Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the ((@GAR)) notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.

Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.

Before opening a reassessment

1. Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
2. Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
3. Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
4. If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use ((subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n)) ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

Disputing a reassessment

1. A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
2. Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
3. If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the ((GAR request)) template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

• 15:05:24, 27/01/2024: Randy Orton
  

• 09:55:04, 24/03/2024: Michael Myers (Halloween)
  

• 09:41:25, 27/03/2024: Doomfist
  

• 22:24:19, 05/04/2024: Winter Olympic Games
  

• 01:35:52, 13/04/2024: Wii U
  

• 13:16:08, 18/04/2024: Bertram Fletcher Robinson
  
• 08:27:08, 25/04/2024: Current date for reference

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

Mezhyhirya Monastery

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

Result pending

The Good Article status no longer seems justified, if it ever was. The article systemically suffers from WP:OR, WP:UNSOURCED claims and claims made by non-WP:RS, failing WP:GACR no. #2. This has been the situation since January 2008, when it was promoted. The DYK with which this article made the Main Page on 1 January 2008 (10 days before achieving GA status), Talk:Mezhyhirya Monastery#Did you know, turns out to be a disproven speculation, a busted myth. This was already known to the DYK nominator, who cited the 17 September 2007 sovremennik.ws post by TatianaZ admitting that excavations in the 1990s never found any library or manuscripts. It's also unclear who believed this (MOS:WEASEL), and why it matters if it has been disproven, or why we should take seriously the hope that one day it might still be proven (TatianaZ saying 'What if [the library of Yaroslav the Wise] is really hidden in one of the dungeons, and is just waiting for the moment when it is finally removed from almost 800 years of imprisonment?' is clearly WP:CRYSTAL). Its entire claim to fame appears to be based on a refuted assumption.

The remainder of sources cited is often still questionable, ranging from newspapers or news sites which do not have the proper scholarly expertise to be making claims about what happened centuries ago, to blog posts, to museums speculating about Andrey's role, to the OKO architectural website (one of the more reliable and neutral sources, but also hardly scholarly). A 19th-century bishop can claim galore, but is not a reliable source. People want to believe lots of things about this former building, and seem to prioritise confirmation bias over reliable sources. But this is Wikipedia.

I've already removed a lot of rubbish, especially stuff related to the Mezhyhirya Residence and the WP:COATRACK on Andrey Bogolyubsky / Virgin of Vladimir, which would probably have made it fail WP:GACR no. #3, and possibly no. #4 due to the heavy focus on the political controversy of Yanukovych owning the Residence. But there is still a lot to do. In terms of being well-written and neutral (no. #1 and no. #4), the article should stop basking in "mysteries" and being allegedly "destroyed" many times, yet rebuilt every time, as if that must mean it is somehow a supernatural miracle that should be attributed to the building's religious status. I'm sure that such speculation appeals to a rather narrow audience of devout Eastern Orthodox Christians, but not "to an appropriately broad audience", and may well be WP:POV.

I think the article does not immediately WP:GAFAIL, but it needs serious work to keep its status. I've already done what I can, but I believe other editors should take a look as well. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is the first time I've initiated a GAR, I hope I've done it appropriately. The tone of my rationale may be somewhat negative, due to frustrations encountered while trying to improve the article, but I think all editors involved have made an honest effort to write an interesting article. It passed the GA criteria all those years ago, but the criteria seem to have gotten stricter as Wikipedia has professionalised its standards and practices over the years. There is still a possibility that with some serious improvements it can keep its GA status. I just don't feel comfortable overhauling the article all on my own; I think it needs a broader review from the community. NLeeuw (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California Southern Railroad

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

Result pending

This 2006 promotion was last reassessed in 2009 and is so old the initial promotion was literally just "I trust the printed sources are sound" [1]. Substantial passages are uncited and the article's prose is not really up to modern standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Limited (B&O train)

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

Result pending

This 2007 promotion has a number of uncited passages, severe sandwiching throughout the article, and a lead of insufficient length to summarize the body of the article. I also question the relevance of the schedule table which seems like excessive and inappropriate detail to me. One might also expect some basic detail on Amtrak's version of the train; the current article says almost nothing about it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football

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

Result pending

GA from 2007. Contains expansion needed tags and numerous uncited areas. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine cake

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

Result pending

I noticed it from the recent AFD, where I also mentioned that it needs a reassessment. The article is surprisingly so brief for a GA. It has just 3 sections, the last 2 (History and In Popular Culture) are tiny. I understand that for an article of a cake, this one's above the average quality, sure, but I'm not sure that it merits a GA status. Speaking on technical terms, it fails criteria 3: "Broad in its coverage" - for the reasons mentioned above. NB: It was assessed 8 years ago X (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• During the process of creating and expanding the article, I pretty much used up all of the reliable sources that were available online at that time (e.g. from Google Books, Google News, Highbeam, etc.) Personally, I don't view the article or its sections as short or "tiny". For a cake article, it is very comprehensive as well as informative, relative to the actual sources available for the topic. Regarding the In popular culture (IPC) section, extensive listings are actually discouraged. There's even a template for overly long IPC sections in articles: ((In popular culture)). See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (Article creator)[reply]
• I think over the years -- and especially during the recent AfD, when there were multiple edits including additions from now-available sources -- the narrative flow has suffered. And the images could be improved. But the coverage isn't incomplete, it's all cited and verifiable, other than the recent AfD and those edits it's stable, it's neutral. Agree with NA1000 that we don't actually want any pop culture section to be longer than is strictly needed. And that applies to the article in general -- broad coverage doesn't require a certain length. I'm not sure this is a fail, it's just a GA that needs to tending to. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've improved the images and narrative flow. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

Giant Schnauzer

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

Result pending
Article relies on a self-published source for several claims Traumnovelle (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American Kennel Club is recognized as the most influential purebred dog registry, and both acknowledges the work by Catherine Brown and publishes the breed standard, which should make them the foremost experts on Giant Schnauzers. I don't see why these sources should be singled out as self-published when they are likely the best sources available and only self-published by means of being self-hosted, but definitely not user-generated or published through a vanity press or some such. Also, you should notify WikiProject Dogs of this reassessment by using the following template: ((subst:GARMessage/''Giant Schnauzer''/''1'')) Reconrabbit 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the wrong part. Obviously the American Kennel Club are fine to use for the breed standard and registration figures per WP:ABOUTSELF, when it comes to stuff like history they shouldn't be used in a good article. Fanciers do not always accurately represent the history of a breed.

>I don't see why these sources should be singled out as self-published when they are likely the best sources available and only self-published by means of being self-hosted, but definitely not user-generated or published through a vanity press or some such

They're not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject which is an obvious issue in regards to many claims.

>Also, you should notify WikiProject Dogs

There's notification via the article alert which automatically lists articles undergoing a GAR. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I will admit that my area of knowledge is more in rabbit breeds, so my question here is - who else is going to document the history of a breed than a fancier group? I will do a search for independent sources on this topic but I fear they will not be as comprehensive or will be drawing from the same documents.

On the notification - I forgot about article alerts. Some reviewers like AirshipJungleman will still post notifications on the talk page. Reconrabbit 13:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cynologists, there are independent people writing about the history of dog breeds - they may rely on fanciers for information but they are hopefully critical of it, compare information with historical evidence, and go through a publishing and review process. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle, the GAR instructions require notifications to be sent to involved WikiProjects and major contributors. As noted in the instructions, ((subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n)) ~~~~ is an easy notification method. Article alerts are not considered sufficient. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crusading movement

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

Result pending

During the article's FAC review, it became apparent that the article does not meet all GA criteria: 2c. it contains original research; 2d. it contains copyright violations and plagiarism; and 3a. it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Furthermore, its prose is not clear and concise as a consequence of copyright violations and plagiarism. Although the article could be delisted without further review because it is a long way from meeting criterium 3a, and contains copyright violations, I think giving a last chance for improvement is a better approach. Of course, the article should be cleaned of copyright violations and plagiarism as soon as possible, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 This discussion was closed as delist by Borsoka; I have reverted the close as a WP:NACINV-breaching action which contravened the WP:GAR instructions. I suggest, to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, that Norfolkbigfish attempt to eradicate all plagiarism from the article and ping Borsoka when they feel this is done; if Borsoka feels that the article should still be delisted, they can simply !oppose and their !vote will be taken into account by an uninvolved closer. This will not only avoid excess use of other's time and energy, but will also demonstrate if Norfolkbigfish properly understands the copyright policies, which may be helpful in deciding whether the other articles they have contributed to need immediate reviewing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To begin the process, I copy my remarks from the FAC review page here:

General remarks

• A general remark on sourcing: more than 30% of the article is verified by references to individual articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Our relevant policy says, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I think the use of a tertiary source goes beyond this boundary, and the rationale beyond the selection of individual encyclopedic articles is unclear. As a consequence of this approach, the article looks like an encyclopedia with individual articles following each other without much connection between them. I am not sure that this method can secure that the movement is presented in WP as it is presented in relevant scholarly literature. Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica?

The Encyclopedia is WP:RS. Where particular facts are insufficient this can be addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the encyclopedia is a reliable source. I have never questioned its reliability. However, we need a coherent encyclopedic article about the crusading movement, not an abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, with individual articles within it. Right now, this article could hardly be regarded more than a collection of individual articles on topics like "Penance and indulgence", "Knights and chivalry", etc. Even the seemingly chronologicaly organised "Evaluation" section is a mostly incoherent mixture of texts from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia (often with texts copied from its articles about indvidual popes). For the time being, the article does not introduce the crusading movement as it is presented in scholarly literature: arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another can hardly be regarded as an encyclopedic article. Therefore, sourcing must be changed radically. Not only because the extensive use of tertiary sources contradicts our relevant policy, but also because editors' task is to present an article's subject as it is presented by scholars writing of the topic. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While an issue for FA, I am not sure this is as important for GA. If 30% of the article is sourced to a tertiary source, 70% is still cited to secondary sources. I am uncertain how an article 70% based off secondary sources can be described as "arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another". Could you please clarify? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no separate policies for FA and GA, we need to meet the same standard. If you review the article, you will find that it is structured around the encyclopedic articles arbitrarily selected from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. These are placed one after another, and all other information is organised around them. The encyclopedic articles form this article's backbone. This contradicts our principal logic: we write articles based on high-quality comprehensive studies, present topics as they are presented in these studies, and in some cases we add some supplementary information citing encyclopedias. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "There are no separate policies for FA and GA, we need to meet the same standard." That is undeniably incorrect, Borsoka; you may wish to acquaint yourself with the GA criteria, the FA criteria, and the difference between them. You have perfectly outlined the reason why this article is not an FA, but over-reliance on tertiary sources is not a reason to remove GA status. Copyright, on the other hand, is. If your next argument is that by "policies" you refer to the formal policies and guidelines, please point to where we write articles based on high-quality comprehensive studies is in WP:CONTENT.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • With regard to secondary and tertiary sources, we do not have separate policies. GA requires reliable sources, FA high-quality reliable sources: The Crusades: An Encyclopedia is without doubt a high-quality reliable source, so it could be cited in a FA, but only in accordance with our relevant policy: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight...". How randomly selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia could provide broad summaries about the whole crusading movement? For instance, the encyclopedic articles "Finance of the Crusades" and "Women" are ignored, although these are two major themes in books about a crusading movement. On the other hand, each encyclopedic article about an individual pope is cited, even his original name is sometimes mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A point on the first sentence, there are 35 citations to the Encyclopedia in this article out of a total of 169, a fraction over 20%. None of these citations are particular contentious and all are written by academics who quote their own sources. There are 41 citations to the Oxford Illustrated, so the the Encyclopedia is not even the most popular source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are more than 169 citations: for instance, citation 2 verifies two statements, citation 12 three statements. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sudden changes in tone and vocabulary and redundant content suggests that significant texts may be closely paraphrased. Has the article been reviewed from this perspective? I have only reviewed about one fifth of the article, but I have found several cases of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can be dealt with on an incident by incident basis. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is an extremly urgent task. For the time being, I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism. I think you know which texts were copied from the cited sources, so you are in the position to solve this problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think the article is eligible for WP:G12 speedy deletion or WP:AFD, you should nominate it there at once Borsoka; as you have kindly pointed out, copyright is a serious issue, so playing around with GA reassessments is like passing the buck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is a serious issue. You may not remember but it was me who first raised it about a week ago during the FAC review. However, I have not reviewed the whole article, so I only assume that it will be deleted due to plagiarism. After reviewing about one third of the article (or rather collection of texts), I need some time for recovery to continue this exceptionally irksome work. Moreover, I would give a chance to the nominator to clear the article, because a version free of plagiarism could be kept. Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Borsoka, the versions of the article you believe are irrevocably tainted will still reside in the page history even if a version free of plagiarism is created, and will need to be WP:REVDELled. As someone who has nominated many pages for CSD, it is easier to nominate now then later. I will not do this myself as I personally believe there is 0% chance of either G12 or revdel deletion, but if you really think it's needed, it is legally proper to do it now and not later; otherwise, you are knowingly cooperating to keep copyrighted material on WP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I am not knowingly cooperating to keep copyrighted material on WP, because I have listed several cases of probable copyright violations during the FAR review. I shared all my knowledge with the community, including yourself. I assume that Norfolkbigfish's other articles, like the House of Lancaster also contain copyvio, because I have more than one time had to remind him to the dangers of plagiarism since the first time we met during a FAC review years ago. Should I review that article as well because of my assumption? Could you quote the relevant policy? If there is an obligation, I will do it but I sincerely hope that Norfolkbigfish will be cooperative and achieve the deletion of versions filled with plagiarism. Sorry, I do not understand the terms "CSD", "G12", and "revdel deletion". Sometimes links are helpful for stupid people like myself. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just for curiosity: if you "felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing" during a previous review[2], why did not you investigate it? When I feel close paraphrasing, I always compare the texts in the article and the cited sources during a review. Borsoka (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did: see Talk:Crusading movement/Archive 2#Recent Edits, a discussion you were very much part of Borsoka. The reason I did not take it further then is that it took place in April 2022, and I had begun to edit WP a couple of months earlier—I was still unsure of many of the finer details. Ignoring the "stupid people"—you are well aware that I think you precisely the opposite—CSD refers to WP:CSD: criteria for speedy deletion, of which one is WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement); if not all versions of the article contain close paraphrasing, we might need WP:REVDEL (revision deletion), where versions in the page history get deleted for copyright infringement.
          • Right now, the close paraphrasing is far less blatant than it was in April 2022, when I provided this link as an entire paragraph which was plagiarised. From what I can see below, the close paraphrasing is now restricted only to sentence fragments—as such, G12 deletion is out of the question. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Borsoka-I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that. Will work through this from the top, line by line, and ping you when complete Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach?

This article is not about the crusades, it is about the crusade movement e.g. the ideology and institutions of crusading. For this reason there is no MILHIST is this article, as suggested by another editor. It is a Latin Church institution.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not suggest that MILHIST should be added. The development of the crusading movement should be presented as it is presented in reliable sources. Right now, readers who consult with this article will not understand why the crusading movement began. The presentation of one single scholar's PoV does not solve this problem (I refer to Latham). Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above named works are narrative histories of the crusades and go on to detail numerous campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is natural that they give background on the political and military situation in the East. This article is a subtly different topic, it is about the institutions and ideology that was developed to support crusading that almost entirely occurred in Western Europe. Bull for one saw no need to mention the Turks in any detail when discussing the Origins of crusading because they weren't relevant. Christian Muslim warfare existed for hundreds of years prior to the crusades and would have continued for years even if the crusades did not exist. By definition the instituition of crusading only came into effect because of reformists within the church. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really say that rhe article's non-encyclopedic sources do not cover the article's topic? Why are they cited? Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited, are cited because they contain valuable information on this article's topic. That does not mean or imply that everything written in them is relevant to this article's topic. Equally, just because information is not included in those works should not be taken to mean or imply that it is not relevant to this topic. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bull's perspective differs from your above summary: "What the Mediterranean theatres of war [between Muslims and Christians] had in common ... was that formerly Christian lands were being wrested from infidel control. Consequently the Holy Land, which had been overrun by the Arabs in the seventh century, was bound to attract the Church's attention sooner or later. ... The perspective of a Mediterranean-wide struggle was visible only to those institutions, in particular the papacy, which had the intelligence networks, grasp of geography, and sense of long historical tradition to take a broad overview of Christendom and its threatened predicament, real or supposed." [Bull (1995), p. 19] Jonathan Riley-Smith - who is the editor of the book to which Bull is a contributor - emphasizes, after mentioning Pope Urban II's call for the First Crusade, that "The crusading movement had begun in the melodramatic fashion which was to be typical of it thereafter. ... Now about 60 years old, [Pope Urban II] had embarked on a year-long journey though southern and central France. The summoning of an expedition to the aid of the Byzantine empire had probably been in his mind for several years and it had been aired at a council held at Piacenza in March which had heard an appeal from the Byzantine (Greek) emperor Alexios for aid against the Turks, who for over two decades had been sweeping through Asia Minor and had almost reached the Bosphorus." [Riley-Smith (1995), pp. 1-3]. We can conclude, there is no book cited in the article that ignores pre-Crusades Muslim-Catholic clashes or the Turks' expansion in the Levant. Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, all this does is rather proves the original point. Rather than an idepth summary of several centuries of military history Bull and Riley-Smith feel only a reference or two is necessary. And only the regarding events during or subsequent to the Gregarian reform. This point remains irrelevent and against consunsus on this article. An aricle that has successfully passed both a GAR and a ACR without a single other editor raising this point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on this article. That a point was not raised during the article's reviews does not indicate that it is not relevant. Bull dedicates about 1 page to both pre-Crusades Muslim-Christian conflicts and the Gregorian Reforms. Again, the article should present the movement's background as it is presented in the cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 page on Muslim-Conflicts demonstrates an appropriate weight for this. You have rathered made my point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my above remark again. In a chapter containing nineteen pages, one page is quite significant, or at least as significant as the one page about the Gregorian Reforms in the same chapter. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather 1 page in a book of 436? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not counted the pages about pre-Crusades conflicts between Muslims and Christians, but there are at least two pages in two chapters. The Gregorian reforms are mentioned also on two pages in the book, according to the Index. If you think pre-Crusades conflicts can be ignored, you should also ignore the Gregorian Reforms. Can we agree that it would be a quite original approach? Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, Riley-Smith in his chapter "The crusading movement" in "War, Peace and World Order" didn't think to mention those pre-Crusades conflict at all. What is novel is you thinking you know more about the subject than he did. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite unusual that you are referring to a source you do not cite in the article. Nevertheless, Riley-Smith neither mentions the Council of Clermont or the Gregorian reform in his chapter. Do you suggest that references to the Council of Clermont or the Gregorian Reform should be deleted from this article? I rather think that he does not refer to the origins of the crusading movement because from the perspective of "War, Peace and World Order in European History" this is irrelevant. No, I am not thinking that I know more about the subject than Riley-Smith does. Above, I quoted a text from his work cited in the article proving that he also emphasises the Turks' invasion of the Byzantine Empire when writing of the beginnings of the crusading movement. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not the case. Riley-Smith emphasises Alexios I Komnenos requests for military support against the Turks, that is not the same. Neither he nor Bull consider the military history of the Levant in the earlier centuries relevant. Whereas the reforms, the reformers and their institutions are mentioned and relevant. It was they who invented the crusading movement, and without them there would have been no movement. Simply put this is covered in sufficient detail. Unless there is something specific that you can identify as missing, but unless I have missed something that is not the case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read more carefully the quote from Riley-Smith's work, it refers also to the decades before the crusades. I have never suggested that you should present the military history of the Levant in this article. However, our readers need a complex background to understand the beginnings of the crusading movement. For instance, Thomas F. Madden, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, goes as far as stating that the Reconquista—the "reconquest" of Iberia from the Muslims—"was the training ground for the theological and moral justification of the crusading movement". (Madden, Thomas F. (2013). The Concise History of the Crusades. Critical Issues in World and International History (Third ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4422-1575-7.)

As you point out Madden makes a good point. I would add this to the Christianity & War section, but I am using the First Edition and it doesn't seem to be there (or a page 4 for that matter). Does he make the smae point anywhere else? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote is from one of the last paragraphs of section "Holy War". I think Madden's PoV nicely fits into a Background section. Right now, the article does not distinguishes developments occurring before the beginnings of the movement, and features of the movement itself. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, thank you, agree and added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article's structure is diffuse, and seemingly lacks any detectable logic: several elements of the flourishing crusading movement are mentioned in section "Background". (For instance, why are the military orders or the development of the crusading ideology in the 13th century mentioned in this section?)

These are cross topic themes, a narrative structure would mean that detailed commentary would be lost.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say that we should follow a narrative structure (even if the article, incoherently, follows it in section "Evolution"). I only said that background to the crusading movement should clearly be differentiated from its features, elements and consequences. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The use of Background seems to cause some confusion, I will amend to Features as you suggest. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, a major restructuring is needed, but without a background one could hardly understand the development of the movement. However, I suggest you should concentrate now on copyright issues. Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Another nonsensical point. Structure is only a perceived issue to you. Consensus, GAR and ACR indicate that it makes sense to a consensus of editors and reviewers. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the principal problems is that the "article" is actually a poorly edited, extremely abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. One can delete subsections from the article without having an effect on any other (sub)section. This is not an encyclopedic article but a collection of individual encyclopedic articles. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is you and only you who is making this point. Almost by definition PoV pushing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop this approach. It leads nowhere. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Godtres, Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67, and Donner60: as Norfolkbigfish is always referring to your reviews, I would be grateful if you could share your thoughts especially about two issues: 1. I think the article ignores several important aspects of the crusading movement (especially its background, but also important elements of the flourishing crusading movement, such as finances, women, arts, etc.) 2. I think the article is diffuse, its structure reminds me an encyclopedia with subsections as equivalents of encyclopedic articles that follow each other without any connection between most of them. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that at least is progress. What exactly do you think is missing regarding finance, women & the arts? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearing the article from plagiarism would be a progress. All other issues are less relevant for the time being. I think the article should summarise the principal points of the movement as it is presented in its sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is wip, thank you for pointing that out. The article pretty much matches Riley-Smith's view of the subject, as his definition of a crusade is now pretty much universally accepted it would be fair to say that the pricipal points are presented. The topic is, as it has always been the crusading movement. Not the crusades, not Muslim/Christian relations in the 7th/8th/9th/10th centuries, not the Orthodox church and not campaigns in the Eastern Mediterrean or anywhere else for that matter. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To which works by Riley-Smith are you referring? Interestingly, in his work cited in the article (What were the Crusades?) he mentions both pre-Crusades conflicts between Muslims and Christians, and the Turks' advance in Anatolia. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am referring to Riley-Smith's essay titled "The Crusading Movement", it is the Further Reading. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read my answer to your similar remark above: [3]. Borsoka (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In most cases, the article does not explain the events, but mentions facts or PoVs without making clear the connection between them, or providing our readers with a coherent (or incoherent) story: "Pope X said this, Pope Y told that, and Pope Z said another thing, etc".

This article is about the ideology and institutions. As such PoVs are key, as are facts. The facts relate to changes to this. The events mentioned here are probably outside the scope of the topic.

• Yes, but ideologies and institutions rarely develop ex nihilio. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article contains original research and original synthesis. Several examples can be found in the "Specific remarks" section. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, this is unintentional and can be remediated as part of the review. Nothing here is WP:OR, everything comes from academic writing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say you had intentionally filled the article with original research. I only referred to the fact that it (or at least its first major section) is filled with sentences that are not verified by the cited source or cobtradict it. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything in the article has come from WP:RS Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, quite often word by word. However, also quite often the sentences do not reflect the cited source, sometimes because you failed to copy an important word from the cited book or encyclopedic article. Many examples are listed below. Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have to call for a delisting of this article. If the issues were only editorial, I'd be willing to give time for those to be addressed (FARs—as a similar example—go on months!); there's no deadline after all. The issue that demands immediate attention is the copyright/close para issue, one which not only negatively impacts other policies such as WP:N (also itself a pillar), but has legal implications. While G12 may not apply (i.e., when there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety, and maybe revert to an earlier version), #2 of WP:QF is clear that if It contains copyright violations it will be discounted. Multiple editors have established these issues. So: if this was a new nomination, it would literally never get off the starting blocks.
  Revert to last version and let more recent stuff be revdel'd? ——Serial Number 54129 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am working through all raised incident at present. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume the older versions contain even more plagiarism. AirshipJungleman29 mentioned at the beginning of the FAC review that "I believe that the last time I looked at this article, I felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing. I do hope that issue has been adequately looked at and resolved—because that of course is a reviewing dealbreaker." ([4]). Norfolkbigfish answered that "I remember, this has been rewritten repeatedly since then so I am expecting/hoping this is no longer an issue." [5]. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Borsoka: I don't care where the bloody thing was put in, only that if there is a relatively clean version—and frankly, since it's from 2003, it's almost impossible that there isn't, even if it's only a stub—going back a few years, the GOCE did a copy edit—then we revert to that and then revdel delete. I mean, there must have been a time when there was minimal plagiarism unless it's been overlooked for 20 years. Or is it being suggested that NBF was responsible for their insertion when he augmented the article? I note, you see, that a previous FAC failed promotion over much the same problems(the source reviewer stated, the article needs a complete source check ... Too many issues I found with things not matching what they were sourced to. Mind ye, that had been resolved to the point of promotion six months later (non obstante, though, that it never got the source-integrity spot-check Ian Rose asked for...) ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think only Norfolkbigfish knows when he began copying texts from the cited sources. I have not monitored the development of this article for years. Norfolkbigfish's remark here suggests that the article was originally a redirect, which was developed into a separate article on or before 4 October 2020. No, I did not see the FAC review of House of Lancaster (sorry, Plantagenet). I referred to this article because I know from one of his remarks (saying that his article is one of the best WP articles about a dynasty, or similar), that he developed it. Based on my experiences, I would not be surprised that it would also contain plagiarism but I would not like to review it. Borsoka (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Borsoka, I see... On 4 Oct 2020 NBF moved a chunk of Crusades, wholesale, to Crusading, which was itself then moved by Srnec to the current title. Concerns re. CP and atribution were apparent even before then, which of course NBF was also a primary contributor too. Thanks again, ——Serial Number 54129 17:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • The earlier comments to which I referred at FAC can be found at this diff, and the links therein, from April 2022, when the close paraphrasing was far more blatant than it is now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am in the process of redrafting again, any remaining close paraphrasing, of which it is only now fragments of sentences, will be excised as part of this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Norfolkbigfish has continually insisted that plagiarism has been resolved, but as demonstrated on the talk page, substantial plagiarism still exists. I am too involved to close this as I normally do for GARs, so I might as well !vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist In addition to plagiarism (GA 2d), the article contains unverified claims (GA 2c.), does not address the main aspects of the topic (GA 3a), and the article's reliance on specific scholar's views remained unverified (GA 4). My detailed arguments are listed above. Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Borsoka's forensic analysis. ——Serial Number 54129 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

Fallout 3

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

Result pending

There's like a lot of issues in the gameplay section. It was written a little bit awfully (for now) and has sourcing issues, and some of it is possibly unsourced. It also needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, there are also citation errors, no authors at the citation, and unreliable sources like ref 22. The retail version sub-section is written like a list instead of prose. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout: New Vegas

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

Result pending

The article currently has lots of unsourced content and issues with prose (the gameplay section is one long paragraph). The page also displays too much content on fan-made mods, as posted about here by an IP in January of this year. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: To address that IP's comments, the mods that are mentioned are the mods were covered by reliable sources. I could see an argument for creating an article titled Fallout: New Vegas modding, splitting most of the current info there, and making a small summary in this article, as was done with Skyrim. No comment yet regarding the other issues mentioned. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is the similar Skyrim modding so if there is enough content to warrant a separate modding page for New Vegas I don't see why we couldn't split. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zmbro I took a stab at shortening the mods section on my sandbox. Frankly I'm not sure what else to include. Yes the mods themselves have received media attention, but considering the article is about Fallout New Vegas itself and not the individual mods I wanted to keep the section short. Also, this article says that the modding scene was instrumental in turning the perception of New Vegas into a beloved classic, so I could merge the mods paragraph with the reappraisal section. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this looks like a very, very clear Delist. The article as a whole is hard to read and there's citation needed tags/unsourced content throughout. λ NegativeMP1 16:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There seems to be a lot of unsourced material, and a decent amount of it is questionable in terms of its objectivity. I also think the quality of the writing in general could use improvement. I personally find it a bit awkward, but that’s a secondary issue. Cleaning up the information is definitely more of a priority.

I don’t meet the requirements to edit protected articles yet, but should I propose specific edits if I want to add/delete content? I see some things that could be cut out or restructured, but I don’t want to upset anyone (I’m very new to Wikipedia editing so I’m not familiar with the social norms here). FlookieBee (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FlookieBee I'm interested in saving this article from losing it's GA status, and copied the entire article onto my sandbox. You should be able to freely edit on there. Just a heads up I am also editing on the sandbox so some of the text will change over the next couple days, but I don't mind you editing there. Also you can't include copyrighted images on a sandbox, which is why the cover art and gameplay screenshot have been removed (surprisingly none of the other images are copyrighted). Famous Hobo (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citroën C3 Picasso

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

Result pending

This whole article is an advertisement. Much of the article focuses excessively on the trim levels and violates WP:NOPRICES. Lead is five paragraphs, and some parts do not summarise the article. Also, some of these references do not seem reliable.  750h+ | Talk  13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the vehicle is encyclopaedic then so are the differences - the trims in this case. I have no opposition to the prices being taken out, and included them only as they seemed valuable at the time for historical information. They certainly weren't added for sales, since the vehicle was discontinued long long ago. The original GAA had no issues with any of this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that content wasn't in the article at the time of the original GAA - here's the diff between then and now. I'm not expressing a view on that content btw, just pointing out it wasn't part of that GAA review. WaggersTALK 11:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prices were clearly in the article at the time it was passed as a GA without any issue, and that's present in the link above. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Jenova, please go ahead and remove the prices. I would also recommend removing the "Full model line-up and engine availability" table since that's literally just an advertisement in itself, ensure the lede summarises the article (some parts of the lede are not in the article itself), replacing references of questionable quality with those of good quality. By the way, when this article was promoted, it fell well short of GA standards. Given the tightening regulations, the articles should maintain a high level of quality. Best,  750h+ | Talk  05:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to edit it as you see fit. I'm semi retired, and not here to obstruct - rather i'm here to see what the result of the assessment is. Giving detailed or technical information isn't the same as an advert, or everything would be considered an advert - and the vehicle hasn't existed for sale since 2017, so that just strikes me as an odd line to take. I gave historical information that was available to state what variants Citroen offered worldwide - a common practice with vehicle articles, and a thorough attempt to stop the article from becoming centric to just the US - which is prevalent throughout all of Wikipedia. The article isn't different from any other vehicle article. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenova20, I'm sorry but this burden isn't on me. Unless you or another editor would like to help bring this back to GA status, this will see a delist. I understand your point about trying to make this article comprehensive, but if a buyer would like to buy one, they would go to a catalogue territory--which no offence, but is what some of this article looks like. Eg this Code Red/Code White was released in January 2012. The limited edition C3 Picasso Code Red and Code White replaced the Blackcherry in the UK. The Code has the same engine as the Blackcherry and has been finely tuned for a marginally increased fuel economy and lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It features obsidian black bumpers and 17-inch (43 cm) Polar White or Cherry Red "clover" alloy wheels, and can be equipped with extra features, which include roof bars, curtain airbags, cruise control and a speed limiter. Body colours exclusive to the trim are Belle Ile Blue, Shark Grey and Cherry Red. sounds like an advertisement to me. Pinging @WP:GAR coordinators: to see their opinion.  750h+ | Talk  12:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I have seen this ping. I will need to get back to you once I've had a chance to look over the article fully (hopefully tomorrow). There is also the caveat that I am not carsandotherthings but I'll try my best. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing immediately stands out to me as advertising as I know it, could you pick out examples of passages you believe are advertising? I'm not familiar with trims as a concept (in the train corner of the encyclopedia I deal with people obsessing over locomotive paint schemes in unencyclopedic manner all the time, not sure if that's an equivalent or not) but far as I can see everything there is cited appropriately, so it's a question of is the content appropriate for inclusion. I could definitely see an argument for trimming (pun not intended) the text in that section particularly for trims where it appears only minor changes were made. Clever reorganization could likely convey the same basic information in fewer sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTPRICE.  750h+ | Talk  03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking the time to engage with your concerns. I asked you for examples, and all you do is link some policy pages. Please meet me halfway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's blatant advertising, but I can see where the impression comes from. The prose could be shaped up, especially with regards to writing the WP:LEAD as a summary. CMD (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blatant, a lot of the content just feels more catalog-ish than encyclopedic, I think.  750h+ | Talk  06:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment but didn't reply because i thought it was ridiculously arrogant and hostile for a public forum. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

London, Ontario

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

Result pending

This 2009 listing includes numerous unsourced paragraphs, some punctation errors, and some single-sentence paragraphs.  750h+ | Talk  08:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad in Islam

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

Result pending

To meet the GA criteria an article needs to 1. Well-written 2. Verifiable with no original research 3. Broad in its coverage 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated. 6: There are a few images, many have no relevance to the topic however. It lacks actual depictions of Muhammad in Islam, except for one. 5: The article seems to be stable, but seems to be in need of a general overhaul. 4: because of the points following now. Similar to the article Ali, the article reads more like a history lesson about Muhammad synthetized from Muslim sources, not to be about Muhammad in Islam. Neutrality cannot be established this way. 3. There is one section to refer to one scripture (Quran), one about the alledged history, then his proclaimed roles, and a section about miracles without any exploration on how they are received, it is simply calimed he did it. This is not much, it only appears so because almost every paragraph is given its own section. 2. Not only is the choice of section without any guidance from a secondary source, many inline citations are referring to primary sources, such as the Ahmadiyya community and not historical sources. Next, there are not even sufficient inline citations at all. Large portions of text stay completely unsourced. 1: Most of the article is actually Original Research. Therefore, I suggest to reassess the GA status and move it to at least C status, since the article has several serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) April 16, 2024 (UTC)

I do see a few sentences missing citations, which is certainly an issue. Could you give some examples of sources you believe are not acceptable for a GA-level article? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VenusFeuerFalle have you seen the above question? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I didn't. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can compare to what a reliable source is here WP:RELY. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and compare them to stuff like "Muhammad Shafi Usmani (1986). Tafsir Maariful Quran. Vol. 8. English Translation by Ahmed Khalil Aziz. "Al-Suyuti, Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra", and various QUran citations. Furthermore, the sources used rather point at WP:SYN. Please do not forget about all the other points and serious issues the article has. Also note, that the improvement sin the Miraj section are recent additions and would need a new review. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements in the article while the GAR is in progress are not only allowed but actively encouraged. The ideal outcome at GAR is that articles are improved to the point delisting is no longer necessary. I do ask that you keep in mind what may be incredibly obvious to you may not be so to me, I have only some basic knowledge of Islam (maybe more than the average American, but nowhere near the point I'd call myself well versed - I can at least tell you why the Sunni-Shia split is a thing). If I understand you correctly, you are saying the article is heavily reliant on the Quran itself for sourcing, which would be an issue due to WP:PRIMARY (especially inappropriate interpretation/synthesis of what's written in the Quran since it's a primary source) and our general expectation that articles rely mostly on secondary sources? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Field Spaniel

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

Result pending

13 years since original review, now contains self-published/unreliable citations which I've removed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion

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

Result pending

An ongoing discussion at WT:GAN (link here) questions whether this article is overreliant on primary/non-independent sources, leading to issues with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BALASP, all part of the GA criteria.

Pinging discussion participants @JoelleJay, Hawkeye7, Asilvering, Trainsandotherthings, Thebiguglyalien, Chipmunkdavis, TompaDompa, and David Fuchs: the GA nominator/reviewer will be notified on their talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't done more than a quick skim, but I have WP:OR concerns about some sections, particularly the parts talking about the meaning of the names of various angels. References should be checked to make sure they actually support conclusions about Evangelion and aren't WP:SYNTHy. Brief bits giving background would be fine (eg, "In the Catholic tradition, Gabriel is the angel who..."), but whole paragraphs appear to lean on sources that aren't about eva at all, which is an issue. -- asilvering (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE. The fact that a significant majority of the sources, especially the ones in the angels' sections, are offline and in Japanese is also a problem when there is no indication the reviewer actually spot-checked any of them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand the points of the previous users. @JoelleJay: Since the series is Japanese it's pretty obvious that some sources are in its "mothertongue". The sources are not unreliable or impossible to check: an user who knows Japanese can read them and find the original material. If a user does not know the language it's not a limit of the source. Non-English sources are allowed. Also, almost all the material mentioned in this article can be easily find in many scans and downloads online: e.g., the whole Evangelion Chronicle. I can link all of them, if you want. @Asilvering: What sources you are talking about? I know that there are many notes and it's impossible to list them all, but can you list some of them? Regarding the names of the Angels: yes, the sources are about Evangelion and its Angels. Like Evangelion Chronicle, the Red Cross Book, or the Evangelion Encyclopedia, for example. These are not sources that are discussing the religious angels alone. There's no OR in this: everything is sourced and the sources themselves discuss in detail about the symbolisms and connection behind the names.
I can give you evidence of this. There's no synthesis. The sources are clear and explicit, as per WP:SYNTH. These are just two examples I also mentioned on it.wiki: "なお、シャムシエルはユダヤ、キリスト教の神話や伝承における天使の名で、「神の力強き息子」と称される第4天の支配者。 エデンの園を守護する天使の王子でもあり、モーゼを連れて天国を案内したとされる。 「光輝の書」によれば365の軍団を率いるとされており、また、「エノク書」においては「昼」を司る天使とされ、堕天使のひとりにも数えられている ". "Incidentally, Shamsiel is the name of an angel from Judeo-Christian mythology, he's the head of the Fourth Sky and it's known as 'the powerful son of God'. He's also the prince of the angels who guard the Eden Garden, and a legend says that he guided Moses in the Sky. According to the Zohar, he guides 365 legions, and in the Book of Enoch he's the angel in charge of controlling the 'day' and it's listed among the fallen angels" (Evangelion Chronicle, vol. 10). Obviously I didn't mention all of this religious role: it would be too-long, too-detailed, and I briefly mentioned just the important part alone, like with other Angels. "かの天使の時間帯といえる日中に侵攻し、初号機を圧倒したものの、日没間近の夕暮れ刻に斌減されたのは皮肉といえるだろう". "Interestingly, Shamshel invasion happens during the day, which is the period of time of the angel [Note: of the original angel, obviously], fighting against Eva-01, but ends during sunset, at the dusk." (EC, vol. 7). Oguro on Style.fm - he personally knows Gainax members and was in charge of editing the Red Cross Book - says, after explicitly mentioning angel symbolism : "例えば、海中から登場したサキエルは「水」の天使と同じ名であるし、昼間に現れたシャムシェルは「昼」の天使と同じ名だ". "Sachiel, for example, appears from the sea and he has the name of the angel of water, while Samsiel, who appears during the day, has the name of the angel of the day". So, the first issue (WP:OR) can easily be dismissed.
Regarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, as IIRC other users agreed during the JoelleJay doubts mouths ago, we are talking about a character article, so it's pretty obvious and allowed to describe the characters also using sources like Evangelion Chronicle. Many other sources like Napier talk about the Angels, their battles and so on in detail, but we should mention the most reliable source: and Evangelion Chronicle or the official Death and Rebirth pamphlet it's more reliable than an academic. But many, and I mean many parts of the article are about their creation, the storyboards, the original scenario, academic analysis, reception, and so on. So I can not understand the point of this reassesment page. It's obviously wrong.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenAngels1234, my read of JoelleJay's comment is not that it's a problem per se that there are offline, Japanese-language sources, but that there is no evidence in the initial GA review that the reviewer checked any of those sources. It would be really helpful (both to allay concerns, and for the sake of readers) if you could link those sources that can be found online. -- asilvering (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure, I can give you everything! Just wait a few hours; the material is huge and I have to list all the links. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that these sources discuss the symbolism. However, at the very least anything produced by Gainax (like the Red Cross Book), Kadokawa, or their affiliates is neither secondary nor independent and so should not be a source for such wide swathes of the article. We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion.

Looking at citations for the first few angels:
Adam: Source 43, 55, 59: Kadokawa N. 44, 51: Cannarsi N. 45: Porori ?. 46-48, 52: EC N? 49: NGE N. 50, 58: Horn N. 53: Poggio N. 36, 3: Gainax N. 54, 56: Fujie & Foster ?. 57: Marc MacWilliams' blog ?.
Lilith: 60, 64: Poggio N. 61-63, 73, 75: Kadokawa N. 65: Porori ?. 66, 68: Ogoru? N? 49: NGE N. 67: EC N? 36: Gainax N. 69: Yoshiyuki Sadamoto interview N. 70: Sanenari ?. 71: Dynit N. 72: Khara N. 74: Cinefacts Y.
Sachiel: 76, 77, 80, 82, 38, 84, 89, 95, 99, 102: EC N? 78, 79, 83, 86, 87, 91, 92, 32: Kadokawa N. 81: Porori ?. 85, 90, 93: Cannarsi N. 88: Platinum Booklet N. 94: Davidson (1967) N. 96, 97: Fujie ?. 98: Poggio N. 100: ? 101: Oguro? N. 103: Khara N.
Shamshel: 104, 106: Porori ?. 105, 109, 111, 114, 119, 124, 126: Kadokawa N. 107, 110, 115, 116, 120, 121: EC N? 108, 117: Poggio N. 3: Gainax N. 112, 118: Cannarsi N. 113: PB N. 122: Davidson (1967) N. 123: Oguro? N. 125: Khara N. 127, 128: Dynit N.

That is just way too much material cited to people/commercial products with a vested financial interest in promoting NGE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that they're used in basically plot and production sections as for AM guidelines, right? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point out that the notability guidelines do not affect article content (WP:NNC). We need to present content in a neutral way, and we need to ensure that we are not giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint or doing original research, but that does not preclude using non-neutral sources or making reference to minor details. In other words, whether or not particular minor details are important enough for inclusion is an editorial decision, not one we have firm policy about including or excluding. For a GA, we need to show that the article is sufficiently broad and that it does not go into excessive detail, but this is a quality of the writing and not related to whether sources are independent or not. We also need to ensure that the sources are reliable and the content is verifiable. If we have evidence that any of these sources are not reliable, we should not be using them, but not being fully independent doesn't mean they aren't reliable. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is WP:PROPORTION: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Primary and/or non-independent sources can be used for WP:Verification, but they do not establish WP:Weight of viewpoints or aspects—just as they do not establish WP:Notability of topics. TompaDompa (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROPORTION says, as you quoted, "reliable, published material". It does not demand that this material is fully independent. We certainly don't want to base an entire article on primary sources, because that would be WP:OR. And of course we don't want to use biased sources without correcting for WP:NPOV. If there are WP:OR or WP:NPOV concerns, we should clear those up. Likewise, if it goes into excessive detail or fan pov that is not relevant for a general encyclopedia, we should trim those sections (and move any well-researched content to a fan wiki).

But it is not a problem as such that these sources aren't fully, unimpeachably independent, unless it is causing one of those problems. JoelleJay is absolutely right to raise the concern: there are many non-independent sources, therefore it is much more likely that there are OR/NPOV/UNDUE concerns than if the article was entirely based on secondary, academic/critic sources. But the fact that many sources are not fully independent is not in itself the problem. Saying that we must follow the weight of independent, secondary sources would result in worse and less informative articles in many cases. If you think, for example, of an article on a novel: if we followed only independent sources, it is highly unlikely that we would be able to write a full, even plot summary without error. It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot. In particular, they often don't give the ending! A plot summary is one of the most useful things we can have in an article on a novel, and it would be silly to not have one, or to have one that is biased towards coverage trends in secondary sources. At the same time, I'm sure anyone who has spent any time looking at novel articles on wikipedia has seen one with a plot that is way, way too long, and gets far too into the details, or one that offers the editor's own opinion on the plot. That is the problem. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that for plot summaries it's fine to use primary and/or non-independent sources. However when it comes to any analysis of the plot, such as symbolism, we ought to be weighing the relative importance of particular information based on its coverage in secondary independent sources. This is reflected in NOT: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know that it is actually true that It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot. I have written several articles on works of fiction where I have been able to source the entire plot synopsis to independent secondary sources. But even if we grant that, it is still not a particularly good example as plot summaries are basically a carve-out from the general rule that independent secondary sources are preferred. At any rate, we do indeed need to follow the weight of independent secondary (and perhaps tertiary) sources when writing articles; if primary and/or non-independent sources give much more weight to aspect A than aspect B whereas independent secondary sources give much more weight to aspect B than aspect A, we go by the latter in assessing WP:Due weight. These need not necessarily be the sources that are cited—hypothetically, one could cite non-ideal but reliable sources in the article in a way that perfectly reflects the overall literature—but when challenged, one must nevertheless be able to demonstrate that the article's contents accurately and representatively reflect the overall literature on the topic. Which I suppose is kind of the same thing as saying that it's not a problem unless it causes a problem, but in this case the adherence to WP:PROPORTION (among others) has been challenged and it really is up to the ones advocating for keeping this listed as a WP:Good article to show that it reflects the appropriate literature where the article does not cite it. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I don't think it has been properly challenged here. The possibility of a problem has been raised, but not the problem itself. The editor who brought the article to GA believes this is the appropriate weight and using the appropriate literature, and has said as much. There's nowhere for this discussion to go from here unless someone in favour of de-listing it can give that editor something to refine or dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE. and We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion. constitutes a proper challenge to WP:BALASP, but I suppose we could agree to disagree there. The same point was raised months ago on the talk page: Material that has only been discussed by people close to the topic does not reflect the material's real-world importance to the topic as reported in independent publications. It presents an issue with NPOV as it leads to us emphasizing certain aspects of the topic solely because media exists by the creators of those aspects (who are of course going to promote them and provide lots of details) rather than because those aspects have been highlighted as significant by independent publications. The solution, if one believes that this does in fact reflect the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, is straightforward: point to that literature and demonstrate how this is true. If it is indeed the case that this reflects the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, a lot of time and effort could have been saved by simply citing that literature in the first place. As we do not solely use sources for WP:Verification but also for establishing WP:Weight, I would suggest that our best practices include citing sources that demonstrate weight even if they are not necessary for verification (typically because verification is covered by other sources). That's what I do in cases like this—or rather, I do it the other way around: I supplement the sources that establish weight with the ones that provide additional verification. TompaDompa (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem here is that the point seems to be missed. Secondary indipendent-sources are there. And dipendent sources are used in plot sections, like the description of the Angels and their role, and in production: explaining the meaning behing the name of the Angels and their inspiration is production, and it requires interviews from the staff and so on. I don't need Dani Cavallaro to say that Sachiel is named after the angel of the water but the original source - assuming the reliable original source is here, and fortunately that's the case. In Analyisis section, on the other hand, you can easily find how almost all the sources are indipendent: Azuma is indipendent, and so are Ortega, Napier, Cavallaro and so on. The literature is here. I can easily add a source for almost every statement about Angels role and their inspiration, but doing so is not required for GA articles, AM guidelies and common sense. We are still talking about plot and production, guys. It's the accuse that needs to explain where's the problem and show besides any reasonable doubt that this article is not worthy of the GA status - and in this case, we have to start reassessments for almost fictional character, from anime to videogames, from Tolkien to NGE itself. But that's not the case and is clearly a delusion. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to cite interviews directly; it is, in principle, perfectly possible to cite some other source that says "in an interview, person X said Y". More generally, information from primary and/or non-independent sources (even if those might be the most authoritative ones on the facts) can be filtered through non-primary independent sources that exercise editorial judgment about the relative WP:Weight of different WP:Aspects—and in fact, this very article is an example thereof, being non-primary and independent (assuming of course that there is no conflict of interest) even if it is not a WP:Reliable source as WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? It's obviously better to cite the original interview where a person said a thing than a secondary source saying it was said. It is not more helpful to our readers to cite a more distant source, not to mention that doing so runs the risk of ending up in a game of broken-telephone, which is already a significant problem both in academia and on wikipedia.

TeenAngels1234, it might help for you to add citations to the independent sources alongside the closer, non-independent sources you already have. It seems to me that that will satisfy the weighting concerns, and/or point out areas that are less often discussed and could stand to be removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is more helpful to our readers to cite more distant sources in lieu of citing the material directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, is orthogonal to the question at hand here: is including this material WP:DUE in the first place? That's what we need the non-primary and independent sources to ascertain. As I said above, we can cite both kinds of sources at the same time to satisfy WP:Verification concerns (by using the most authoritative sources on the facts of the matter) as well as WP:Weight concerns (by using the sources that best demonstrate the relative weight afforded to various aspects by the overall literature on the topic). In general, citing interviews directly is neither necessary (it is possible, even if perhaps not ideal, to cite more distant sources—and in some cases we have no other choice if the interviews are not available to us) nor sufficient (because the interviews do not in themselves establish weight). TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then! I'll mention them if it can help to resolve the doubs of the other side. I'm always willing to improve the NGE articles but, please, just wait few days. I will try to do so as soon as possible, but unfortunately I'm extremely busy in these days. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are some secondary independent sources. The problem is that they are not being used for large swathes of the article, and consequently those sections suffer a degree of indiscriminateness in their detail that needs to be reined in. Too much of the symbolism and interpretative background of the angels is cited to primary media directly from people involved in its production, and this falls afoul of policy: Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably reacquaint yourself with WP:PSTS; authorized/official books and the like are primary sources, and a) don't count for notability, and b) aren't what the majority of any article text should be based on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly aware of that guide, thanks. The article is not based on primary sources, altgough like in every GA of fictional characters I used them as for guidelines. PS are of course necessary, allowed and used with common sense. In no way we have to mention Mechademia while discussing Anno inspirations, but I mentioned Anno interviews on their creations instead. And, again, the fact is thar this article is not based on PS: Mechademia is mentioned various times, together with Cavallaro, Napier, CBR, Anime News Network, Cannarsi - no one of these people are involved in NGE production - and so on. Since more than a third of this article - a reasonable portion, like almost every GA about fictional character- is about their production, development, inspiration, it's perfectly fine and allowed. This is perfecrly in line with Anime and Manga guidelines.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannarsi was directly involved in producing the Italian version of NGE, he is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being involved in the Italian dub doesn't mean being involved in the NGE production, but OK, that's not the point and Cannarsi is not the focus of this. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it appears that these authorized/official books are not all primary sources, but are secondary sources (just not independent ones). They don't count for notability, but they are the most authoritative source. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider "indipendent" every source which is not directly made by NGE staff and people involved in its production or promotion, like A&M guidelines and If I can add common sense say, Oguro commentary is indipendent too. He edited the RCB, which can be listed as a dipendent source, but his commentary is something he wrote as a fan. Same for Poggio, Cannarsi and most importantly Evangelion Chronicle: they are edited and published by DeAgostini Japan and Sony Magazines, but not Gainax - they just allowed its publication. Porori is not a Gainax member and is not involved in NGE, so even the The Essential issues are indipendent. My suggestion is that the user who proposed this nomination is not so much into the sources and did not check them before starting this reassessment. This was also discussed with other users before, so it seems they didn't even read the TP. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those (or at least most of those) are still "not independent" for the purposes of notability. But you don't need to worry about notability and I'm not sure why Fuchs brought it up. The topic is very evidently notable. -- asilvering (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm genuinely confused too. Thanks. BTW, regarding the secondary sources and materials used: I think almost everything can be found here. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaunas Fortress

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

Result pending

The article needs major work to meet the broadness criteria:

• WWI section is empty.
• Article states, "About 50,000 people were executed there, including more than 60,000 Jewish victims of the Holocaust." those things can't both be true
• No information about the use of other forts besides the ninth during WWII—the sixth fort was a notorious site of abuses against Soviet prisoners of war and apparently held Polish prisoners at a different point.

(t · c) buidhe 04:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Caporusso

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

Result pending

This article was reviewed as a GA in 2009 (by me). While it did pass GA standards in 2009, at the time he was still a college hockey player, and in the meantime he has had essentially his entire professional career. As a result the article has atrophied, with 2013 to present in particular lacking in depth. Wizardman 21:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has not really attrophied. Nothing encyclopedic has been written about him as the feature since 2013. Pull him up on Newspaper.com and click on the 2020-24 articles and you will see what I mean. Proquest had 143 articles on him in 2013. No year since has had 10% of that number and the stories usually just mention something like he scored a goal.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you using newspapers.com and ProQuest, two sites focusing primarily on the United States, to search for coverage of a player who has spent most of the past decade in Europe TonyTheTiger? Also pinging Wizardman, who may not have seen the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am only fluent in English. I don't speak the languages of any of the foreign countries he has played in.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That means that the article may not be broad enough. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one I did see, but I guess we're at am impasse because I can't say I agree. Wizardman 22:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you familiar with missing content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do any of the other language versions of his article give us reason to believe via cited content that content is missing on EN WP?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • You clearly did not bother to have a look yourself; a quick glance shows [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is correct. I do not visit foreign language WPs to read articles in languages that I do not speak. Never have for any subject on WP. I consider myself to be a fairly hard working editor. However, I don't research in foreign languages. That is a bar no other reviewer has ever asked me to clear. If you isolate pages like these, I can try to make sense of them with google translate, but as you are surely aware a lot gets lost in translation. I would welcome any German-English fluent editorial assistance. As you may have noticed at Thom Darden, I am not averse to reopening the research on a subject. I just don't research in foreign languages. The only foreign language that I might have a chance with is Spanish, but I don't even trust myself to be able to adaquately summarize a Spanish article in English. If you want me to try to expand from Google translate, I can do that. I will need a few days. Give me 4 or 5 days.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have used Google Translate to help with several GAs and FAs. These days, the machine translation is astute enough that if you're reasonably astute, you can realise the minor inaccuracies yourself. In the case of this article, I am slightly staggered that you think looking up sources about a player who has spent the majority of his professional career playing for non-American teams "a bar to clear"—that is basic stuff. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not really "basic stuff". Been through dozens of GA biography reviews of athletes who have played overseas and never been asked to track down foreign language sources beyond contract signings and releases. Non of my four bio FAs have had relevant international experience. This will be an adventure.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                

Northallerton

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

Result pending

This 2008 GA promotion has become out of date in many sections. The demographics section is still dependent on the 2001 census, and other out-of-date content is present as well, such as It was due to close in spring 2008, as the building which opened in 1877 is not up to modern standards. However, the move has been delayed due to lack of space at the Friarage sourced to an article from 2008, or housing prices also from 2008. In addition, uncited text has crept in over the years, including material such as Hambleton Seals Water Polo are a newly formed team which aims to attract local children to a quite small, yet fun sport. that is not in an encyclopedic tone. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This GAR had originally been closed as delist by Real4jyy, who seems to have not checked the article history, where there is evidence of significant improvement. As Real4jyy is only online once a week, it appears, I have reopened this GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Esemgee, Ed1964, Keith D, and Finlay McWalter: are any of you able to cite the few remaining citation needed tags? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should be able to do the courthouse stuff. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the remaining citation issues, would it be possible to update the demographics information to use the 2021 census instead of the 2001 census? The statistical information at the beginning of the economy section is also quite dated. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esemgee, Ed1964, Keith D, Finlay McWalter, and Hog Farm: Regarding the census; is it necessary for the whole comparison statistics table to remain? This is not cited and is far too detailed IMHO. I am in favour of removing it, if you are...? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that we source the data better (that is, see if we can get a verifiable stable link instead of the what we have for ref [58]). I don't think the table is excessive, but I wouldn't be opposed to it being in a collapsed box - it is dull, but encyclopedias often contain dull things. I'm trying to see if we can massage the ONS query system (perhaps with one of their "custom data set" options) to source the data we have. And hopefully address Hog Farm's concerns about using such old data. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see it kept and sourced, as the information about long-term population trends is useful for the reader. Hog Farm _Talk 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per above I would try to keep the information but update to the 2011 census for now, until ONS publish the full set of 2021 stats, unless we can easily get to the information on 2021 without using the citypopulation site. If this is a stumbling block to retaining GA status then reduce to minimum and fill in later when info is available. Keith D (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with 2011 for now - that's certainly an improvement over using the old 2001 stats. Hog Farm _Talk 18:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found most of the missing cites - there are still a couple to complete. I will look at the census data. The joy of all things (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Omameh

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

Result pending

TonyTheTiger is citing the status of this article as a GA to justify submitting subpar GANs like Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1 and Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA1. However, it's clearly not at GA status today. It was perhaps a defensible promotion back in 2013, before Omameh's football had progressed. But it's far short of the GAC in 2024. His professional career is inadequately summarised in choppy prose – tiny sections detail little more than the dates he signed for and left his various teams. – Teratix ₵ 02:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Proquest has 1500 articles with his name, I am not seeing anything really encyclopedic missing. Here are samples of the types of articles on Omameh:

  https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2018/09/04/new-york-giants-patrick-omameh-struggled-pass-protection-preseason/

  https://saintswire.usatoday.com/2020/12/29/saints-depth-chart-patrick-omameh-chiefs-practice-squad/

  https://www.raiders.com/news/las-vegas-raiders-sign-patrick-omameh-nfl-2021-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Most articles that seem interesting are rehashing his WP Bio:

  https://giantswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/15/new-york-giants-sign-patrick-omameh-5-things-now/-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Coverage of him drops off after 2019.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the moment, the article violates MOS:OVERSECTION; that is easily fixed, but a quick couple of searches on newspapers.com and Google shows that there has been large amounts of coverage on Omameh's professional career, especially in its early years, which the article eschews in favour of endless statistics and all-star team inclusions. Thus, the article does not meet GA criterion 3a) as it stands. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teratix do you feel that the issues are resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the basic problems with paragraph structure and comprehensiveness remain unfixed. The article really speaks for itself on this account. – Teratix ₵ 05:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the issue was deficient content. I'll revisit this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Structure has been fixed. As noted above, there is not any significant content missing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was mash the tiny one-line sections into one big chunk. That doesn't actually fix anything. I mean, come on, you look at a section like:

Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.

You honestly think "structure has been fixed"? You honestly think "there is not any significant content missing"? You honestly think that's a well-written summary of Omameh's career that adequately addresses its main aspects? – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Teratix, what I am hearing is the encyclopedic content that you (me) have summarized is very heavy on roster transactions and little else, but there surely must be other interesting stuff. Otherwise, this can't be a GA. Please be advised that my role is to summarize encyclopedic content from secondary sources. There are some people who are not in the public eye for their entire lives and thus only portions of their life will be fleshed out in a WP biography. Others may be in the public eye with limited exposure for parts of their lives. It is my current understanding that Omameh is no longer the feature of original secondary source research beyond transaction detail and rehashing his WP bio. I am not aware of new stories regarding his biographical summary. I am well aware that this biography trails off in terms of biographical intrigue. Unless, you can explain to me that I am overlooking biological topics of intrigue, the fact that what I am presenting is boring transaction stuff, is not really a big strike against comprehensiveness. WP is a tertiary source and is only responsible for summarizing encyclopedic content of reliable secondary sources. A comprehensive summary of boring sources is still comprehensive. Telling me what I present is boring content of limited depth is not a mark against comprehensiveness unless there exist secondary sources that contain encyclopedic content that I am not summarizing. I do not believe oversight to be the case.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are five substantive sources on Omameh that are completely unused in the article.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} They were all on the first page of a basic Newsbank search.

Note these are intended as representative examples to demonstrate how much this article is missing, not to be exhaustive. You could include all five and that wouldn't fix the problem. So yes, you are overlooking significant secondary sources.

But I shouldn't even have to pick these out. It should be blindingly obvious, when two full years of Omameh's career is mechanically summarised as:

Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.

...that the article is evidently missing coverage. – Teratix ₵ 06:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that at 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC), I pinged Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Patrick_Omameh/1-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a ton that could be added about those portions of his career, although Tony, you probably could add things in between like, e.g. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He appeared in six games for the team before being waived on December 14, 2020. (See PFR). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph is also very poorly written (even relative to the rest of the article) and fails GA criterion 1a). I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. – while the years may not be necessary, the second part you mentioned is definitely necessary as it explains important details / transactions of his career (something all modern football player articles have), although it could be combined into less sentences. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tail end of the careers of pedestrian players is often a lot of choppy content like you see here. It is rare that anyone is ever asked to pay such close attention to the content of this portion of the biography for as mediocre of a player. It seems quite unnatural to me. There are many much more worthwhile expenditures of my editorial time. I am not above delving into the biographies of mediocre players. However, I consider it far more worthwhile to flesh out a redlink into a decent biographical picture than it is to spend time detailing precisely how mediocre a player is who already has a biography that gives a decent picture of that mediocrity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's perfectly alright to say "I don't care enough about these players to justify spending my time on fixing their articles. I'm going to spend my time on other things instead."

But taking this stance means accepting the possibility that these players' articles will degrade over time as their careers progress, that other editors will notice this and put the articles up for reassessment, and thus that if not enough is done, they will lose their GA status.

Ultimately, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There's no GAC exception saying "articles must be well-written and adequately address the main aspects, except if they're on mediocre NFL players". – Teratix ₵ 07:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing