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

← (Page 63)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 61) →

Jane Zhang

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

Result: delisted AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is no longer updated for "Biography" section, but I added some info about personal life. I think this article should be delisted from Good article. So, I would like to open reassessment for this article.--Shwangtianyuan Talk Here 06:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delist: this was made a GA in 2007. Although Jane has released two studio albums, one live album, and one E.P. since 2010, the article doesn't discuss any of them. She is also apparently still a major act since she won an MTV award for it as recently as 2015. This article would need a major update and reorganization in order to qualify under the current GA criteria, and absent someone able and willing to do so, I can't see this staying as a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a famous singer in China, even in the world, Jane also will released her first English album. She also participated in television programs, ex Hidden Singer in 2016, and I Am a Singer (season 3) in 2015. Why did not add these info? By these reasons, I think it should be delisted.--Shwangtianyuan Talk Here 06:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • From what I can see, the issues listed above remain extant. I also think there are issues with information appearing in the lead and no where else (Dolphin Princess/whistle register), which is uncited. As such, if there are no objections, I intend to close this with the result of "delist" five days from now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Shearonink:

• the image being used as the main image in this article looks like a typical press-service photo or PR photo and yet the editor who uploaded it to Commons (and who has only ever done this one edit on Commons) said it was their own work...I somehow doubt it.
• The refs are really not in good shape. When I ran the External links tool I found 12 Not Founds, 4 dead links, a download error, an exceeded redirect limit, changes in sub-domains, etc.
• There is a possible copyvio with a YouTube description.

If I were reviewing this article for GA status now, it would be a Quick-Fail on the referencing issues alone. Shearonink (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have closed this review as "delisted" as the issues raised above have not been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pontius Pilate's wife

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

Result: delisted AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is not very thorough in its coverage of the topic, and reading it raises more questions than it answers. The following problems were present when I first edited the article:

1. A work apparently composed in the seventeenth century is cited in a section called "early Christian literature".
2. A sentence from the New Testament about an entirely unrelated figure who probably didn't have the same name is quoted with no commentary indicating why it is quoted.
3. An obvious modern forgery is given its own section of the article but it is not clarified that it is a forgery.
4. The highly dubious claims in the infobox that she was born and died in Israel are not sourced, and the former was templated over two years ago.
5. The "Christian literature and legends [that] have amplified the brief anecdote about Pilate's wife in the New Testament" are barely discussed in the body ("legends" are not mentioned at all), and they definitely should be.
6. The anti-semitic elements of her veneration by later Christians, along with that of her husband, are not mentioned.
7. There is an unsourced claim that the name "Procula" originates in translations of the Gospel of Nicodemus, but Nicodemus dates to the fourth century, and "the Letter of Pilate to Herod" apparently called her "Procla" and at least one scholar dates that letter to the third or fourth century (see this book by the leading NT scholar in the United States). Also: what translations?

These problems about things I do know about. All of these problems were already present in the 2008 version, so I don't think this should have ever been listed as a GA. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Note: this page is being created from the previous individual reassessment that was opened through a misunderstanding; a community reassessment was what was desired. I've done this for Hijiri 88.) —BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Further note: I have copied the section below, which was added to the abovementioned closed individual reassessment back in September, and to which Hijiri88 replied earlier today. This discussion should continue here, on the active reassessment.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Llywrch

Although no one has commented on this proposed reassessment, I concur that the article doesn't meet the intended standards for GA, & either needs work to keep this status or be downgraded.

Having read this article, I am left with a confused impression of this minor character. (I've read the Gospels several times each, & managed to overlook her existence until I discovered this article, so I feel comfortable calling her a "minor character".) Is there any evidence for pre-modern traditions about her? The talk page allude to the fact she might be mentioned in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, which would indicate some pre-Medieval tradition about her. I'd also like a list of primary texts that name her "Procula", "Claudia", a combination of the two; otherwise, I'm left suspecting that she never was given a name, & any assertion that she had one is a hoax. (Yes, there are people who add hoaxes to Wikipedia articles that don't get much attention just to see how long the misinformation will stay.) Looking at the article on her husband, I found a lot of evidence that confirms there were many traditions about him; yet no indication whether any of those traditions mention her. Her only visibility appears to be in modern works -- which makes her something of a modern antihero.

Lastly, while I don't agree with some of Hijiri's criticisms, addressing most of them would be a good first step. But I haven't seen any effort to make any changes in response, so I wonder if the proper thing to do would be to remove it's GA classification, requiring any advocate for the article to make desired improvements to it. -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Llywrch: Re "Is there any evidence for pre-modern traditions about her?" Yes. As you indicate you have read the talk page, several NT apocrypha feature her much more prominently than Matthew. This material absolutely needs to be added to the article. But, not being a content expert, I don't feel comfortable doing so myself. FS does not appear to be either. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Shearonink

Downgrade. To a C-Level.
This article might be more appropriately called "Cultural depictions of Pontius Pilate's wife" - if you look at the amount of content in the article about the cultural depictions there is more about Mrs. Pilate's appearances in all kinds of literature, both modern and not, in theatre, film and TV than there is about the woman herself. After all, there is only one sentence about her in the New Testament. If you want to look at a well-written article about a somewhat-minor person in the Bible then Dorcas, one of the disciples, is in much better shape, in my opinion at least a C-level (and Dorcas did have more than one sentence written about her). I became interested in how this article became a GA so I went poking around its editing history and the talk page's history. The procedure in the past, as I understand it, is that naming an article a GA was left up to individual editors. There is no record of community discussion about how the article qualified or if the article qualified, because no such discussion took place. In June 2008, an individual editor designated the article as GA, it received the GA icon in 2010 and that was that.
So, the question now is - does the article deserve to be a GA? In my opinion and in its present state?...No. Do I want to do the work to get it up to a GA quality-level. No, I do not. And from the looks of it, neither does anyone else. What level do I think it should receive? *Maybe* a C, maybe even start-class.
And this Reassessment is the first community review that the article has ever really received. This reassessment has been going on since June. I think the community consensus is pretty clear. Delist the article from GA, maybe even downgrade the article to a C and if anyone wants to work on it, let them improve it up to a B (and so on.) It serves no good purpose to let an article like this languish and keep its Good Article status during that languishment.
If nothing else changes within 7 days, I am going to request that an uninvolved editor or admin close this discussion and delist this article. Shearonink (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: from what I can tell, the issues raised above have not been dealt with. As such, if there are no objections, I intend to close this review with the outcome of "delist". I will wait until this time tomorrow to do so, though, for any last minute objections. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closed as delisted. Once the issues identified above have been dealt with, the article can be renominated at [[WP:GAN]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem

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

Result: Kept. Concensus is to keep as GA. No issues have been identified for delisting the article. The1337gamer (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to request a community reassessment because I have made a huge mistake during the reviewing of the article (along with others): not fact-checking. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm 100% confident that @ProtoDrake performed due diligence on fact checking and meeting WP:V. I recommend this GAR be closed. A review of the GAR opener's talk page and contributions will show a history of issues with GAN/GAR/FAC. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• ...sigh. Every time I see Gamingforfun365 and a review process in the same phrase, I know it's going to be a hassle. Alright, here we go: reviewing.

• Alright, 20 minutes later: I see no substantive problems with this article. There's always small grammar things that maybe I'd bring up in a review (Protodrake and I, uh, disagree a little bit on the usage of colons) and I'd like to see more (possibly mythical) reviews at the FA-level (and maybe a touch more in gameplay), but the prose is fine, the sources are fine, the spotchecks came back clean, and overall this comes across as the reviewer throwing a snit because people told him his article wasn't ready for FAC and his GAN reviews weren't stringent enough, and deciding to put them all up for GAR instead of just finishing the reviews. Keep. --PresN 21:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree that the prose would be better with fewer colons, in this case (though it doesn't help that Fire Emblem titles are also heavy on colons as a series). Also agree with what others have said above. Happy to review further if needed, just ping me. czar 01:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ran the Reviewers tools:

Checked refs/external links: Fine

Checked copyvios: Fine

Checked disambig links: Fine. Shearonink (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Looking at the Good article criteria:

1. Well written (Yes)

A: Prose clear & concise/Yes B: Complies with MOS for lead, layout, etc. /Yes

2. Verifiable with no original research (Yes)

A: List of references/Yes B: Inline citations are from reliable sources/Yes C: No original research/Yes D: No plagiarism/Yes

3. Broad in its coverage (Yes)

A: Addresses main aspects of subject/Yes B: Stays focused on topic without devolving into trivia/Yes

4. Neutral/Yes

5. Stable/Yes

6. Images (Yes)

A: Tagged with copyright status/Yes B: Images relevant to topic and have suitable captions/Yes

7. Overall: Keep

I see no problems with this article that are terrible enough for it to lose its present GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deus Ex Go

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

Result: kept AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to request a community reassessment because I have made a huge mistake during the reviewing of the article (along with others): not fact-checking. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Fact-checking is not part of the GA criteria. What parts of the criteria does the article not meet? czar 19:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Although fact-checking may not be part of the GA review process, verifiability is: you should certainly be checking the referenced sources to see whether they back up the article and whether the article properly reflects the source material. Gamingforfun365, If you didn't do that originally, then why aren't you doing it now before filing these reassessments? If you do find some problems, then I can see opening a community reassessment—you're not eligible to open an individual one having been the original GA reviewer—but if you can't cite any actual factual issues, then you should do your homework before coming here to GAR. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm 100% confident that czar performed due diligence on fact checking and meeting WP:V. I recommend this GAR be closed. A review of the GAR opener's talk page and contributions will show a history of issues with GAN/GAR/FAC. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ferret, when the GA reviewer (that was Gamingforfun365's role here) says that they did a substandard review and omitted some of the standard requisite checks during the review, it behooves the community to step in if they are unwilling or unable to check. The fact that this GAR has been submitted instead of the checks being done by this reviewer is clear evidence of issues, and I think they should refrain from future participation in the GAN/GAR/FAC space. However, even the best editor can make mistakes; it would be inappropriate to close this before those checks are made here and in the other two GARs that have been submitted. It's not as if the GA status is withheld in the interim. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd rather not speculate about GF365's motivations. @Gamingforfun365, would you be willing to do a spot-check of sources? I think if you were to check that several of the article's facts match their cited sources, both you and this reassessment would be satisfied. czar 21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I did some checking:

• Ran the check links tool - all the references are valid, nothing resolves to a dead link or something similar.
• I checked every. single. reference. for at least one fact and I could find no issues at all.

Other than the alleged sloppy fact-checking, is there anything else that is possibly an issue with this article? It was asserted that the sourced facts weren't checked, well now they have been.
In my opinion I think this reassessment should be closed as a non-starter. Shearonink (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shearonink, if you didn't find any issues in this area, then I agree with your assessment. Thanks for the great work. The problem was that the original GA review didn't check any of the sources against the article, so we couldn't know whether there were any issues or not. Now that you have, it's clear that there aren't any issues. (I didn't see any other issues on a quick read-through.) All we need now is someone uninvolved to close this. Pinging AustralianRupert, who sometimes does closes in the community reassessment space. (Note: this would be the second of three to be closed; the first was here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day, I will happily close this one. I will wait 24 hours, though, to see if there are any objections. If not, I intend to close the review as "kept". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I have closed this now as "kept" based on the above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Codename: Gordon

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

Result: Delisted. Concensus is this article does not meet GA criteria. The1337gamer (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think this article should remain a GA in the current state it is in. Considering I have too little experience with the matters at hand, I do not feel confident to adress the issues myself. I am pinging the original GA nominator here: @Paulcmnt:. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think this should immediately lose its GA status but I'm wondering if it's even notable enough to have its own page on Wikipedia. Nearly half of the sources are dialogue from the game, one is a press release, another is an abandonware website, two are interviews, and the Gameplanet link is dead. I just don't know if this article should still be up. GamerPro64 18:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I vote speedy delist, as I can not find many reliable sources for the subject and the article is obviously a mess. I would also vote weak delete when it comes to keeping or deleting the article, as I challenge the subject's notability. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have also never heard of the subject until this GAR has been brought up to WT:VG, so I am thinking that this kind of material belongs on Wikia. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The place to discuss whether the article is notable enough to exist is at Articles for Deletion. Of course, if the article does not survive an AfD nomination, this GA reassessment is moot, since the article would no longer exist. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a GAR case such as this, shall I set up an AfD for this article? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't bother with AfD (it's worth attempting to redirect "before" going to AfD, which is a last resort). Redirect/merge it to some parent article's section where it is discussed. czar 18:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. If this article were up for its first GA it would be failed for having multiple maintenance templates - one section is completely unreferenced. There is another referencing issues - Ref#4, a 2008 ref - gameplanet.co.nz - has expired. There also appears to be a copyvio issue with combineoverwiki.net/wiki/Codename:_Gordon. One or the other article - either the WP one or the combineoverwiki - is copied from the other. I would say that the other article is a mirror site, just not one that I am familiar with. And, what is the deal referring to people as First name "Nickname" Last name? Two different people are referred to as such and more than once - Paul "X-Tender" Kamma and Sönke "Warbeast" Seidel...this doesn't exactly sound like an encyclopedia and is more like what one would find in a fan-magazine. Shearonink (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delist. Too riddled with errors to keep its status for now. Notability can be discussed on different platforms, such as AfD. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Space Marshals

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

Result: This nomination has been up since August and there appears to be issues that have not been addressed during this time. I am delisting the article. GamerPro64 18:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this does not fall under the GA criteria per the comments I've left at Talk:Space Marshals#GA Reassessment. Primarily, the references just aren't up to par. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anarchyte: I've removed all of the sources you listed that were unreliable, except iPad Insight and Pocket Tactics, just because both of their about us pages look good [1][2]. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. Omni Flames (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers for that, Omni Flames. I still have a few doubts about iClarified and Gamer.nl. I can't find their about us page for either of them. iClarified posted the article in this article under the name of "iClarified" so I can't search for the writer's name either. As for Gamer.nl, there's a language barrier stopping me from properly analysing the site. iPad Insight seems like an enthusiast site, with sentences like "other avid iPad users and reviewers" being present in the about us page. I'd also like to see a copyedit, if possible. Let's leave it open for a couple of days so that we can receive opinions from other editors. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anarchyte: I'll take a more in-depth look at those sources in the next couple of days and see whether I think they're reliable or not. As for copyediting, I've left a request at WP:GOCE/R. Omni Flames (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It should be easy enough to expand the Reception from the current sources—needs more depth  czar 14:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anarchyte, what is your current assessment of the article after the work by Omni Flames last August and the subsequent copyedit by GOCE? This has been sitting moribund for four months, and it's time to get it moving again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueMoonset: My apologies for the late reply, I've been busy IRL so I couldn't really devote time to look at this. My primary concern still stands, though. Many of the references in this article fail WP:RS, let-alone GA standard. It's also a tad bland; I've read through it again and although it's now worded a lot better, I feel like it just doesn't contain enough information to be of GA standard, even with the unreliable sources included. My position still stands, but it's up to the closer. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got rid of the one source, I agree it is dubious. I believe the dutch source is fine, I translated the About Us page and all seems well. http://gamer.nl/colofon/

Let me know if you disagree. What else do you specifically want fixed? Kees08 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anarchyte, Omni Flames, and BlueMoonset: Does anyone have anything else they think needs improved? If so, list it below and I can address it, otherwise let's pass it for GA. Kees08 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think it's a bit short. Also, some sections heavily rely on primary sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Length is not a criterion for GA. I'll work on the primary sources aspect. Kees08 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changed two of the citations, left two. I think those two are fine as primary sources (some background information on the main character, and the announcement of the next release). Kees08 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but being broad in its coverage is. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See The1337gamer's comment for the proper way to say how it isn't broad in coverage. I will be working on his comments. Kees08 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. Now that I have more time on my hands, here are a few things I think could be improved.

• Synopsis feels a bit bare. Here are a few ideas:

• The game is set in the "Wild West", and the player is tasked with bringing criminals to justice. Why? What did the criminals do? Also, I think the first and second sentence could be merged.
• Characterized as "arrogant", Burt is a former space. Having the "" implies that it comes from elsewhere, IMO the "characterized" could be removed and replaced with something like: Burt, an "arrogant" former space marshal or even Burt, a former space marshall and remove the "arrogant" entirely; the rest of the gameplay section doesn't make it obvious as to why this is a required description. Is the removal of rank tied in with his arrogance? It doesn't make it obvious.
• What's the "Backspace?"
• What's the importance of T.A.M.I.? Do they have any powers? Go into semi-depth here and then go into even more depth in the gameplay section.

• T.A.M.I. isn't even mentioned in gameplay.

• After the completion of each level, the player gets a ranking from 1-5 "stars" indicating how well they performed. Does it indicate how well they did or is it based on how well they did?

@Kees08: I may be able to spot a few more things later. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Had a quick glance at the article. Pointing out some issues:

1. Wccftech is an unreliable source.
2. Reception section is lacking and not broad in its coverage.
3. There is an IGN score cited in the review table but it isn't cited anywhere in prose. Articles should not be listing review scores in the table without covering and referencing the review in text.
4. and it was released for iOS on the 9th. – see MOS:DATEFORMAT
5. Many reviewers were impressed by the simplicity of the game's dual-stick controls, – This statement only has one citation. One reviewer does not imply many reviewers.
6. These rewards include weapons, bombs, distraction devices, and armor. – Missing citation.
7. Each type of weapon has a maximum amount of ammunition that can be held for it at any one time. – Missing citation.

--The1337gamer (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of things:

• The scare quotes around Wild West are not really needed. Our WP article could just quote the TouchArcade article using "futuristic wild west setting" - I think that would be more appropriate.
• I don't quite understand the game's notability. Was it a best-seller? Is PixelBite a famous/well-known developer? Did it go viral because a big-time gamer endorsed it? It seems to me that claims of notability in the lead section could be more-developed.

Shearonink (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passion (Utada Hikaru song)

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

Result: pass CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 06:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a huge fan of this song (and the artist), and I was the Wikipedian that nominated it (which eventually received a GA approval), and potentially want to gain this article prospects as a Featured Artice. However, over time, I have noticed that there were a lot of elements and mistakes that were not identified in the review that was originally conducted to get it to GA standard; for example, there were prose/grammar issues, inconsistent value of citation templates, overuse of words, awkward tenses and placements of sub-articles and the inappropriate/discouraging use of blogs and other below A-class websites (little to my knowledge at the time). As a result, I am putting this up for re-assessment to see if this is of any right to make it inside the GA community. I have tided up the article severely to a good and appropriate standard, but need more advice in order to improve it and keep it at GA level, and I'll give it my all and determination to take your guys comments and criticisms in order to get this to a higher standard in any way possible. Any criticism or comments are welcomed. Best regards, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 05:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I do bear responsibility for this as it's my own missed mistakes that have partially caused this. I'll certainly give some advice about the references: Ref 41 says "Subscription based" which probably means people in general can't access the information its providing unless its in preliminary blurb. Also all references not yet archived need to be so either through Wayback Machine, WebCite or Archive.is. I think other editors are more suited to catching grammar errors. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No worries and thank you for the response; I'll get to archive the articles shortly! CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 09:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you want to archive references, you certainly can, but archiving is not part of the GA criteria, so it should be irrelevant to this reassessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @CaliforniaDreamsFan: my main noticeable thing to be changed is the rationale for the nonfree images and samples. They are still adequate and does not explain in the file page as to how it passes wP:NFCC#8. Check the rationale for the images in "Nothing Really Matters" for example. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @IndianBio: I was concerned with those at first. Those samples and shots (apart from the video still and the top two infobox images, which have been scaled down and changed) were already on the article as their current quality, which I have over viewed and indeterminately do not meet the standards of Wikipedia guidelines; I will render them immediately and ping you. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @IndianBio: Re-formatted the samples and image files. If there are any concerns, don't hesitate to contact me. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joss Whedon

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

Result: consensus to demote AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article does not meet the good article criteria demand for reliable sources and no original research. One example comes from the FAC nomination, where it was failed partly for not having sources fit for a biographical article, instead linking to "blogs, sketchy review sites, and sources like BuzzFeed". The reviewer was surprised it made it through to good article status in the first place. It still has a problem with prose in addition to the suspicious copyvio results, but I think poor verifiability is its chief offence. Cognissonance (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is something wrong with the header. I don't know how to fix it, it says "GA Reassessment" instead of linking to the Joss Whedon GAR like there other articles on the main WP:GAR page, but anyway...

• Ref #98 is dead.
• Ref #168 handshake failure
• Ref #249 fails.
• Ref #324 is dead.
• Ref #314 is malformed.

Also, it seems to me that the article possibly fails WP:GA criteria #5 "Stable" - it seems to attract a fairly constant stream of a certain amount of vandalism/reverts/edits/well-meaning edits not up to WP standards etc. Shearonink (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Header fixed. Thanks kind stranger. Shearonink (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome, Shearonink. It was my fault to begin with; the reassessment was started as an individual one but because the nominator was a major contributor, it had to be done as a community reassessment; unfortunately, I didn't quite get the conversion right. Thanks for pointing out the issue; I'll do it better if such a conversion is needed in future. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've never quite understood how an article can have just enough bad sourcing and original research to fail an FA nomination but not enough to delist as a GA. I posted such a GAR back in late 2015 and it was closed as keep by default because there wasn't a "consensus to delist". Unless an experienced user goes through all the sources and checks that each one of them fully verifies the article content, I think the safest move would be to delist. (It's not clear if this is what User:Shearonink did above, or if it was just a search for sources with technical problems and/or that shouldn't be cited anyway.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed that it should be delisted and marked down - to a C. I mean, it's been almost a month and none of the GA Criteria issues have been improved. I have no idea if I can do do the Closing or if it has to be someone else - GAR's parameters are confusing to me. I think I am following them and then?...apparently not. BlueMoonset, Wizardman - if someone else could close this that would be awesome. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Shearonink, once you have posted an opinion (such as that you think it fails the stability criterion), you are no longer considered uninvolved, so you shouldn't be closing this. It should be someone else. Maybe AustralianRupert might be willing to take a look? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I didn't say I was going to close it did I. That's why I called you here. Shearonink (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No, but you did say I have no idea if I can do do the Closing or if it has to be someone else, which is what I was answering in response to your ping. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Shearonink (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueMoonset: once you have posted an opinion [...], you are no longer considered uninvolved, so you shouldn't be closing this would be my opinion as well, and it is technically encouraged by the GAR guidelines, but it does seem like GAR has a weird loophole to get around that requirement, in that an editor whose personal opinion is that the page doesn't meet the criteria can open an individual reassessment and then close it however way they see fit. It's kind of off-topic for this page but the GAR process itself seems to be especially messy, and the guidelines were written by a user who by their own admission is not a fan of the process itself, and may or may not have deliberately made the guidelines as dense as they are in order to discourage use of the process. (I'm still trying to figure out if there's any time-efficient way to find out how many GARs were opened in any given 12-month period, but I would be surprised if the number of GARs hasn't dropped noticeably in the last year.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going off-topic in my comment as well, but speaking as someone who's just stumbled into this corner of WP fairly recently...this is all very confusing and somewhat obtuse to me and I'm not a newbie. If we comment at all we can't close? If we open a GAR we can't close?...unless it's an individual GAR? etc... It seems to me that the GAR guidelines/rules should perhaps follow the GA guidelines. There's a nominator and then there's a Reviewer. The Reviewer gets to do the Review and the Reviewer gets to close the Review. The Nominator and other interested editors can work on doing the major adjustment to the article, the Reviewer can do minor ones, the Nominator can also withdraw the nom for whatever reason (no time, lost interest, doesn't work well with the Reviewer, etc). It's a fairly-straightforward system, it makes sense to me that GAR could be set up in a similar fashion. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shearonink: It's not technically true that if we comment at all we can't close (see Prhartcom's most recent GAR involvement back in fall 2015), but if a commenter closes in a way that aligns with their own POV and was not clearly supported by consensus, they can expect a backlash. Basically it is considered out of line for an involved party to close just about anything, with the only borderline exceptions being where everyone is in agreement and there is therefore no one in whose interests it would be to point out that the closer was out of line. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hijiri88: so if the comments are all unanimous, then there is no dissent and one of the commenters could then close the GAR and take appropriate action - keep the GA, delist it, downgrade it to a B or C or whatever. Oh well, I guess this will have to wait in GAR-limbo until someone who is uninvolved comes along and closes it. Shearonink (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically, if the comments were unanimous, then an involved closer would still technically be in violation, but usually on Wikipedia the only way violators face consequences is if someone reports them, and if everyone agrees with the closure then no one would have any reason to complain. (In theory, some random outsider who happens across it might want to report them, but that would be wikilawyering at best and more than likely a form of harassment. The same goes for other involved users who agree with the nature of the close but choose to enforce the letter of the law anyway, since it would be very hard to justify such an action in good faith.) Since a lot of GAs were promoted way back in the day and even if their original nominators don't agree with 2017 sourcing standards they aren't here anymore to complain, I imagine unanimous "delist" !votes are quite common. If, however, everyone was in essential agreement that delisting was the way to go, and you inserted into the closing statement some personal opinion that you don't have any reason to believe would be agreed to by others, that would be a fairly significant violation. Additionally, GARs generally only discuss whether or not to delist as a GA. If the article is no longer either GA or FA, you or any other user, involved or not, have the freedom to determine whether it is A, B, C, Start, or any other quality level according to the standards of this or that WikiProject; a fully uninvolved user (i.e., one who has never edited the page before and is not linked to any of the relevant WikiProjects) determining the class of the article would be a little weird, although it does happen and is not a violation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old-fashioned doughnut

Sam Fuld

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

Result: Delist Consensus here is that the article does not meet the Good article criteria. The excessive use of quotations is still very much present AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this article mainly because I feel it not neutral. The article portrays the subject, a baseball player with modest success in reality, with overwhelming positive comments and very little information about his struggles (negative stats or specific reasons why he was traded/cut). Some elements of the article are factual but presented in a biased manner - see Talk page: [3] and [4] There are also multiple quotes in the body of the article that are never truly built upon or discussed in substance. The information is also out of date and does not have any updates after 2014. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started trimming some of the overly detailed and non-neutral stuff. There are probably still too many quotes and there is probably undue weight on some very routine regular-season play, but I didn't want to act too drastically until others weighed in. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Shearonink

• Information in article is not completely up-to-date. Fuld elected for free agency in November and is no longer with the A's (per MLB.Com)
• Lead seems excessively-detailed. For example, all those lead quotes are from one season, one source.
• I don't understand that odd "quote" box connected to Ref 115.
• Recognition and awards section is completely unsourced.
• Images seem ok.
• In 2007 section and in 2009 section, direct links to multiple videos within main text - against MOS.
• Too many scarequotes in lead, see WP:SCAREQUOTES
• Agree with others - too much quoted material. I applaud the editors zeal for attributing information to sources but, in my opinion, some of these quote have got to go.

In general, if this article were given a good going over for copy-editing issues (some of that content really needs to be trimmed) I think it would still be of GA quality. The subject is notable and, obviously, a lot of work has been put into referencing. I do not think it should be delisted, I think it just needs some work. Bob Lemon as a present GA and Lee Smith (baseball) as a Featured Article, would both be worthwhile templates to work from as this article is improved. Shearonink (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A500 road

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

Result: delisted 06:01, 1 May 2017 Bungle

Having looked through some existing GA-class highways articles for inspiration on improving some others, I noticed this article listed as GA but instantly felt it wasn't justified of its status. Primarily, the article is almost entirely sourcing information older than 10 years and much of those references have been broken for several years also. When compared to other GA class articles, such as A303 road and A4232 road, it's quite apparent that this article requires substanstial redevelopment, including an almost entire resourcing and bringing up to date with contemporary developments. Furthermore, it would seem the original GA review was some considerable time ago, and the supposed reassessment that took place was nothing more than a single editor putting their own "rubber stamp" back in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "rubber stamp" appears to have been done by Eric Corbett, but a search through the article's history shows he did a bit of work on it, so the reassessment may simply be a matter of just doing it without needing to log anything. The sources all look reliable from a first glance, but one thing that leaps out is there doesn't seem to be very much on the politics. I checked the BBC retrospective (the first source I looked at) and it talks about the lack of a decent goods traffic connection hurting the economy of the Potteries, projects being stalled due to lack of Government funds, and there's Michael Heseltine's mugshot in there too, so he must have had a hand in it. Also it gives an opening date of 2 November 1977. None of this is in the article, and I think it ought to be.

A typical problem with these sorts of articles is that it's very easy to write "The B4824 starts at a T junction in Lesser Snoring, it progresses around the farmland to meet the B4912 at a crossroads which it yeilds to, in 1.23454 miles (1.98680 km) it reaches Troll Twittering where it turns left, gosh isn't this exciting" without actually going into detail that non road enthusiasts might find important. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. Per Ritchie333's post above, since the article hasn't been updated very much since 2006/2007 would it now fail GA Criteria 3A "It addresses the main aspects of the topic"? If there are major issues about the subject missing from the article - the politics about its construction, delays specifically - then can this article be said to address the main aspects of the topic? Also, it looks like the "Route" section is completely unsourced. And this last bit isn't at all part of the GA Criteria but Trent Vale is Wikilinked now. Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Unless someone wishes to go through and fix many of the broken references, up date much of the info to be relevant and ideally sub-section the history as a starting point, then I am of the view it may be better to demote the article from GA and relist once the issues are resolved. If it were to go through a GA nom in it's current state, it would quick fail. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William L. Uanna

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

Result: Keep This is coming up to a year now since it was opened, so it is well beyond time it is closed. This was nominated on three criteria 3a (Broadness), 5 (Stability) and 2 (Verifiabilty). It is not specified exactly what verifiabilty criteria it fails, but I feel it is safe to assume 2b and 2c. The broadness issue has been resolved during the review. Stability is not a good reason to delist an article; otherwise articles would qualify for delisting whenever an edit war broke out. It is more a convenience criteria for reviewers (it is hard/impossible to review an article that is constantly changing). In any case there has been no recent stability concerns. That leaves verifiability. The issue here relates to the use of primary sources. As has been pointed out primary sources are not disallowed so what we really need are instances of unreliable primary sources used for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons. No one has actually provided examples of this. Therefore I am closing this as keep. AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've commenced this reassessment because

1. The article fails GA Criteria No. 3 by focusing in excessive detail on non-notable and trivial biographical details, with insufficient attention - only one paragraph - on the primary reason for Uanna's notability, his role as security officer in the Manhattan Project, for which he was a subject of a number of movie portrayals and extensive mentions in secondary sources oddly not utilized in the preparation of this article. The article fails WP:UNDUE by failing to give appropriate weight to this aspect of his life. I would template for undue emphasis but I am not sure it's appropriate while this GA review is pending.

2. The article has been a subject of edit warring by a COI editor, is unstable and is tagged for major issues: excess reliance on primary sources and COI, as it was created by and was principally edited until a few days ago by a self-described connected editor, the son of the subject. More than four out of ten edits to the article were by the COI editor, more than any other editor. Because of these serious issues it fails GA Criteria No. 5 and meets criteria No. 3 for immediate failure. (Note also removal of "resume" cleanup tag after commencement of this review [5] by an involved editor. I believe this tag should not have been removed.)

3. It rather blatantly fails GA Criteria No. 2, "Verifiable with no original research." The majority of footnotes are to original research uploaded to Commons by the son of the subject.

There are problems with the following references:

• 1. "Uanna – Public Member Trees". Ancestry.com. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
• 2. "Anthony Uanna from Ward 3 Medford in 1940 Census District 9-318". Archive.com. Retrieved September 3, 2015.
• 6, 7, 8. pages from Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons.
• 9. "William L Uanna". World War II U.S. Army Enlistments U.S. Army Enlistment Record. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
• 10. (six footnotes) "FBI background check on William Lewis Uanna". Wikimedia. March 31, 1947.
• 13. "Bud Uanna AEC FBI Armed Forces Special Weapons Project V.P. Keay to D.M. Ladd". February 2, 1948.
• 14. "Bud Uanna Armed Forces Special Weapons Project requesting investigations for personnel that will maintain the Atomic Bombs and the facilities where they are stored". July 1, 1949.
• 17. Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 5.

Except for the first Ancestry link, which goes to user-created content, and the second Ancestry link, which goes to a census page, the remainder go to self-published primary source material uploaded to Commons by the son of the subject. WP:PRIMARY requires that primary sources must be "reputably published" and this is self-published original research.

--Coretheapple (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC) (revised 02:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Primary sources are permitted to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. The upload to Commons is merely to make it easier for us to collaborate and verify the source. The documents are all available through NARA. There is no question about their authenticity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They also have to be "reputably published." The COI editor's word processor is not a reputable publisher. NARA isn't a reputable publisher, it is a document repository where people go and request material via the FOI act in the course of their original research. And surely you're not suggesting that NARA documents are verifiable because you or I can file an FOI request, pay some bucks, and then wait a year or two for compliance? You're not seriously suggesting that I hope? Commons is not a reputable publisher, it is a conduit for any member of the public who wants to upload stuff. What we're talking about here is OR that he's put on Commons and that you've allowed to source the article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NARA is a reputable publisher. Publication is defined as being made available to the public. I have spent a lot of time there, and you don't need an FOI request for material more than 30 years old. The documents are not being published by Commons, just being made easier for us to verify them. Commons, Wikinews and Wikisource were established precisely for this purpose! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I don't think we can accept that every government agency is a publisher because it makes documents available to the public. By using primary source materials to such a massive extent, you've deep-dived into his career to an almost absurd extent, with intricate details that really belong on a personal website. He is notable primarily for his work on the Manhattan Project, and there is all of one paragraph on that. That is what happens when a COI editor dominates the editing of an article and pours the product of his original research into the article. Come to think of it, that is actually a somewhat more serious issue than even the sourcing and I've added it above. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have written over 200 biographical articles, and this is their nature. Most are famous for one thing but it was only a small part of their life. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Google Books search for Uanna shows two books on the Manhattan Project, both of which contain much interesting material on Uanna related to his work on the Project. I find it odd to say the least that neither of these books is utilized in the preparation of this article. I would urge that you remove the excessive details that you have on his various duties and functions and focus on his work for the notable atomic bomb project, so that the latter is given proper weight. Since apparently it did not much interest the COI editor it got short shrift. This article is little more than a memorial website with great masses of trivial material, and I do not understand why it is so when there is source material to prevent that from occurring. With all due respect, I simply at a loss to understand why you leaned so heavily on the COI editor's hand-picked primary sources on minor details of his life, when there were not one but two perfectly usable secondary sources that delved into the most notable aspect of Uanna's career. The fact that you've done 200 bios just makes me even more mystified. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Manhattan Project has its own article, which I improved and took to FAC. Running the search myself turns up mentions of Uanna in several books about the atomic bombing mission, including Harlow Russ' Project Alberta, Paul Tibbets' Tibbets Story and Leslie Groves' Now It Can Be Told. More interestingly, Advanced Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Operations talks about his establishment of the Q Clearance, and four books mention his movie and television portrayals, notably Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image in Film. This establishes his notability; but readers do not come to the article to find out about the Manhattan Project; they come to find out about Uanna. To be comprehensive, a biographical article needs to cover the biographical details, and the article does that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh yeah, I imagine the Manhattan Project would have its own article. The fact that you don't see a problem in the little in this article on Uanna's role in that project is less than startling at this point. And by the way, I assume that he is in that "military images in film" book because of his work on the Manhattan Project, which is now given far less attention in this article than is warranted by WP:UNDUE. It really deserves a maintenance tag for that, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to do so while this is pending. I don't believe that it is in the "nature" of biographies to underweight major aspects of a subject's life. If there are multiple books on the project with references to Uanna, not just the two that turned up on the first page of the search, than the underweighting is even more inexcusable. Coretheapple (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delist In addition to the given reasons, reads like a resume. 2600:1017:B40F:A478:44:8E3B:210:559D (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  WP:GAR requires you to be logged in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No, afraid not. See talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep (after tweaks): overall, the article seems to conform with what I would expect of a biography, having seen a few come through ACR and FAC. Remember we are telling the whole story of the man's life, so we need to be careful not to overload the article with too much detail on one aspect (remember also he was a pretty junior officer at the time, too). I would like to see a few tweaks, though, for instance:
  • some more references to secondary sources if possible;
  • references added to the Film portrayals section;
  • the imaging/description pages need work. For instance, "File:Bud Uanna State Department 3jpg.jpg" should include the date of when it was taken, not when it was uploaded or scanned. Same same with "File:Bud Uanna State Department 1jpg.jpg", and "File:Bud Uanna War 3jpg.jpg" and "File:Bud Uanna State Department 2jpg.jpg". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have made the suggested changes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I hope that we can cut back on some of the material in the overlong postwar section. Were it not for the primary sourcing it would not be in the article, and I think it overweights, though not so dramatically as to warrant a tag at least in my opinion. Building up the section further as has been done recently makes this problem worse. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delist. Traveling now so don't really have the opportunity to go into enormous detail, but I agree with Core's analysis. For some time I have been troubled by the COI editor's dominance of this article, and I agree that his influence has resulted in a ridiculous situation. Uanna is notable for his work at the Manhattan Project, where he was security chief. I agree, we don't want the entire article on that. But just a couple of sentences? Ridiculous. It is barely mentioned in this article at all! I am guilty as any for not previously even noticing that. Primary sources are overused, to be sure. That is a problem. The fact that there is insufficient material on the Manhattan Project to warrant a separate section is indicative of the extent to which this article fails to properly cover the subject. So I therefore agree that it must be delisted and I frankly am surprised that other editors fail to recognize this serious flaw, which clearly indicates a lack of broad coverage required for GA status. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Perhaps because the GA "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Perhaps if persons other than fellow Military History Project coordinators commented on this article we might get a less self-serving view of the article's obvious imbalance. I would be curious to see the views of editors who perhaps are less steeped in the minutae to which this article is over-dedicated, to the detriment of material that would interest the general reader. Coretheapple (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The article is well-written, well-sourced, broadly covers the topic and is illustrated by appropriate images. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I have added some more material on the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I am glad to see this, and the text that you added is interesting and useful. In my opinion this section needs to be fleshed out fully so that it receives its proper emphasis in the article. Obviously managing the security for the atomic bomb squadron is far more notable than anything else he may have done in his life. The article as currently written unfortunately is bogged down in trivia still, largely due to an overreliance on primary source material on secondary aspects of his career. Coretheapple (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - for now at least. While I agree that there have been some valid concerns raised per Coretheapple's commentary above and Figureofnine, it seems to me that much of it has been addressed by a number of editors working in good faith to improve the article. At any rate GAs are not meant to be perfect, and this one does seem to be adequate enough to not warrant delisting, while further improvements can of course continue to be made. FWIW the article seems to cover the individual's life as a whole, which is what I'd expect from a biography, so I'd actually be concerned about UNDUE if it mainly focused on his involvement in the Manhattan project. Finally, if the COI issues were to reappear and become persistent then that might change the equation but at this stage it seems to be being managed. Anotherclown (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment The amount of material on the Manhattan Project was expanded sufficiently in my opinion to warrant removal of the undue weight tag. I am afraid that the other tags do point to issues in the article that unfortunately remain, and the Manhattan Project section definitely can be expanded perhaps into subsections too. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) This is the type of nonsense that has kept this article a mishmash of trivia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep I agree with User:AustralianRupert. The article conforms to what a Wikipedia biography should consists of, and I also agree that it is along the lines (in terms of similarity of content) compared to other Wikipedia bios. However, I feel like the "Film portrayals" section should be expanded (and could be expanded). The Above and Beyond "sort-of" statements should follow each portrayal; including with films Hiroshima and Enola Gay: The Men, the Mission, the Atomic Bomb. Most of what brought this article to the reassessment discussion has been handled, so I don't see the need to delist it, especially now. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• Comment: I was invited to participate in the discussion by Figureofnine on my Talk page. While going through the article, I noticed that I relies to a large extent on primary source. Would this not be a concern for a GA article? Since it seems to suggest that the material being cited has not been noted by secondary sources, and thus could be not important and indeed unneeded intricate detail. There are close to 40 citations to such primary sources:
  • "Uanna – Public Member Trees". Ancestry.com. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
  • "Anthony Uanna from Ward 3 Medford in 1940 Census District 9-318". Archive.com. Retrieved September 3, 2015.
  • "Tufts Quarterback is Due Back Today". Lowell Sun. October 18, 1932. p. 38. Retrieved October 22, 2013. (subscription required (help)).
  • "NCAA 1931" (PDF). National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  • a b c d e f g h i j k l "Security is his Job – William Lewis Uanna". The New York Times. July 26, 1958. Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 1.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 2.
  • Uanna, William (November 19, 1956). "Bud Uanna Foreign Service Essay". Wikimedia Commons. p. 4.
  • "William L Uanna". World War II U.S. Army Enlistments, U.S. Army Enlistment Record. U.S. Army. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  • a b c d e f g "FBI background check on William Lewis Uanna". Wikimedia Commons. March 31, 1947.
  • a b c d e f g h "Short Biographical Sketch of William Uanna". Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Newspaper articles are not primary sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newspapers are down there on the list of RS unless written as an investigative report by a notable writer. Regardless, this still leaves about 30 citations to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delist: the article is not stable (subject to some edit warring) and some of the sources are problematic (heavy reliance on primary sources, indicating that the details cited may not be important). I'm sure the article can be improved and be re-nominated for GA in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point about edit warring is correct. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest that everyone stop editing the article until the review is over. Bold editing is not the way to go here. It is clear that there are pretty entrenched differences of opinion, so the only way to move forward is to wait for a few other opinions to swing the consensus either way (to delist or not) and then accept it (whatever the outcome) and move on. The best way to achieve this may be a Request for Comment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The reasons have been well-established by the other keep reviewers. There is also some rather odd stuff going on here with some of the contributors to the review. Editors shouldn't be being BOLD while the review is ongoing, as that automatically affects the stability criteria and shows a distinct lack of respect for our processes. K.e.coffman once again demonstrates a lack of understanding of the notability policy and its application, comprehensiveness, the parameters of reliability, and the proper use of primary sources in articles. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The absence of a Manhattan Project segment or barely a mention of that, a principal flaw and reason this reassessment was started, was rectified during the course of the reassessment. There are other flaws: primary sources, unencyclopedic detail, which has resulted in extensive instability in this article. Indeed, instability in the form of editing warring over trivia was the proximate cause of the ANI. The article is being improved and is halfway toward the goal of not being a personal website containing family nostalgia and patently nonessential material, like the reading matter of the subject of the article while studying up for a non-notable aspect of his career. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is worth noting that Uanna's Who's Who entry merely notes that he served in the Army during World War II. So that source considered him notable for his other work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe Who's Who in America entries are written by the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I believe that this article has been greatly improved since I commenced this GAR. References to the Manhattan Project have gone from nil to an entire section. The article still relies excessively on primary sources, which appear to be fragments of larger documents uploaded piecemeal to Commons. Though most trivia has been removed, there is still an overambundance of intricate detail. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong Keep This is a well-written article about a significant individual. It seems like it was tagged mainly for using primary sources, but there's nothing wrong with using primary sources for basic information. There is a featured article on [Altgens] that also uses lots of primary sources for the same type of information.Homemade Pencils (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note The above !vote is from an effectively new user and is clearly not based on the GA criteria, as well as apparently indicating not having read the OP's delisting rationale, which focused largely on GAC#3. This is not, technically, a case where Template:Single-purpose account can be invoked, but this user's edits to the Wikipedia namespace have almost uniformly been disruptive and should probably be evaluated on that basis. Their edits to other namespaces have almost all been minor, which makes it look like a troll attempting to cover their tracks by making a lot of kinda-sorta constructive edits but focusing most of their efforts on !voting against community consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of my edits have been disruptive. The reasons for delisting this article are simply flawed. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then you don't need to say anything.Homemade Pencils (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. I am troubled by the usage of primary documents:

1. What confirmation do we have that Uanna himself is the writer of the Foreign Service essay, used for Ref 6, 7, 8, and 23? Was it ever published anywhere? Why was it written?
2. What is the provenance of the FBI background check document on William Lewis Uanna? It's used to source 6 different statements. Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brava/bravo, @Shearonink:, spot on. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong delist. There is no real question here. The only sound rationale based on the criteria, and emphasizing WP policies and Guidelines, is that of Core. We are not deleting the article, we are saying simply saying it is not Good. Because it is not. The preponderance of references to self-published (family-published), non-third part sources alone should make this clear. In the sciences, this would have been a 30 minute discussion and a unanimous delist. So delist it already, to give impetus to its improvements, so interested editors can sort the warring problems, and make clear to the "owning" editor that the citations to his families stories at the ancestry sites are not valid encyclopedic sources. Let the article work back to being Good. Don't redefine Good to keep things you like or want. If everything (like this) is good, nothing really is. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Meerman Scott

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

Result: Delist Some issues have been brought up relating to the GA criteria. I understand that some of these have been addressed, but there are still major flaws. The lead was brought up and is still inadequate at a single sentence. The tone concerns (Criteria 4 - Neutral) is the most serious one. The Content marketing strategist section still comes across promotional. I realise the main editor trying to save this wanted the closer to ping the other commentators, but this is not really practical (especially as it is coming up to ten months). You should have ping them yourself. The only editor to return has restated his delist !vote and I don't feel the other editors concerns have been dealt with enough to keep this. AIRcorn (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This community reassessment is being started because an individual reassessment had been started in July 2013 by EBY3221 that was never closed (or contributed to beyond the following day), but raised some cogent issues that I think need to be examined. The article's primary author, Woz2, became a Vanished User in June 2014, and EBY3221 was indefinitely blocked for COI/undisclosed paid editing in September 2015.

The main issues had to do with the sheer amount of primary sourcing, from Scott's own websites, companies that presented his webinars, or his publishers. The article is quite positive—there don't seem to be any equivocal or negative comments about any of Scott's books or talks, which seems to violate the neutrality criterion. The lead had five of six source citations directly to Scott's material; it's now up to six of eight, with the other two being related press releases: all primary sources, all laudatory information. This raises verifiability issues.

Other issues, both from the previous GAR and from my own observations:

• The lead contains information, primarily in the second paragraph, that does not appear in the body of the article. There shouldn't be anything significant in the lead without it also being in the body per WP:LEAD, another GA criterion. Examples include the book being "inspired by an accidental discovery" and another by being a bond trader.
• The "Early life" section is misnamed, since it goes up until he was 41 years old, and doesn't start until he graduated from college. It seems to be about his education and corporate career, before he was let go from Thomson. The third paragraph, starting and ending "he says", should be paraphrased and condensed; this is not a magazine article interview, and it's also self-sourced.
• The article hasn't been updated much since late 2011, so statements such as how many keynote speeches he gives per year are probably out of date and need more recent sourcing and revised wording.
• The Books subsection could use some reorganization; it's sometimes unclear which book is being talked about; EBY3221 suggests a subheading for each of Scott's significant books.

This should be enough for editors to start working on, and for the community to consider during this reassessment. Many thanks for your contributions. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are enough reliable sources to use instead of the primary ones viz. Wikipedia Reliable Sources search but the extensive redo envisioned here would take more time than I have right now. What is the time frame for these reviews? Thanks! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 11:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SageGreenRider, these community reassessments typically take a month or longer. If you can take on updates over the longer term that would be great; if not, then it depends how long it takes for a consensus to develop on the article vis a vis the GA criteria. Thank you for considering undertaking addressing the issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK great. I can get to it weekend after next probably. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 10:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to this yet. I did find a bunch of sources that I'll try to add this weekend:

Five Questions about Newsjacking with David Meerman Scott http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-p-david/post_10907_b_9045656.html

Using Ungated Content to Drive Outstanding Marketing Performance http://customerthink.com/using-ungated-content-to-drive-outstanding-marketing-performance/

Has the term ‘newsjacking’ damaged the PR industry? - this is the only negative one I found - it will help fix the NPOV objection http://www.prdaily.com/mediarelations/Articles/_Has_the_term_newsjacking_damaged_the_PR_industry_21235.aspx

David Meerman Scott: The New Age Of Sales And Customer Service http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2014/09/03/david-meerman-scott-the-new-age-of-sales-and-customer-service/#7e15e8013549

People I'm Grateful for #4: David Meerman Scott http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorgan/2012/06/07/people-im-grateful-for-4-david-meerman-scott/#7f366b991a17

'Marketing the Moon' examines Apollo program as one giant leap for marketing kind http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/chi-marketing-the-moon-david-merman-scott-richard--20140718-story.html

Concert ‘Merch’ Comes of Age https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/intelligence/concert-tour-merchandise-justin-bieber-rihanna-kanye-west

Preeminent Book on Marketing and PR Gets an Update http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-p-david/preeminent-book-on-market_b_8774570.html

Marketing Lessons From the Presidential Election https://www.asicentral.com/news/web-exclusive/may-2016/marketing-lessons-from-the-presidential-election/

How 5 Influential Leaders Keep Their Sales Forecasts Laser-Accurate http://www.business.com/sales-strategies/how-5-influential-leaders-in-sales-keep-their-forecasts-laser-accurate/

Two Colorful Infographic Wheels Used to Track the Apollo Missions http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/05/15/apollo_mission_history_two_mission_tracking_wheels_from_ibm_and_raytheon.html

Got a book in you? Self-publishing could be your best bet http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/startup/got-a-book-in-you-selfpublishing-could-be-your-best-bet-20120330-1w36p.html

Apollo Lunar Program A Big Marketing Success, Book Says http://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2014/05/19/marketing-the-moon

NASA'S (UN)CENSORED MOONWALKERS http://www.popsci.com/nasas-uncensored-moonwalkers

Free art: blessing or curse? https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/09/25/free-art-blessing-or-curse.html

How NASA Sold Us The Moon http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/03/12/how-nasa-sold-us-the-moon/#41e2002c4acb

Mad Men in space: the ads that sold NASA's golden age http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/22/5636754/mad-men-in-space-the-ads-that-sold-nasas-golden-age

The Anatomy of a Great Content Strategy https://www.searchenginejournal.com/anatomy-great-content-strategy/106355/

LIVE FROM THE MOON http://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/live-moon

Nasa's Mad Men: How the agency sold the Apollo missions to the public and inspired a golden age of space exploration http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2612074/Nasas-Mad-Men-How-agency-sold-Apollo-missions-thr-public-inspired-golden-age-space-exploration.html#ixzz4K3onmu5o

Independence Day Special: Here's how newsjacking looked like in 1947 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-08-12/news/65490567_1_usha-social-media-jaago-re

How to Launch a Viral Marketing Campaign http://www.inc.com/guides/201107/how-to-launch-a-viral-marketing-campaign.html

With Twitter wit, CIA tries to shed staid public image (+video) http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2014/0710/With-Twitter-wit-CIA-tries-to-shed-staid-public-image-video

Save Big Bird! Will Romney’s Threats Wind Up Boosting PBS Fundraising? http://business.time.com/2012/10/04/save-big-bird-will-romneys-threats-wind-up-boosting-pbs-fundraising/

Cheers!

^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 18:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delist: Unfortunately, it has been a month since the list of sources was posted here, and no edits have yet been done to the article. All of the issues enumerated above remain true. If these issues are eventually addressed, I will reconsider my recommendation. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sorry, I've been very busy in real life. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 01:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delist -- I had a look and the article is in a bad state; it's promotional and suffers from the use primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment I reorganized the book section per the suggestion above and added some of the third party cites. Please take another look and give me some feedback? Thanks! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 14:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sorry, this is still too promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Can you be more specific? ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 15:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delist.

1. Most of the trees [refs] are to Press releases and are therefore not sources independent of the subject.
2. Newsjacking.com and WebInkNow are both Scott's websites.
3. Ref 41 is dead,
4. Ref 11 implies it is a direct quote from Scott but it is instead a 2011 Tweet from Colin Warwick.
5. Ref 17: Ok. AdAge 150 is a daily ranking and it is waaaay out of date. Frankly who cares that a blog/website was in a daily Top 150 10 years ago? and the sentence in the article says that the blog is in the Top 150. No. Not so. the statement should be stricken from the article along with the outdated source.
6. Image problems - the source of some of the images lead to WebInkNow but the trail goes cold there since apparently the internal URLs have changed.
7. The fact that Scott's book The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Online Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers Directly is a present best-seller on Amazon and that fact indicates he is notable, but the present state of the article does not prove that notability.

• If I were giving this article a first-time review for possible GA status, I would quick-fail it for its many referencing issues and for its promotional tone. Shearonink (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, most of those are actionable, except for "promotional tone" which isn't obvious to me. Can you point to specific passages? Also I'm not sure what you mean by "most of the trees are to press releases." Can you be more specific? Last question, from the list of sources above that have not yet been included in the article, are there any that you would consider more worthy than the ones that are there now? (PS I'll work on the issues you mention this weekend hopefully.) Thanks again. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 15:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Promotional tone

@SageGreenRider: Ok. The article does not read like an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, it reads like a press release. Here are a few examples:

• "However, the idea was too radical..." Really? Who said so? Oh, looks like the subject said so, not an independent source.
• "such as the David Scott who walked on the moon as the commander of Apollo 15 (and whom he has met)" extraneous trivia, that is, again, sourced to the subject. Frankly, who cares? Content about who the subject has met is trivial, it demeans the importance of the subject if their article has content like this.
• "Scott is the author of a blog, Web Ink Now, which was ranked in the now defunct AdAge Power 150 as one of the top marketing blogs." This is a mischaracterization of the AdAge content. The blog was listed as a Top 150. For one day. Ten years ago. This is trivia, unless the blog was named as a Top 150 of the year or something like that. Also, anyone and everyone has a blog now...having a blog does not seem like a bullet-point on one's resume that is important enough to mention in a Wikipedia article.
• ybcTV is a press-release created platform, the contents generated by this firm is not news from an independent source, it is paid-for and is therefore not a reliable source and yet is it being used as a reference.
• "To promote this book Scott created several videos including one evocative of the joyous Matt Harding Where is Matt? series[45] and a series of three[46][47][48] in the workplace mockumentary style of both Ricky Gervais's The Office and the Art of the Sale videos.[49]"

Really? who said it was "reminiscent of...?" and who said it was "in the style of...?" Those two assessments are not in the cited sources, those are characterizations I would suppose from the subject himself.

• The only evidence one can find about "In 2015, Robert Stone announced that a documentary film entitled A Place Beyond the Sky, based in part on Scott's book Marketing the Moon, is in production. The film is currently in post-production and is slated for completion in 2018.[41]" is Stone's own press release. There is nothing in any of the trades about the documentary, nothing on IMdb about it...actually, I couldn't find a thing about it in any other source other than the press release on Stone's own website...this project has a little bit too much of a WP:CRYSTAL in it to be included in this article and should be deleted.
• Non-encyclopedic... How about the fact that the pronoun "he" is used 9 times in the "Education and career" section. Combine a few sentences, use his last name, do something to avoid the redundant use of words...it's very jarring and slightly juvenile.
• What is up with the books getting individual sections and the main Books section being a single sentence fragment ending in a colon. So ALL of those book paragraphs, those seven sections about the books, are subordinate clauses to "Scott is the author of ten books:"? Ummm...no. I am sure this usage is against some kind of WP:MOS subsection but don't want to try to look it up at the moment. If you want to get an idea of what this article should be striving for, take a look at some of the Featured article biographies on businesspeople like Finn M. W. Caspersen. Yes, I understand it's an FA and not a GA, but read it for the tone. A Featured article has the proper tone - *that* is what you should be thinking of when you work on a biographical article in Wikipedia.

This article needs to drastically pruned-down. No one is saying that it should be deleted, Scott is clearly notable especially because of his one book being a consistent best-seller but in its present state this article is not a Good article. At this point, the discussion has been going on since August 2016...that's four months. 3 editors have stated that the article should be delisted - 1 in October 2016, 1 in December 2016 and 1 in January 2017... the issues are still there, they haven't been fixed since the first statement on this page (which dates back to even farther - August 2016). In my opinion the article should be delisted to a C, completely rewritten, and then given a new GA Review. If I came upon this article in its present state and it was nom'ed for a GA, I would Quick Fail it for its many referencing issues and for its tone. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that's very helpful. I'll work on it this weekend. Sorry to have so many questions, but what does "delisted to a C" mean? i.e. what is a "C"? ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 13:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shearonink: I think I've addressed most of the issues. Could you please take another look? ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 16:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep I believe I've addressed all of the objections above. Note to closer: This is the only !vote that is based on the current version. Pls ping the other folks to get an updated !vote. Thanks! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 23:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment -- confirming my "delist" iVote. The article is still highly promotional with many self-citations. For example, the lead includes this passage (all cited to Scott):

• The book's core message is that creating useful content oneself is consistently more effective than expensive professional public relations programs. Subsequent books draw from his experience as a real-time bond trader,^[1] and his observations about innovative marketing by organizations as diverse as IBM^[2] and the rock band The Grateful Dead.^[3]

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the above passage as self-cited and promotional. However, the rest of the lead has similar issues, being cited to press releases or otherwise non-independent coverage:

• American online marketing strategist,^[1] speaker, and author of several books on marketing, most notably The New Rules of Marketing and PR with over 350,000 copies in print in more than 25 languages.^[2][3]

If I continue, there will be nothing left :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I count 36 third-party refs including Forbes, WSJ, Boston Globe, Sydney Morning Herald... , so the article has considerable substance. I'll work on the lead this coming weekend. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 14:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment WP:ABOUTSELF reads in part Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities... followed by some conditions. So I think some of the deletions are not justified. ... But out of an abundance of caution I removed the material from the lead and have not reverted the deletions by others. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 16:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pearson's Candy Company

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

Result: Kept Issues seem to be dealt with and what consensus that can be found here is that it currently meets the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am troubled by the fact that the references seems to be in such bad shape:

• Ref #1 is using outdated info from 2008.
• Ref #2 is dead.

And both of the preceding sources are used to identify key people (President, CEO, etc.) in the infobox.

• Ref #3 is dated from 2003 and therefore the information it is sourcing is outdated.
• Ref #4 is using outdated info from 2007 - Pearson's was sold in 2011, they don't even have the same owners anymore.
• Ref #6 is dead.
• Ref #7 is dead.

That leaves a total of 3 references - #5, #8, #9 - that seem to be valid. If this article came up for a GA Review today, it would not get that status at this time. The references need to be almost completely overhauled before any further GA Reassessment consideration can take place. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgive me if I'm curt, but this is not particularly helpful. Good Articles are assessed based on the Good Article Criteria, not opinions from the ether ("If this article came up for a GA Review today, it would not get that status at this time.") Please identify with specificity (number and subsection, if applicable), as you have not done, which criterion/criteria you feel is/are no longer met. Эlcobbola _talk 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry that my comments were unhelpful, I did not intend to be unhelpful. I have struck through my GA Reviewing comments but am leaving them so the throughline of our responses will be maintained.

Specifically, the criteria which are not being met by this article in its present state are the following:

• Criteria 2B: all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

The references for this article are overwhelmingly stale and/or outdated, so any statements are not attached to the cited sources.

• Criteria 1B: it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Fails this because the statements made in the lead section 1)That Pearson's is in the Top 100 and 2)It was sold in 2011 - rely on dead links for verification. Also, I tried to find verification that Pearson's is in the present Top 100 (of confectioners) and that seems to not be the case at this time.

• Criteria 3A: it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

Fails this criteria because, again, the cited references cannot back up the main aspects of the topic.

I hope this is more helpful. I do stand by my conclusion above that the references need to be almost completely overhauled before any further GA Reassessment can occur. Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep The above is, frankly, nonsense. In order:

  "The references for this article are overwhelmingly stale and/or outdated, so any statements are not attached to the cited sources."

  WP:RS, and indeed criterion 2B, relates to the reliablity of the source, not to whether the information referenced is up to date. Shearonink provided no cite to the WP:RS section that prohibits "stale and/or outdated" sources, as, indeed, such a section does not exist. WP:CS, for example, says "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Follow these steps when you encounter a dead URL being used as a reliable source to support article content." (emphasis mine), which implicitly establishes that "reliability" and being "a dead link" are not mutually exclusive.

  "Fails this [criterion 1B] because the statements made in the lead section 1)That Pearson's is in the Top 100 and 2)It was sold in 2011 - rely on dead links for verification. Also, I tried to find verification that Pearson's is in the present Top 100 (of confectioners) and that seems to not be the case at this time."

  The manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation do not prohibit dated information and, conversely, do not require contemporaneous information. The manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation do not prohibit dead links. Again, that a link is dead does not mean it is not reliable per my cite above, WP:DEADREF and WP:DEADLINK.

  "Fails this criteria (sic) because, again, the cited references cannot back up the main aspects of the topic."

  Shearonink has not indicated which "main aspects" are uncited. Yet again, that a given reference may be dead 1) does not mean the article does not "addre[ss] the main aspects of the topic" and 2) as per above, is not prohibited.

Although I believe the concerns related to GA status are entirely without merit, I have updated the article in the interest of its improvement. There is now only a single dead link, which I understand to be perfectly acceptable, and other information is as contemporary as is available for a closely-held firm. Эlcobbola _talk 17:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a Reassessment, a chance for a GA article to be improved, I wasn't voting Delete in my previous comments and am sorry that they have been interpreted to be so. Per my referencing comments, I was thinking of the WP:IRS section regarding age matters. I am just glad that the article has now been updated, that is what is important to me. I like Pearson's Candy, saw the article had been listed as possibly needing a GAR since 2014 and thought it deserved a community Reassessment and some possible improvements - that's all. Thanks to User:elcobbola for all their hard work. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"In 1985, the company was purchased by Larry Hassler and Judith Johnston, the current CEO and COO, respectively." I did adjust this sentence to reflect that Hassler & Johnston bought the company in 1985 but that they are not the current CEO & COO. (Michael Keller is the current CEO/President.) Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep – I think that the problems have been dealt with sufficiently. All text appears to be accurately sourced, and the article is broad and well written. I would maintain this article's current status.StoryKai (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transit Authority of River City

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

Result: Delist Consensus here is to delist. AIRcorn (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has fallen into disrepair since it became a good article in 2009. It has seen a good deal of content expansion, but without appropriate citations to go with it. Significant amounts of the new content may be WP:OR. Also, the lead goes into too much detail (this may be much more easily fixed than other issues). I am asking for community reassessment because I am a major contributor to the article, and the major contributor who created much of the new content may object to me making a delist decision alone. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delist. Transit Authority of River City does not presently fulfill the following GA Criteria:

• 1B: MOS:LEAD/lead is too detailed, much of this content belongs in the main body of the article if it can be sourced.
• 2B & 2C: original research everywhere - Current bus fleet section:unreferenced. First paragraph in "Fleet" section, many other individual statements: No references.
• 3A: Too much of the stated information & too many of the references are dated - this article is stuck in a 1988/1992/1994/2003/2005/2006/2008 time warp so how can it even begin to address the main and present aspects of the subject?

Shearonink (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ReCore

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

Result: Kept There is nothing stopping the reviewer putting an article they recently passed up for reassessment if they think they made a mistake passing it. The concern raised is fact checking (2b) and since no one else has responded to that issue by saying they have checked the facts (apart from the nominator) I am going to cdeck a few now and then close it. Checked sources are polygon review, Us Gamer, and gamespot. All support the content they are citing. AIRcorn (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to request a community reassessment because I have made a huge mistake during the reviewing of the article (along with others): not fact-checking. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. What exactly are your concerns User:Gamingforfun365?
At first glance it looks as if the WP article might be a copyvio but I think other sites are mirroring Wikipedia. The Youtube commentary/link I found - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZtAmsiteuw states it was written in October 2016 and the WP article was written before that. Here are the results of the Earwig's Copyvio tool. I'm giving it a readthrough and haven't found anything iffy yet... Shearonink (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plot is not a copyvio, there was an edit war over it that resulted in the current text (including a DRN). The primary contributor after that who took it through a Peer Review and then to GAN was @Cognissonance:. I recommend this GAR be closed. A review of the GAR opener's talk page and contributions will show a history of issues with GAN/GAR/FAC. I have every confidence that Cognissonancehas fact checked and met WP:V. -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to know the background. I didn't think anything was a copyvio either, other sites steal Wikipedia content all the time without the required attribution. Off-topic for this Reassessment but I admit I don't understand why the GAR Nominator is nominating so many articles for the Reassessment process... Shearonink (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do what you gotta do, but the sources are good. Cognissonance (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said on one of the other nominations, it remains true that a substandard initial GA review was done by the nominator: that's what is said in the nomination here. In effect, the community needs to do the work that wasn't originally done: to check the facts in the article against the sources to confirm their accuracy. To simply assume that no errors were made, as ferret has recommended on all of these reassessment pages, is simply not appropriate. The article will remain a GA unless issues are found and not fixed; I very much doubt that will be the case. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gamingforfun365: You can close this now. Cognissonance (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gowanus Canal

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

Result: Delist It is not really the purpose of this process to reassess old good articles that the nominator still thinks meet the criteria. The criteria have not changed that much since 2008 and we barely have the volunteer power to assess current ones. Still it is here and has been commented on by editors so we may as well follow though with the reassessment. Unfortunately this must be delisted at this point. There are currently 5 citation needed tags and all are to statements that fall under the 2b criteria. These have been present since the review started and have not been address (the article itself has had only one edit in the last month). AIRcorn (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating the article about Gowanus Canal for Good Article criteria again. The last time it was reviewed was in 2008, wherein it passed the criteria. The article has changed significantly since then. Thus, it should be updated to the 2017 Good Article standards, which is why I am requesting a community assessment. Just to clarify, I want this page's Good Article status to be kept. epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has a copyvio with this site, whole paragraph copied: http://www.gowanuscanal.org/history.html Kees08 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also with this site: nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/as-cleanup-plan-is-set-for-gowanus-canal-violations-continue.html

I am placing the Good Article tools template here so I can more easily see what the possible issues with this article might be. Shearonink (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that didn't work - I'll have to create the tools another way. Shearonink (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. I ran the Checklinks tool on the refs. Some of the refs are no longer valid or aren't completely correct: please see Checklinks. I also ran the copyvio tool. I agree with Kees08, there is a copyright violation with a 2013 New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/as-cleanup-plan-is-set-for-gowanus-canal-violations-continue.html where almost all of a single paragraph is reproduced within the WP article. I did a simple search of the paragraph that appears in the New York Times article:

They are mostly companies and a few government entities like the City of New York and the United States Navy, for ship work that polluted the canal. Many of the original businesses that once operated side by side along the canal have since merged, changed names or moved away, including Brooklyn Union Gas, which eventually rolled into National Grid; Continental Oil; and Standard Oil. When companies have been sold or merged, the successor company as well as the current property owner assume the liability. Companies that produced or transported the hazardous substances are also considered responsible.

The paragraph did not appear in the Wikipedia Gowanus Canal article until after the New York Times published its piece in 2013. (and, yes I did go back and manually check by date)

...like the City of New York and the United States Navy, for ship work that polluted the canal. Many of the original businesses that once operated alongside the canal have since merged, changed names or moved away, including Brooklyn Union Gas, which eventually became a part of National Grid, Continental Oil and Standard Oil. When companies have been sold or merged, the successor company as well as the current property owner assume the liability. Companies that produced or transported the hazardous substances are also considered responsible.

Since the source is clearly-given as the New York Times it would appear to me that the writer-editor neglected to put the New York Times story into their own words rather than running afoul of any copyright issues - I mean, they didn't try to conceal the text appearing in both articles. As Kees08 states above, there is also another issue with the gowanuscanal history website, but in my experience with these types of cases it is usually a case of the other site copying from WP without attribution. Someone who has more technical expertise than myself will have to see which came first, the WP article or the Gowanus Canal History site. In the case of the NY Times article, the apparently plagiarized text has got to go - adjusted, deleted or whatever. It cannot stay in this article - if it does, the article fails #2D of the WP:GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. I admit I am unfamiliar with the usage of the External media template, which places external links within the main article text. It does trouble me that the Lavender Lake link is to the full Alison Prete documentary (can we do that in WP? - link to a full movie?) and the 2 TEDxGowanus links are also to 2 full TED talks, while the other is to a proposed usage of the Canal. I am uncertain as to what exactly these links provide that is not already in the article. I am also concerned that directly linking to the 2 TEDx talks on YouTube - where outside ads appear - creates a somewhat iffy link to outside commercial interests, when the Links appear within the main article text. The Alison Prete documentary is hosted on Vimeo and contains no ads. I am not sure but I do not think it would be as much of an issue if the links were presented within the External links section at the end of the article. Shearonink (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Shearonink: Thank you for the feedback. I will need to fix the links and the copyvio tomorrow. Maybe that "copyvio" could be a failed paraphrase... but in any case, I need to reword. I'll also work on the external ted talks. epicgenius (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My thanks also to Kees08. epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shearonink: Thanks for the question on the External Media template. This is one of those things that goes way, way back on Wikipedia, and IMHO is grossly underused. If Wikipedia is to use video, which is a pervasive modern form of communication, often the only alternative is to use this template. Some basics:

• WP:External links specifically mentions the external media template (see footnote 2) and exempts it from the usual restriction that ex links have to be in the ex links section. The template itself says that it should be used in the body of the text, where the media would be used if there were not copyright restrictions keeping it off of Commons.
• WP:EL also gives as What can normally be linked

"3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" and length or other reasons.

• WP:Video links (an explanatory supplement) also address this and the file size as well

"Because the Commons and Metawiki have a 100MB limit on files some files are added to YouTube for use in Wikipedia that are gathered from United States government sources such as the National Archives by WikiProject FedFlix or other projects. These files can be used on Wikipedia articles if available. ... ((External media)) can be used within the body of an article when media is necessary but not available through free or fair-use rules."

The key restrictions that are on the use of this template are that

• We're not linking to a video that is violating copyright laws
• It's not an advert, promotional. It should be reasonably neutral.

I think these videos all qualify.

Last, we have to say "What does this add to the article?"

IMHO - a huge amount. Most of us don't see sites like this and a simple photo is sorely lacking when we can see the site from multiple angles, at different times of the day, with different affected people explaining their views. If a picture is worth a thousand words, any one of these videos is worth a million.

BTW TEDx talks are a pretty common use of this templet. Imagine seeing a simple photo, then add on a 1 minute voice recording. That tells you a lot about the person. Now compare that to a video showing them walk, talk, and maybe even chew gum for 15 minutes, propounding on a topic that they are passionate about, and which they a considered an expert on. No contest is there?

Hope this helps.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adolf Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch

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

Result: Kept The main reason to delist was the broad criteria and these appeared valid. The page move has fixed that issue enough to satisfy the GA criteria. The list of issues provided by Smerus include reasons not covered by the criteria such as notability, stabilty which is not a good reason to delist any article and others relating to the previous title. At its current title it is of a sufficient standard to qualify as a GA. AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm asking for a community re-assessment of this GA. The recent AfD revealed that this article does not cover most of the subject's life and is in fact focused on Hitler's infatuation with her. I posit that this article is not Broad in its coverage as required. Because I voted delete in that AfD I imagine my objectivity would be questioned so I'll leave it to the disinterested community. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not a good article. It is a highly problematic article, based almost entirely on the late-life memoir of a childhood associate of Hitler with all the usual difficulty of the unreliability of childhood memory compounded by the complexity of a Hitler associate writing in a post-war world that disapproved of Hitler and Nazism. Almost all of the other sources are the work of writers basing their assessments on that unreliable memoir. As far as I can tell, no evidence that a relationship between Rabatsch exists, and even the memoir claims only that Hitler admired the girl form afar without ever speaking to her. I voted to redirect to the article on the memoirist at the AFD, to at least put this mountain of footnoted speculation in context.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I see no particular reason to reassess the article. It is indeed mainly about the young Hitler's infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch and scholarly opinions about the infatuation rather than about Stefanie herself, for whom biographical details are scanty. It is broad in its coverage of the infatuation, reflecting what a wide variety of sources have said without going into unnecessary detail. I suppose the article could be renamed something like "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch", but that would be silly. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The article fails significantly on a number of issues as regards the GA criteria.

It is not well-written. Clumsy , repetitive, including in the texts long lists of people who may have commented on the story without adding anything to our knowledge of the subject. It does not make absolutely clear that not a single aspect of the story has any supporting evidence apart from the unreliable memoirs of a third party written many years after the alleged events concerned. And more specifically, the article is entitled 'Stefanie Rabatsch' but contains startlingly little information about her which is reliably sourced. In fact on strict criteria, the subject of the article fails WP:NOTABLE.

Verifiability - the whole article is structured around a story (by Kubizek) which no one has ever been able to verify except by reference to Kubizek himself. Rabatsch is on record as saying that she had no knowledge of Hitler's supposed infatuation with her. Hitler is no evidenced as ever having mentioned Rabatsch (except by Kubizek). It seems agreed that Hitler and Rabatsch never even exchanged a single word.

Broad in its coverage - it is not. it is entirely concerned with one aspect of the subject's life, for which there is no objective evidence.

Neutral. No. By simply listing lots of people (some of whom of doubtful significance as reliable commentators) who advance Kubizek's story, it implies that it has some basis.

Stable - it has not been stable over the past few weeks as editors (including Aymatth2 and, I admit myself), seek to add or remove material which they believe to be appropriate or inappropriate. In any event it is now substantially different from its status when it was originally awarded GA.

Images. The images illustrating the article do not have appopriate copyright status and/or fair use rationales.

Therefore comprehensive fail as regards GA standards, and the article should be delisted as a GA. Smerus (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The article is certainly not a comprehensive biography of Stefanie Rabatsch. Relatively little is known about her, and she did nothing of any particular significance. The article is about Kubizek's story of Hitler's infatuation and the interpretations of that story by historians. It makes it very clear that the only basis for the story is Kubizek, writing long after the event, and that some historians are skeptical about its accuracy or its relevance. The article does a good job of presenting the scanty biographical information on Stefanie, presenting a summary of Kubizek's story, and presenting a neutral sample of the diverse views of historians. Again, the article could be renamed something like "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stefanie Rabatsch", but a change of title should not change the quality assessment. The present short title, "Stefanie Rabatsch", is the most natural. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you agree (as seems to be the case) that it is not a bio, then I would suggest that the material in the aeticle might have a place in an article such as Fantasies given circulation by August Kubizek. But in any case your concession indicates that it cannot qualify as a GA. Smerus (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This article presents a notable subject, the alleged infatuation, which has been discussed by many reputable historians. It gives an excellent overview of the subject and the views of the many historians who have written about it. Yes, the biographical material on the supposed target is slim. Yes, Kubizek's story has been questioned. It does make the young Hitler seem a bit ridiculous. None of this means it is impossible to write a good article about the subject. "Flat Earth" could be made into a good article. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: My main issue with this article is that it is not actually a WP:BIO. The overwhelming majority of the content is about: *Scholarly reactions and *Kubizek's Hitler book and *not about the stated subject of the article. Also, the images are problematic - they are both sourced from the "1973 Austro-German television documentary called, "Ein junger Mann aus dem Innviertel, Der junge Adolf Hitler"." A couple of issues: *neither image is a verified/confirmed photo of the woman and *both images were contained in a media-production from 1973 so there could possibly be a copyright problem (since the photos weren't published in any sense until 1973). Shearonink (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Shearonink: It is indeed not a bio, but I cannot think of a good alternative title. I think WP:PRECISE is the guideline. Any suggestions? As for the pictures, the first one is fair use, since the subject is no longer living, but perhaps the second should be removed. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the very least the article should be given a different title, something along the lines of "Hitler's alleged infatuation with Stephanie Rabatsch" - that is as to the point as we could probably get.

This article is not actually about the woman, it's about matters having nothing to do with her actual life, it's about theories based on a recollection about an asserted teenage infatuation that wasn't referenced in public form until Kubizek mentioned it vaguely in his 1938 Nazi propaganda booklet Reminiscences...some 30 years after the alleged facts, that Hitler loved some girl named Stefanie, supposedly writing her many love poems that were never sent.

Re: the images - So far as I know there is no stated reliable source verification that either photo is of Rabatsch. Shearonink (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about "Hitler and Stephanie Rabatsch"? That seems precise enough to identify the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. The title does not have to be a summary. If ZDF and ORF say the picture is of Rabatsch, that is surely as reliable as it gets. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was mistaken and mis-read the parameters for the File - you are correct. Shearonink (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aymatth2, Shearonink, I'm moving the article to "Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch", since "Stephanie" is not how her name is spelled in the article. This will, I expect, heal the break with this reassessment page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I agree in principle with your move, but to conform to WP standards the article should be entitled Adolf Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch (see here for examples of other articles involving Adolf Hitler) - will you move it again, or shall I? In fact I wonder now whther it would not be better to consider a merge of this article with Sexuality of Adolf Hitler - as the content of the present article 'Hitler and Stefanie Rabatsch' is actually very slight, and is only in fact of any interest in the consext of the sexuality article. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smerus, my move was only made to correct the spelling of "Stefanie", which was rendered incorrect in Aymatth2's move. I've had nothing to do with the article myself beyond that. If you feel that a different title better meets Wikipedia guidelines, I don't see any reason not to move it to that name, though let us know here so I can again do the necessary repairs to keep this page connected with the article talk page. If you want to open a merge discussion, that's also fine with me; among other things, if the consensus turns out to be merge, then this reassessment becomes moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aymatth2:, @Shearonink:, is my proposed retitling OK with you? And do you by the way have any feelings about my suggested merge? Best, Smerus (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smerus:. Titles should be precise enough to identify article scope, but no more precise. Adding "Adolf" seems over-precise. Were other Hitlers involved with Stefanie Rabatsch? But I would not strongly object. I would oppose a merge proposal. The supposed infatuation is mentioned the article on Sexuality of Adolf Hitler, as are the other women he was linked with. Merging in all the material on these women would make the Sexuality article very unbalanced. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia for an article devoted to this mildly ridiculous aspect of Hitler's adolescence. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is for the same reason that the article Adolf Hitler is not titled simply 'Hitler', although we all known who that would refer to. As you imply, the subject of this article is really Hitler (and people's theories and/or fantasies about him), rather than Rabatsch.--Smerus (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I have a lot of experience with Good and Featured articles. In my opinion this article looks sufficient and has acceptable coverage for GA. The Scholarly reactions section demonstrates notability, making it unfeasible to merge into Sexuality of Hitler article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old Tjikko

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

Result: Kept Identified issues have been fixed. AIRcorn (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of things:

• This article was passed to GA status in 2009, information about "World's Oldest Trees" (clonal or not) have probably changed in the intervening 8 years, and the article probably needs to be updated (also because the tree was discovered in 2008). In any case, it seems to me that the article could use some fresh eyes.
• Ref #7 has gone dead (though I did go over the present references, they seem ok but some refs erroneously state this tree is "the oldest tree".

It's at this location in the Telegraph archive. I've replaced it. The 'oldest tree' claim remains on the national parks of Sweden website. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There is an unreferenced statement (under "Access") about the path & park rangers.

Removed, updated from national parks of Sweden site. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Previous researchers" not specifically borne out by cited reference.

Shearonink (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed. I must say I'm surprised an article is brought in for reassessment for such trivial reasons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a Greal Big Article like some around here but I thought it deserved some attention and editing. Perhaps I have a different view of GAR than some - I see an article on the GAR list and think "Gee, it was written quite a while ago, the GA Review was several years back, I don't have time at the moment to fix everything, but maybe someone else around here does. Let's see if we can work together to fix this up." I don't see a GAR as a punishment but as an acknowledgment that maybe an article could do with some freshening up - that's all. I'd like to point out that this article was on the "articles needing possible reassessment" list since 2014 and I thought it could maybe use some help. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shearonink, "couple" = 2 :-) Just wanted you to know that I'd gotten your message, but I'm not clear why you notified me, since I'm not involved in any projects that pay attention to trees in Sweden. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I know... It's because part of the instructions for starting a GAR (I'm trying to do things around here according to Hoyle & WP) says to notify WikiProjects and past editors and you were among the Top Ten contributors (yes, you only had 2 edits but you're still active and many of the other Top Ten have gone MIA/haven't edited in several/couple of years). That's all. Thanks for checking in. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demi Lovato

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

Result': Kept Sourcing concerns looks to have been sorted. Just a few notes on sources to anyone watching this. Sources aren't automatically unreliable (even the daily mail despite some reports). It all depends on context and what information they are used to support. For example an official tweet is perfectly reliable for the content of that tweet. Whether this is important enough for us to mention is another issue and something that may need stronger secondary sources to help decide. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting this up for community GAR because I've tried to improve this article in the past, but it seems to have deteriorated over time, and I'm not so sure it's worthy of being a GA anymore. Details to follow. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are some issues I find:

• Prose: I've seen better. For example, "cracked" in "cracked the top 40" might not be the best tone. Also, the 2011–2012 section just jumps into "That month, Lovato also announced her departure from Sonny with a Chance" without any context. "The song also Lovato's highest-peaked single" seems like it's missing the word "because". For, "his fourth studio album, entitled 'Up'", the album should be italicized. On the other hand, tour names shouldn't be italicized. Additionally, the sentence "The entertainer has agreed to write a memoir, which is expected to be published in 2014" is clearly outdated when it's now 2017.
• Referencing: There's a bunch of dead links, and many subpar sources such as Twitter, YouTube, "HealthyCeleb.com", Fox News, Refinery29, "Ocean Up", MySpace, Zap2It, TMZ, Daily Mail, Us Weekly, Gossip Cop, and "Crushable". Not so sure about things like "OVGuide", "Disney Dreaming", "Sugar Slam" "Family History Insider", Cambio, or "Family Tree Maker". The article is missing citations for "The album's second and final single, 'Remember December' failed to match the success of its predecessor, but it peaked at number 80 on the UK Singles Chart" as well as the entire "Awards and nominations" section.
• Coverage: Another major concern. There's nothing on the lyrical themes of her albums within "Artistry" or any general comments on her songwriting (whether from critics or Demi herself). Furthermore, aside from the Camp Rock movies, this article doesn't say much about her films; the only other production she appears in that's even mentioned within article prose is the documentary Demi Lovato: Stay Strong. I also am surprised this doesn't go into tour earnings, and that the "voice" section doesn't have any criticisms when she's not overall held in globally high regard.
• Neutrality: Given the above note on (lack of) criticisms, it's probably undue weight to solely have "voice" contain positive comments.
• Stability: Seems OK to me.
• Media: No copyright concerns as far as I can tell, though File:Demi Lovato crop.jpg and File:DemiLovatoSep10 4.jpg aren't really ideal when they somewhat block her face.

Overall, this article doesn't seem up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. The references really are a mess - 11 are dead, #42 redirects to something completely different (I guess absolute punk.net doesn't exist any more?...), #54 is unknown, #13 is absolutely not a reliable source and it doesn't back up the statement it is attached to. For a WP:BLP, I find the state of the referencng in this article to be very troubling. Also, re: the lead section/MOS issues - is it necessary to list all those awards? Shearonink (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update. All the dead URLs have been fixed, I think. The questionable source remains. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing dead links, and yes; there are still many subpar sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't there some guideline which allows Twitter and YouTube to be used as sources? I see them on many GAs, and they seem acceptable. Read a GA review at one point which mentioned a WP Policy statement regarding this type of media, but I forget the subject which was being reviewed and I don't remember the shortcut. This instance may well fail that guideline anyway. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:SOCIALMEDIA says things like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr can be used in limited circumstances (i.e. non-contentious claims) while WP:YOUTUBE says to take caution for copyright concerns. Overall, both sites are discouraged as citations, especially when credible third-party sources can be used in place. In any case, I wouldn't recommend using them here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replaced one Daily Mail citation with a cite to Variety. There still remains another cite to Daily Mail which is trickier. The quote was apparently published in Latina magazine but I can find no reliable source with that online. I would think one could cite directly to the magazine, but as I have not seen the actual magazine, I am hesitant to do so.

I'll continue to try and improve the sourcing because I do think the issues with this article are fixable and it's always a good idea to try and fix problems with Good Articles. Some of the source may not be that bad. My understanding is that some sources should be evaluated on a case by case basis whereas the Daily Mail has been disallowed totally. Also, I think it might be worthwhile to post directly to the article talk page with some of the ideas that need to be expanded upon the the article. I know it's not required, but given that the article has over 800 watchers, an extra nudge or two might be helpful. Knope7 (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another question: Perhaps it's because I've never tried this, but do you have a reason why Fox News is not RS? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because they're known to often distort things with their bias (particularly political subjects). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this for your left political standpoint, or would you say so with other more liberal publications as well? I don't see many of either side. I mean, yes, you're right, sometimes FOX does distort things, but maybe first we should see if any of the material in that calls for a reasonable amount of doubt. It is a major news feed. Perhaps you could refer me to another discussion on this matter rather than this GAR, if one exists? Is said instance a political article cited in a musician's article on Wikipedia? That sounds bizarre at first thought, but I'll read up on it later. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say other liberal publications (particularly things like MSNBC and Huffington Post) also often distort things with their biases. It has nothing to do with my personal affiliations (though for the record, I'm more central ground than right wing or left wing). Anyway, I'm not sure I'd quite call it Daily Mail-level bad (which is notorious for fabrication as noted on RSN), but it's far from the strongest publication available and not something I'd recommend either way. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree if this were an article about politicians, but for an article about a singer/actress, I'm less concerned about Fox's typical bias. Maybe if the topic is her political views I would be more critical, but for example footnote 213 links to a Fox News article quoting Lovato's own words about being bipolar. With reliability, we are supposed to look at the likelihood that something is fact checked and accurate. I think this is an example where we can rely on Fox. That generally goes along with what I am finding when checking some of the sources in this article, that even if the website wouldn't be an appropriate source at all times, it's reliable for it's use. Knope7 (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twitter

Okay, so I've looked around to try and eliminate Twitter first as long as there are other sources which are deemed reliable. Replaced one already. About the one in Kenya: I have found several sources, but I don't know which ones would be acceptable. I have brought them here. [6] [7] [8] The reason I'm unsure is because I've never heard of these sources before, but look legit. What say you guys? If this won't do, it looks like it might meet WP:SOCIALMEDIA, but I'd rather replace it. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't comment on Borgen Magazine since I'm not familiar with that, but MTV is definitely viable here and what I'd recommend the most from those three. PR Newswire is a press release site that might be fine for non-contentious claims, but secondary sources are preferable when available. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]