whether this now reflects the ruling party needs resolution. There are multiple sources saying this but the article takes a different line and this appears to be OR. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to get involved in the dispute over the lighter tone, but a Good Article should be consistent on whether its name is properly italicized.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As for silliness, anyone should feel free to slap me with a sacred trout. Oh wait, you can't, because I'm already a fish. But seriously, I went and looked through the page, and it seems to me to be well within what we expect for a GA, and is really quite well-written and complete. One should not confound writing that is skillful and distinctive with writing that is unencyclopedic; this is the former. Most of the criticisms raised here are matters of The Rules^TM, rather than substantive ones about page quality. Perhaps someone should go through it with a copyedit, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been attempted, and at others that EEng effectively holds ownership over. ɱ (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying there. If you cannot make progress at the article talkpage, you can try an RfC. That would probably be more productive than the reassessment here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that when I referred to a copyedit, I was saying that in terms of what I would regard as minor edits reflecting feedback from the discussion here, and as a suggestion rather than as a major concern. I didn't mean that to imply that things need to be corrected in order to be kept as a GA. But let me also say that if an RfC leads to a consensus that is not, however, implemented, that would be something where I would support a delisting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I had never heard of this topic until I stumbled on it just now. What a good article! Thanks to those who wrote it. Here in California, we only have a state flag with a Grizzly bear, extinct in this state since either 1922 or 1924, depending on which source you think is best. That flag is emblazoned with "California Republic", a rag-tag entity that lasted for 25 days in 1846. There are humorous aspects to many state symbols. But I read this entire Cod article and found it fascinating, an informative insight into the lore of Massachusetts state government and one of its historically major industries, and quite well referenced. If anyone wants to actually work to improve the article, then maybe it will become a Featured article, alleviating all concerns raised here. Cullen328 (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had attempted to, but WP:OWNership is strong in this article, and needs to be broken. Your endorsements of this violating editor are not helping. ɱ (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Is this about your dispute with another editor more so than this specific article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have had no dispute - I attempted to edit this article to fix obvious MOS issues. When rejected, I reanalyzed the article and it became clear that it fails multiple GA standards. Any attempt to gloss over the immensely glaring issues reads to me as a bad-faith assessment. ɱ (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, many other editors disagree with your assessment, and we work based on consensus here. Cullen328 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a vote, and I don't think this GAR is shaping up to be a fair consensus over the article's quality. Many keep votes simply think the GA bar is lower than this article is. ɱ (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And they are probably right, which is a perfectly valid reason to oppose here. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Phineas Gage and Talk:Phineas Gage, another heavily edited by the main editor here. They deflect all edits attempting to improve the mess in the article, and then any attempts to work things out on the talk page are torn apart over walls of text. ɱ (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly tempted to hat everything after Cullen's initial comment, along with potentially a whole lot of stuff higher above, but I won't take it on myself to do so. This is supposed to be a discussion about whether or not this one article is still of GA quality. I support keeping the GA ranking, but that does not mean that the nominator is a bad person for having made the nomination; they aren't. I've long been aware of the ownership concerns, but then again, there have always been multiple editors supporting the way the pages have been written, so there is also a consensus as opposed to the contrary view of a single person. There is blame to go around on both "sides" for how this has gotten sidetracked into personal disputes, and everyone needs to tone it down. Reassessment discussions, like deletion discussions, have a built-in adversarial structure, and it's understandable that editors can feel like this is something with sides, but enough is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (Note: I saw this discussion on the Discord, but the person who sent the message has not commented here.) Reluctant keep - I personally don't like the writing style, and EEng's ownership behavior is inane. I'd push back against Tryptofish's claim above that the writing style has consensus; I see no such consensus, on the talk page or even on this reassessment page. Indeed, this article would never pass FAC. But ultimately, it's not poorly sourced—at least after recent efforts—and doesn't have such pervasive grammar issues that would make it comprehensively fail criterion 1(a). Ovinus (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take your point about consensus. More like local consensus, without a consensus to the contrary. And I'll push back against calling anyone's behavior inane. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough; struck that. Ovinus (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - with a sigh of relief as I first thought it was about a different topic. The style of writing is what we call engaging prose. We want our readers to actually read our articles, not use them to fall asleep. It passes all 6 GA criteria. I'm not seeing a valid reason to delist. Atsme 💬 📧 12:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing along at home ...

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

(Someone seems to have accidentally deleted the above comment; I've now restored it.)

Following up the above, editors are invited to comment on certain inpopcult items at Talk:Massachusetts State House#Inpopcult trivia. EEng 07:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned

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

Result: Delist The article is based mostly on primary sources. That in itself is no reason to delist, but makes it difficult to adhere to NPOV and to not engage in SYNTH. Concerns with those criteria have not been addressed. Femke (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

I thought it was so far gone that I invoked WP:BOLD and listed it at AFD, but apparently a couple of sources scrapped together proved otherwise. It's still extremely light on sourcing, with nearly everything being WP:PRIMARY. Like the few other webcomic GAs, this one's clearly out of mode and unlikely to get any better than it is now, so I think WP:IAR should be invoked and it should be speedily delisted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are implying that if an article is not long enough - with no other criteria being failed - it cannot be a Good Article. I am not sure that is how Good Articles work. As far as I can tell, length is irrelevant as long as the user gets a complete understanding of the subject, which they certainly can from visiting the article. Despite saying it should be speedily delisted, you make no other more specific arguments about how it supposedly fails. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Length is not a factor. Comprehensiveness is the factor, and it just so happens that more length is typically more comprehensive. Miss Meyers for example is an FA half the length of this GA casualdejekyll 17:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Right now the nominator makes no real argument as to why it fails GA criteria, primary sources are only a negative when an article has a total dearth of secondary sources. The AfD for this article just proved that it does indeed have sufficient secondary sources and demonstrates its real-world significance from multiple critics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is there are way too many of them, and too few secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I don't think anything in Wikipedia policy states that there can be "too many" primary sources when used in a judicious manner and avoiding plotcruft. And since the article survived AfD, there are not "too few" secondary sources, otherwise it would have been deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The concerning (haha) thing is that the of the article's 26 sources, 17(!) are primary, and 5 are interviews (which are primary or secondary depending on context). That leaves 4 sources which are either secondary definitely (3) or unknown (1).
  I think we seriously have to ask ourselves if it's possible to write a verifiable article in summary style of this length with three secondary sources, one of which is in Romanian. (I do think it just barely hops over the GNG line, though.) Not to mention nobody has yet managed to locate the PC Zone article, which one commenter in the AfD apparently couldn't even verify existed? I haven't looked for it yet, personally.
  Oh, also, most of the Themes section is either OR or SYNTH. casualdejekyll 02:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Yeah I think the article definitely (if barely) passes GNG, but I agree that the number of primary sources definitely tips into territory that at the least doesn't meet GA standards, and if you cut them and the possibly synth down you're left with something that's not really comprehensive enough for GA standards. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per casualdejekyll and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs's rationale. To be honest, this and the other Half-Life fan content pages don't even strike me as that notable on their own, but that's a discussion for another time. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UBS

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

Result: - Delist Fails NPOV and verifiability Femke (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

Comment by Swiss romulus moved from the other GAR:

• This article needs serious updating. See its talk page for the details. Besides it was not properly promoted GA in the first place.. Swiss romulus (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, Swiss romulus. Since this is a community GAR it needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor, but so far there is no support for keeping it as a GA. (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

   Done (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill

James Armstrong (Georgia politician)

I Don't Miss You at All

Leander Paes

Churches of Christ

Royce White

Operation Python

Pow (Elvana Gjata song)

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

Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Proxima Centauri b

Weh Island

Walden Galleria

Homotopy groups of spheres

Eddie Bayers

Group 4 element

Mother 3

Superstore (season 6)

Ko Olina Station and Center

Walter Hunt (inventor)

Florida International University

Once Upon a Time (game)

Mail chute