Archive 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 65) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 63) →

Atrocities in the Congo Free State

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No consensus to delist. The discussion is too scarce and evenly divided. ∯WBGconverse 06:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has been tagged with neutrality concerns since December 2016. The talk page is a mess to follow, but looking at the article I noticed some Red Flags. I detailed them at the talk page a month ago, but have got no responses. Hence I am bringing it here for reassessment.

From the talk page

The above is a mess to read and follow, in part due to the strange formatting, in part due to the length and in part due to the off topic nature. RFC is mentioned multiple times, but I can't find any correctly formatted or closed one. I would like to resolve the tag or delist the article. I do think there are issues with using Belgian scholars to source information on the Congo. This may be resolved by attributing this. The Much of the violence perpetrated in the Congo was inflicted on Africans by other Africans being the obvious one, but there are other occasions where there seems to be a softening of the blame (i.e. where it says The practice was comparatively common in colonial Africa). Then you have sentences like Some have argued that the atrocities in the Free State qualify as a genocide although the term's use is disputed by most academics which are a red flag for original research. I don't think the article is particularly unsalvageable, but for a article on a topic like this it needs to be very careful on how information is presented, especially if we are calling it Good.


I feel it needs more than just myself to judge the neutrality hence the community review instead of an individual one AIRcorn (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has an individual reassessment tag on the talk page but that links to the GA review of 2016. Should that tag be there? Additionally the RfC seem pertinent now that there has been a page move and a undoing of that page move today. With admittedly an incomplete read of everything I am seeing enough red flags, as noted above, to suggest delist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I undid the page move because I did not think it reflected consensus and because the term "crimes against humanity" did not exist until after the initiation of atrocities (though actually coined because of them). I've also added some additional info from a macro history by Timothy J. Stapleton which I think helps to balance out the genocide section. I wouldn't go for a delist yet, as I think the slant in this article can be fixed. For the record, I was a participant in the original "RfC", mostly a mess of a discussion incited by an editor who refused to utilize normal Wikipedia conversation mechanics. The reason why it never truly resolved was due to the banning of the initiating editor, a cautiousness towards tweaking the controversial content, and an eventual decline in interest. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what I can to tweak the genocide to stuff to be more true to the sources and I've added some information. As such, I think we should keep the article listed as GA. Others may feel free to disagree with me, but do know that I'll be available to improve the article if they have specific suggestions. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel there are numerous issues with various parts (sample problem line: A reduction of the population of the Congo is noted by all who have compared the country at the beginning of Leopold's control with the beginning of Belgian state rule in 1908, but estimates of the death toll vary considerably. which is meant as a summary of the section to come but is a statement bold enough that it needs reworking) and think the LEAD is need of revision. This beyond the sort of detailed examination of sources that is beyond my capacity to do tat this time. I still do not feel that it meets criteria. ​Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Met Gala

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Ocean's 8 on a plane this weekend. It's a major Hollywood picture based largely on the Met Gala, and it's not mentioned in this article. This is a short article for such a publicized event. There's a one paragraph lead that doesn't sum up the article and three paragraphs of it are "controversy" (see WP:CSECTION). The article is a third as long as the Ocean 8 article and hasn't been updated since it was promoted to GA four years ago. Also, the red carpet is a big deal, and we have no pictures of the event? This article fails WP:GAC #s 3 and 6. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree, this page needs a lot of work. It's not broad enough in its coverage and doesn't properly convey just how major an event this is. Ohwowchow (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened in over a month, and I think that's a fair amount of time. I'm delisting this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caesium fluoride

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted Lead in particular, but there may be other issues AIRcorn (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged with a maintenance template thus I don't think it qualifies for a WP:GA. I'd love a neutral party to reassess it. Was first given GA status in 2005 and reassessed in 2007. Think it is time to re-check. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Ratajkowski

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept First off I want to acknowledge that there are issues with this article and that they should not be ignored. However delisting requires issues related to the criteria. The prose issues listed are really quite nitpicky and are clear and concise enough. Neutrality concerns are more concerned with the uses of nudity and sexuality in the article, but don't say why this makes the article non-neutral. If mentions of her in reliable sources talk about her nudity and sexuality then it would not be non-neutral of us not too. Citation overkill is a problem, but not a GA issue and not necessarily original research. Focus is probably the strongest case for delisting. However, the article is not overly long and nothing mentioned is not related to Ratajkowski. Meeting the GA criteria is not particularly onerous and it has not been convincingly demonstrated that this fails it. AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I’m proposing delisting this article, Emily Ratajkowski, from Good Article status until further notice because I see a lot of issues here: original research, promotional tone, and citation overkill are chief among them.Trillfendi (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From a glance, I can't find any text missing citations. Can you list some specific examples of original research? It would especially help for anybody else reading this GAR looking for ways to improve the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One example, which I removed before listing this article (maybe I should put it back), was someone doing original research to find an acting role she did as a child. They made a note of it between citations. I also believe a lot of info about her mother possibly contains original research.Trillfendi (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean this "Elsa" role, then good removal. Whoever inserted that didn't even really try to properly cite it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I'd say this is ludicrously over-cited—this biography of a very minor figure has more citations than Spain, Elizabeth II or United States Army. I agree it's bloated, promotional, and overly long, but I can't actually see which of the GA criteria it's actually failing. ‑ Iridescent 02:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, it’s failing in neutrality, verifiability without original research, and being well written.Trillfendi (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is definitely subpar. Here are some examples of tone I found that come off as promotional:

Feel free to list any other problematic instances you spot. That's not even delving far into sheer quality of writing. I also feel including File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg is borderline promoting Treats! and the caption for File:Emily Ratajkowski.jpg doesn't really need to talk about what the photo shoot was for, simply a year is sufficient. Do we REALLY need to advertise her bags with File:20180220 Emily Bags at Bloomies at 900 North Michigan Avenue.jpg? Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are other instances that I had noticed that I believe may be original research about her early life (and it isn’t even about her): this book and this obituary which I’m quite certain we’re not allowed to use but then again it might be considered public record. If someone can find more independent, reliable sources then I strongly recommend that her mother and father have their own respective articles. I had also removed a statement about her childhood that was sourced with what looks like absolute gibberish.Trillfendi (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, certainly; just skimming the lead there's a glaring piece of original research in "British American" in the infobox. Britain doesn't have Jus soli unless at least one parent already had either British citizenship or Indefinite Leave to Remain, and there's no indication that either was the case. (Given the dual taxation issues it would be unlikely someone at her presumed level of earnings would maintain dual citizenship even if she did qualify to apply for British citizenship.) ‑ Iridescent 09:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know this article clearly has a feminist agenda (on the neutrality front) but I struggle to understand how over 20 mentions about nudity and over 20 mentions about sexuality are encyclopedic. Many fashion models pose nude just as often as her without an eyelash batted. As an editor, my niche is fashion model articles and I can’t recall seeing nudity even mentioned once in any other model’s Wikipedia article. Ratajkowski is not a human sexuality scholar, expert, or doctor, so why are her views on the subject taken as such in this article? She has more citations about her sexuality views than actual professionals who have written medical journals on it! (Look at pages in the Sex educators category to see what I mean) Trillfendi (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prime example of the absurd level of link rot:
When someone went out of their way to find information about her family without giving independent, reliable sources—it’s original research. So I’m not going to sit here and watch you try to justify it or change the meaning of original research. Common sense! And don’t try to deflect your logical fallacies toward me; who cares about my “credibility” when I’m not a professional biographer, I’m just a person who sees issues with this article and brought them up. Since you’re so personally in it then address it!Trillfendi (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The content that seems to be at issue has WP:ICs from WP:RS, which is the point.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then why reinsert original research? Unnecessary.Trillfendi (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to talk to you. You have been on WP for nearly 5 years but only have about 3000 edits and seem not to understand anything. When I say it is content that has WP:ICs from WP:RS, that means it is not WP:OR. Please learn what OR is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your lack of communcation skills are for you to address within yourself. I’ve been on Wikipedia “5 years” (4 years since you’re counting) because I began making random edits in 2014 and 2015. If you care so much, evidently you do to have looked at the contributions, I didn’t give a crap whatsoever about editing until mid-2016 that’s why there are only ~3,000 edits. I don’t consecrate my life to Wikipedia to have made over 369,000 edits 🙄. Now, I had clearly pointed out, and someone else concurred, that searching obituaries to find family information related to her grandma, an obituary Emily is not even mentioned in, and looking for books (one that is impossible to otherwise find unless they took her class) that were NOT referenced in previously stated citations could constitute original research; let alone the fact that the article is not about them. I also recommended creating separate pages for Dr. Kathleen Balgley and John Ratajkowski with some of the information given and to find reliable sources for other info. And I already said I had removed some citations because of the very reason you mentioned, inline citations and reliable sources, so we really don’t need 3:1 for somebody’s name and ethnicity. Stop trying to make this about me. If that early life section looked more like how it did in 2014-mid 2018 there wouldn’t be an issue to speak of. It was IP,IP, and IP users who made those edits so I don’t get why you’re the one getting so defensive about a page you don’t own. (That LA Confidential source was sufficient).Trillfendi (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the presentation of diff links in this comment are the proper way to show diffs. this is edit is not so bad. Obituaries are considered reliable sources for some facts, but not others because of the reduced editorial procedures. I am not so high on the blockquote, but could take or leave the additional citation content. this content is not something I would pursue, but if we have it, it is a positive rather than a negative. this content is borderline excessive. However, it is encyclopedic content in the article for the mother if someone wants to create that. I am not sure if it would pass WP:GNG however. Finding WP:RS is never considered WP:OR no matter how WP:CRUFTy the content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what content you think fails WP:V.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen other articles reject obituaries of grandparents. Anywho, I'm going to keep pointing it out. You cannot find this kind of information about her ancestry without unmitigated original research. Point blank. Someone even went looking back to the 1800s A substantial amount of information about her mother is already in that New York Times piece, and that's really all we need to know isn't it. Being a Fulbright scholar is admirable, I get it, but why are people searching deep through the bowels of Al Gore's Internet for her schoolbooks (unless they took her class; a book not mentioned in any of those citations at all), what dates she taught classes, and her ancestors etc. Her CV shouldn't take up a section about her daughter, that doesn't happen in any other article. Emily simply said "she's an English professor" and it should just be left at that. Example: If you look at Gisele Bündchen's early life, her father is also a professor but there aren't any excruciating details. She's the most famous Brazilian export next to cane sugar but even Brazilian media don't go this far even when they interview him. When you google "Margaret Balgley" you get 21 results of private information.Trillfendi (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could go either way on the obit content. If you really care you can chop that, but I would rather a third party other than you or I give an opinion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article definitely does not meet GA standards; to be frank, it resembles an obsessive fan page rather than an encyclopedia article. For one, it's way too long and detailed. It seems to list every single thing that this person has ever done, without any consideration for what is relevant. Furthermore, one gets the impression that Ratajkowski is a major figure in Western culture, instead of a model/social media influencer/starlet that has garnered some media attention in the previous five years and is mostly remembered as the girl in the "Blurred Lines" video. The language of the article is weasel-y and nowhere near neutral. Looking at TonyTheTiger's previous interactions regarding this article and his replies here, it does not seem that he handles criticism well. My suggestion would be to not only downgrade the article, but for TonyTheTiger to take a break from editing it and allow neutral editors to heavily edit it to meet encyclopedic standards. Quality, not quantity is the key word here. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

As a outside observer and one who does not wish to engage in anything further then this comment; it seems like the problem people have is with the subject themselves and their personal opinion that her status in culture does not require a full biography. People have to face the fact that "social media" people are the "it group" of this century. It's all just nitpicking. The nom even reveals bias in their obsession with her feminist views; it's frankly insulting to suggest that her views or work should not deserve adequate information. Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin's articles can be nitpicked in the same exact way. How are you supposed to build a adequate article on a 21st century figure with these types of critiques? Are they supposed to be stubs until the 23rd century? How was Marilyn's playboy photoshoot included in her article for some time without the controversy that the Treats photoshoot got? Oh yeah, perceived historicity by the reflection of time; it's not ludicrous to treat modern subjects with the same detail as long dead people. People like PewDiePie, Kim Kardashian, Jenna Jameson, Miranda Kerr, Conor McGregor, Avicii, and Nicki Minaj and their respective fields are going to be the seen as representative of this century and it's reductive to say participants of such are not allowed to be anything other then a stub while "neutral" editors can fix it. You could nitpick anything; let's use Monroe; without the hyper sensationalism and tabloid coverage of her; she's only a popular actress who worked for a decade as top billing; why is her article so detailed? All because Bündchens article sucks should not mean anything either. To call this page a obsessive fanpage is flat out insulting to the editors who have tried their best with what they had. GuzzyG (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GuzzyG: I have no problem with her feminist views (newsflash, I consider myself one too and I’m not “obsessed” with anything about her unlike this TonytheTiger character who... well it goes without saying. But I wouldn’t even point that out. I’ve probably made less than 5 edits to this article at all. Taking 5 seconds to point out something isn’t an obsession.) or her status in Hollywood. I’ve been knowing who she was since her iCarly days, that has nothing to do with how I perceive this article lacking in “good article” quality for the reasons I stated at the jump. (Side note:Take a look at the Talk page and Archive 1, you will see people from months or years ago pointing out exactly the type of problems I did). After a few paragraphs or so, if you actually read this thing, it couldn’t be more apparent. As I had said, take a look at Emma Watson and see how it’s written objectively on that subject. Then compare. I’m willing to at least attempt to address the many issues on this article but clearly it will be rebuffed because the “obsessed” people think they have a copyright the article. I said nothing of the quality of Bündchen’s article, I said that people don’t go through incredible lengths for her family’s employment history when the article is about her and her modeling career. For the majority of this article’s history these problems weren’t even there and it wasn’t a stub. She doesn’t need tabloid coverage for an article when she is probably the only model of this generation to have her career even chronicled in depth by the New York Times (after only her first big job).Trillfendi (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same merry-go-round again. People point out major flaws in the article, and get accused of hating the subject. The issues don't get solved due to a couple of editors not understanding the difference between an encyclopedia and a fan site, and how the writing style, research and choices on what to include are different between those two formats. Please have a look at the numerous peer reviews and featured article candidacies that this article has gone through. I'm not even going to get deep into this as I know some people do not want to accept criticism but only see it as a personal attack, this is useless and quite frankly one of the reasons why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
@TrueHeartSusie3: Anyone who tried to contact her modeling agency and tried to get her a featured article “for her birthday” or anyone thinks her “hotness” prevents her from having a quality article can’t really see this objectively. One could only hope that whoever closes and demotes this does, because it could not possibly be more blatant.Trillfendi (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sad but true... Either we're anti-feminist (funny given that both of us list being feminist in our profiles...) or we hate Ratajkowski or don't wish her to have an informative article. Or we're supposedly just talking about the inclusion of one image ('cos we are prudes). The discussion about the actual flaws in the article is always directed elsewhere. Sigh. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
You just don’t get it do you,@TonyTheTiger:, but you wouldn’t because you’re still blinded by your obsession of her that you can’t see what we see, Mr. I Tried 5 Times to Get Her a Featured Article for Her Birthday, To No Avail. No one says you haven’t “worked hard” on this article, so here’s a pat on the head. I thought we were all over this by now being as it’s been a month. I never even said anything against the New York Times article (learn to fucking read), in fact I said not many models of this generation even get that kind of article from them (it was a compliment...) and that a substantial amount of information about her early life is in that article. Now please show me where I implied that I “know better” than the New York Times based on their reporting. Feel free to type in New York Times and find my comment if that helps. Trillfendi (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trillfendi, I read your comment as meaning you don't think she deserved to be in the NYT after only one big job. Full stop.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger:, it's good that you're admitting that this is not the first time you've run into such issues, I respect that. The issue is that you're not collecting/preserving these details in the right format. A general encyclopedia that tries to cover every subject in the world isn't for that, here each article should focus on giving general overviews of the topic and highlighting only the important events and subjects related to the topic. It means that a lot of material gets left out. The audience we're writing for isn't the fan or expert of topic X, it's for the person who's heard of a topic and doesn't have a lot of prior information on it; they come here to get an overview. Instead, I suggest that you start a blog or a personal website, or collaborate with people who are already running such for the people you're interested in. In those formats, your interest in finding and retaining so much detail would be gold. The audience for those would also be different, you'd be writing for people who want to know everything on a subject rather than just the basics.
As it has been mentioned, the reason why the two bios I've worked on that are FA's (Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Chaplin) might seem so detailed at first glance is that not only do they cover a long time (88 years for Chaplin, 60+ of which he was internationally famous) and the subjects are key figures in 20th century popular culture, who continue to have major impact and interest both to academics and the general public even today. Further trimming is always something I'm interested in as readability is a priority, but trust me, I've left out a lot of information. Take a look at any biography or fan website and you see, the articles really focus on the main bits. Had I listed everything that happened in these people's public lives, we'd need an entire encyclopedia for each of them. What remains is material that explains key issues, nothing more. The problem with Em Rata's article is that it lists everything that has happened so far in her public life, with little consideration for whether all that material needs to be there.
However, the very main difference between the MM/CC articles and Ratajkowski is that the former are in the past, and Ratajkowski is a present public figure who has been famous for less than ten years. We cannot retain all possible information in the article just because it might be important in the future; we have no crystal ball, and Wikipedia most certainly isn't in the business of making such predictions. It may be that Ratajkowski stays famous for the next 50 years and will be seen as a major public figure in 21st century pop culture, or it might be that she's seen as a model who had some fame in 2010s and was in a controversial music video. We don't know yet, and her current status does not suggest that she should have a very long article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
TrueHeartSusie3, I will probably always find myself on the liberal end of content inclusion. I spend a lot of time writing newish subjects of notability. I spent a lot of time detailing such subjects in the first half of this decade. As noted above, many have had issue with me over prior articles. The most storied one is Jabari Parker. His popularity peak was at about the same time as EmRata's. In 2012 and 2013, the year he graduated high school, he got more pageviews than 4 NBA All-Stars for the 2012–13 NBA season and 4 NBA All-Stars for the 2013–14 NBA season (one of the four was redundant in each count, so seven unique individuals). He had only 5.7% fewer pageviews than the 2012-13 NBA Rookie of the Year Damian Lillard. He was on the cover of Sports Illustrated as a high school junior. I had a lot of fun cramming facts in his article. The masses have since spoken against my efforts. This is similar to what is happening with EmRata here who was quite topical around the same time. Other editors may impose standards different than my own on the article at some point. My FA experience in terms of bios is mostly sports figures (Juwan Howard, Tyrone Wheatley, Tommy Amaker) and a politician (Richard Cordray). The sports figures were had almost all completed their athletic careers by the time I got them to FA (Howard retired a few months later and Amaker is retired player who is a coach). They were at very different stages of their careers than Parker or Ratajkowski. You are being generous in the continuing possibility that EmRata is to be a major public figure in 21st century pop culture. 3 straight direct to video movies is sort of an answer to that possibility. The long and the short of it is that I have not been able to calibrate my summarizing secondary sources for newish topics to a level of detail that other editors seem to want to support. I continue to think I am summarizing RS with relevant content. I will probably forever continue to disagree with others about this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it is crystal clear to anyone who comes across this reassessment and/or decides to join: please understand this article is being proposed for demotion primarily because of original research, citation overkill, promotional prose, and neutrality. Before the cereal guy decided to turn it into a personal indictment on his life's work, that's what we were discussing. I have given numerous examples on those subjects. This need for reassessment is not about what I, or any of us, think about Emily Ratajkowski, her looks, her career, her family, her political beliefs, etc. It's not about who has a master's degree in Emily studies. It's certainly not about which publication writes about her. It's about the current quality of the article, nothing more and nothing less. (And maybe if this page had a protection level most of these problems wouldn't be here.) Trillfendi (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make it clear that i sympathize with both sides to this. I can see the hard work Tony has put in only to be discredited as an obsessive fan (could be said about any FA editor) but also i do agree with the fact that most of the biographical details in the article are obscure in nature and not widely reported. To be clear i was not diminishing Susie's work either, i think the Chaplin and Monroe articles are very good work and so is the work done on the Frida Kahlo page. I want to make it clear i am also not an editor of this page. My interest is in the question of how are we going to accurately create articles on current pop culture figures or figures associated with social media/reality television or any field i have listed above and make them FA quality when they lack the historical lens ala people like Monroe. The PewDiePie article is another one with GA status that someone might view as overly detailed. The biggest thing wrong with this article is the "media image" section, we don't have to include every journalists name and the section is way too focused on unimportant media beauty lists. The problem here is there's no academic assessment or proper biographical coverage of Em Rata and so this article does seem to grab at anything just to have something to have in it. This page does come across as moving rapidly between "she did this, now she did this" which does come across as more of a fan page then encyclopedic prose; i think this page could be written as more of a general overview rather as listing specific instances as has been said above. Regarding the Monroe article; it is over the top that Em Rata's page is 170,643 bytes and the FA Monroe article is 122,766 bytes which makes it clear this article probably should be edited down a bit. Articles like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Taylor Swift have the same type of problem though; it's just impossible to get a well written biography of someone who has not been extensively researched and who has a active career and in that case this article is not that unlike others of it's kind. GuzzyG (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if other pages aren't perfect with regard to such sections (which I've elsewhere seen referred to as "public image" or "in the media"), I concur that the "Media image" is quite bloated here. It should overall focus on her public perception more than her own thoughts. I would take the following out from it:
  • We Are Your Friends reviews would be better for "Breakthrough" if anywhere as those pertain to her performance in the movie instead of her overall image
  • The Lenny Letter paragraph because it is more about Ratajkowski's personal thoughts/experiences than how the public perceives her
  • Defending Melania Trump; not related to her image at all
Maybe more will come to mind later, but those are definite issues with the section. I overall say delist per this, the issues I mentioned above, and subpar sources (i.e. Stylecaster.com, Cinemablend.com, Daily Mirror, Askmen, Page Six, The Daily Beast, Us Weekly). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a decision has been made we can finally fix the useless fat of this article and hopefully it will stay that way. Start with these unreliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It became personal when you took it there, attacking me for simply for pointing things out. Everybody else has seen this GAR for what it is since the jump. The issues are obvious. Everyone is in consensus on that subject, especially the citation parts. Since this thing is technically still open, Aircorn’s comments are an additional opinion. Trillfendi (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Hailstone

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Concerns about broadness not addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently read a translated version of this article, which is much better than the article here, and I've also heard some individuals said that this article is too problematic for GA. To prove it, I've just read the article once. As what I can see, the article meets most of the GA criteria, but not "the prose is clear and concise": the article is too brief that the content is unclear, or in other words, it is too consice. I am sorry to have a doubt on whether it meets all criteria of GA, but I also hope that there will be Wikipedians who will improve this article, so that the content will be both clear and consice, to meet all criteria. Thank you for your consideration. SænmōsàI will find a way or make one. 08:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which language version did you find superior? Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this question. The article as it existed prior to GA was a copy/paste from a book series. I wouldn't be surprised if other Wikis have the same content copy/pasted in another language format. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: That's Chinese Wikipedia, and it is not just copying and translating English and Japanese; if zhwiki's one could not fulfill all GA criteia, I can sure that the article here also can't fulfill that. SænmōsàI will find a way or make one. 08:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or I should add some sentences to explain: the first 3 paragraphs should write more (esp. the very first one, as it is not so fruitful, compare with zhwiki's first 2 paragraphs). SænmōsàI will find a way or make one. 08:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of the "Attack" section appears incomplete. The strike lasted one and a half days, yet activities on second day Feb 18th is totally ignored. Also unmentioned is the experimental night raid conducted by USS Enterprise, the first of its kind. Compared to paragraphs about the surface action by Adm. Spruance, words depicting aerial attacks against Japanese shipping, which contributed to the vast majority of ships sunk in Truk, is disproportionately few and fragmentary, focusing on only two of the thirty merchant ships (The editor might have developed tunnel vision from relying too much on primary sources like action reports). Certainly there were more dramatic actions deserving a few words, such as those of light cruiser Naka or destroyer Oite. I would say the descriptive style of Attack on Pearl Harbor, a similar topic, is much richer in context.--Medalofdead (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imbrex and tegula

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist Relevant issues have been brought up and are unaddressed AIRcorn (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article reassessment

This article gained Good Article status in 2006. It was briefly reassessed in 2007. I think it should be reassessed again now. I do want to note that the criteria in 2007 are pretty much the same as the current six criteria criteria. However, I believe that the thoroughness by which it was applied in 2007, and it is applied now, is different. Besides the history of assessments, I believe that at present this article needs to be re-assessed:

1. Well written: in my view the prose is clear and concise, and well structured
2. Verifiable with no original research:
no original research
Some inline citations are missing. It is an issue that could be easily solved.
So far this article's lead presents no inline citations. While it is optional to have inline citations in the lead section, usually most of the information summarized in the lead section needs to be presented in the main body of the article, and have there cited sources. However, there are some parts this lead section that are only mentioned in the lead. That presents with one or two shortcomings: first, there is definitely a lack of inline citations. Second, I also wonder if the information presented in the lead should be presented and expanded in the main body of the article, per manual of style.(examples: "The roofing area was generally surrounded by antefixae which were often decorated, and had several decorative anthemia to cover each end row imbrex.", " is still in use today as an international feature of style and design")
3. Broad in its coverage
that I think is they key question here. A short length of an article is not per se a disqualifier from being a good article, but this article nevertheless does not seem to cover the topic well. Some potential gaps in coverage are:
  • The lead section states that Imbrex and tegula are "still in use today", but the History and development section stops its coverage more than 2000 years from the present day.
    • Also possibly a new section on the use in modern architecture could be included
  • As mentioned above, there are several pieces of information in the lead that are not mentioned in the rest of the article. That seems to indicate a lack of breadth in the body of the article.
4. Neutral: yes, it is neutrally written.
5. Stable: yes, seems stable.
6. Illustrated: yes, well illustrated with six well-selected images.

Don't get me wrong, what is written, is well written, and is very informative-- great job so far by those who have contributed! I just think that the classification as Good Article is maybe not the most suitable at this time (unless the article is expanded and citations added). This is my first time initiating the reassessment of an article's quality, so I very much would like to see what the community thinks.

I would like to invite @CatherineMunro: who was the largest contributor to this article, as well as any other interested editors, to respond. Thank you (talk) user:Al83tito 5:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Loyal Order of Moose

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Nuetrality concerns. Not so sure that the tag bombing is necessary, but they also need to be addressed before renomination AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not give sufficient weight to the Moose Lodge's history of racial and gender discrimination. A search of Google scholar and Newspapers.com shows that reliable sources give great weight to the discrimination issue, but this is barely reflected in the article. Until the discrimation section is substantially expanded, the article fails the WP:NPOV requirements in WP:GACR#4 — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‘Sex discrimination’ is not an issue here. This is a men’s club. What needs expanding is the info on their racial policies. The intro states that they gave up segregation in the 1980’s but there is no citing of any source for this. The last mention of race issues is the Supreme Court upholding their right to do it. More needed. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:6976:E4A:B105:6F61 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I was the GA reviewer. The relevant GA criteria is "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." This criteria is about bias, not that the article is 100% complete in covering all appropriate areas. Similar to my comment in the review...another area for expansion would be coverage of what happens at their facilities and activities. But again, did not see areas that could use expansion as a reason to deny GA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article heavily relies on connected sources. Until we can remove the ((thirdparty)) cleanup tag, we should remove good article status. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with the article is the inclusion of a long list of notable members. This should be deleted or spun off into List of Loyal Order of Moose members. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search and didn't find much. It appears that they just followed the evolution of US society.....discrimination that faded out as the civil rights act took hold. One notable instance of an exclusion in 1972 that was covered in the article and another instance in 1994 where they made no claim to exclude or be able to exclude based on race, but where such was suspected. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim and Mary McCartney

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept The good article process does not deal with notability so those arguments for delisting don't hold any water here. Dead links are not a reason in itself to delist and the non-notabiltiy of the sources has not been established. Not sure where the copyright violations comes from, but if that is the case it should be delisted, but it needs some evidence to be presented AIRcorn (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly it’s beyond me how this qualifies as a “good article”. I’m trying to even find the good article reviews of this page from 2007, to no avail. For years, people have questioned the not-inherited notability of these two people yet Beatles stans have taken personal offense to it. For one, I question the notability myself. Mrs. Mary McCartney died a decade before “Let it Be” was written and it’s not as if she gets writing credit for it; the inspiration behind it is beautiful and all, but being the parent of a famous person isn’t WP:GNG. And Mr. Jim McCartney doesn’t have a music career to speak of, he was an amateur, so how is this a good article in the music category? Secondly, just about all these links are dead, not reliable sources, or fan blogs are used as sources (unacceptable). This article is really just Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpool, where the notability stands on Paul McCartney. And it clearly relies on primary Beatles sources. I won’t go so far as to say some original research was done, but a lot of this info isn’t even verifiable.Trillfendi (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to nominate this article for deletion I would have done that instead of this. But this article is two-in-one so that’s futile regardless. Also, isn’t the Spitz biography alleged to have “factual errors”? And Miles’s is apparently accused of revisionist history from McCartney’s first person perspective (and he was directly involved). Trillfendi (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know exactly where Spitz and Miles fall on the Mark Lewisohn to Albert Goldman scale of Beatle bios - my point was more that they are both major works by reputable mainstream publishing houses and therefore it was unfair of you to characterize the references as being primary sources and blogs. The article became a GA in 2007 (and unfortunately its author Andreasedge has long since retired) so it may well be that it could use a overhaul but I don’t see it as an obvious fail. Perhaps it would be helpful if you pointed to specific GA criteria in which you feel it is lacking? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn’t even those books that I was referring to as blogs. It’s obvious crap like [www.classicbands.com/RuthMcCartneyInterview.html this], and for God’s sake, websites called “magicbeatlestours.com”.Trillfendi (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really "obvious crap"? Classicbands.com has been running since 2000, isn't user-generated and seems to have editorial oversight [4]. (I did check WP:RSN but couldn't find a discussion about them.) I would have thought they would be ok for just an interview. The other website is being used for a statement that is already sourced to the Miles book, so that could go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean any blog can get interviews if they just reach out, right. From the looks of it, that website falls into the blog/fansite category rather than a music publication website such as a Pitchfork. It also appears that most if not all of these illustrations violate copyright. Even if this article solely had to rely on these two Beatles biographies, in my opinion it still doesn’t meet GA. Honestly if it was up to me the whole thing would be merged with Personal relationships of Paul McCartney. Trillfendi (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: I have pointed out many instances of why this article does not meet Good article quality and feel free to visit the page yourself to see exactly what I’m talking about. If one is going to do an article about family members it has to have the same standards as the subject, regardless. Merging with Personal relationships of Paul McCartney was simply my own opinion and a frivolous comment. Not an offical proposal of merging right now. And if it gets to that point, I will propose deletion if I see the need. Trillfendi (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s not clear: copyright violations, many, many unreliable sources, and verifiability are the main reasons this is being reassessed. Trillfendi (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear how you got to the copyright violation illustration assertion. Most of these photos are fair use, unless you think the justification forms were done incorrectly? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Aircorn: if you really consider “magicbeatlestours”, “rockandpopshop”, and “beatlesireland” to be “reliable” sources (see for yourself) then I guess that’s that on that. Trillfendi (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of a source depends on the content that it is supporting. Twitter, you tube and even tabloids can sometimes be reliable sources. To demonstrate that sources are unreliable it needs to be in the context of the information cited (see WP:RS/N as it says basically this when people make requests). Furthermore the good article criteria are not that strict and do not even require everything to be cited. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not for more info on this. I have no opinion on the sources you mention as I am not familiar with them. All I know was that calling them unreliable was challenged here and it was not adequately rebutted. You might be better starting a merge discussion on the talk page rather than trying to delist it (or make a stronger case related to the criteria). `AIRcorn (talk)
@Aircorn: I’m well aware that there are those rare occasions when YouTube and what not can be a reliable source, but a reliable source but reliable source means it’s not poorly sourced. These random, and in some cases [beatlesireland.com completely defunct] fan pages are just that. The criteria includes verifiability without original research. I’m just looking at what I see in this article, I don’t care about the existence of them. I know we don’t have to cite when they sneezed, ate, and used the bathroom (which this article all but does), but it’s not too much to ask for higher quality sources. When most of these don’t even work how is one able to uphold that Good Quality status? We can’t just go by heresay. Trillfendi (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just went off what was written here. I briefly looked at the article, enough to judge that it wasn't just Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpool or an obvious delist. My decision was made from what was written here and unfortunately a lot wasn't relevant. If you disagree with the close I am fine with you seeking a second opinion from someone else. I am not sure what the protocol here is, I would assume asking at the talk page here or at WT:GAN would be your best options. AIRcorn (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Blasters FC

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted Has had enough time to be updated. AIRcorn (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its been almost 6 months now since the article listed as GA and end of their fourth season.And they already started their fifth season few days ago But still have no section about their fourth season and their fifth season.I informed them at the PR page two month ago, but have got no responses. Hence I am bringing it here for reassessment and recommending community review instead of an individual one. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This can easily be added by another user via the proper WikiProject if you notify them. No need for demotion by WP:OUTDATED. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 02:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Eye

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: failed. Significant issues with GA criteria have been identified and they have not been fixed in a timely fashion. buidhe 01:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Large sections of this article are severely lacking in sources, meaning that it fails GA criteria 2: Verifiable with no original research. If this article were being nominated right now for a GA review, I believe it would be quick failed for severely lacking in sources. Was GA nominated in 2007, and the unsourced content was added later, but right now it's nowhere near acceptable as a GA. For example:

All in all, this doesn't meet the standards of verified text required for GA, as there's far too much original research. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Smith (American politician)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delist. Significant issues with the GA criteria have been identified, and they have not been fixed in a timely fashion. buidhe 01:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article was promoted 10 years ago. Since then the article has not been properly updated and the prose is in bad shape. Specifically the article fails:

I don't believe this lives up to the criteria anymore. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heartbleed

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted due to the verifiability concerns raised by Vanamonde93. Mz7 (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist if uncited statements are not fixed in a timely manner. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 03:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per my statement above, and because the unsourced content is somewhat technical material; fixing it isn't a trivial undertaking. Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despacito

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept There are a few misconceptions that I should address first. There is actually no requirement for an editor to comment on each criteria. They have to assess it against each one, but we allow a lot of latitude in how they present this assessment. That includes referencing previous reviews. The table is a perfectly fine way to do this. Tbhotch is wrong in saying all citations have to be checked. FA doesn't even require this (or they didn't, they had a RFC recently and I am not up-to-date on their current position here). What GA requires is that citations are at least present 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". I doubt many reviewers check all sources. It is simply not possible for some articles with foreign language or offline ones. I would hope all reviewers check for the statements covered above and at least spot check a few others. This is supposed to be a lightweight process and expecting someone to check 400+ sources is not lightweight. Saying that the review could have been carried out better. I view this project as a way for editors to improve their articles and passing is often just a means to the end. As such it is almost always helpful to offer some feedback on what could be improved. Others might see it differently though and that is fine. The bottom line here is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the review and nothing has been presented here to suggest that the article fails the criteria (I checked the images and they have rational or licenses, although I feel the graphs are getting close to original research). As such this will be kept as a Good Article. Anyone is welcome to take it through an individual reassessment if they wish to give it a more in-depth review. AIRcorn (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would probably be a good idea for this article's GA status to be reassed based upon the discussion at User talk:Fhsig13#Despacito, in particular this comment left by Tbhotch. Although I believe the GA review was carried out in good faith, the statement I'm not going to check 400+ citations in depth, however the vast majority seemed to standard when I gave the list a once-over. left by the reviewer for item 2b as well as the statement No copyright status given on most images. given for item 6a since the version which was reviewed make it seem that the review was hastily carried out. There were only six files (three non-free ones and three Commons files) and checking their respective pages for their licensing shouldn't have been to difficult to do. Out of the seven parts of a GA review, it seems that making sure copyright files are properly licensed and being used correctly would be quite important. Finally, no reference was made to earlier failed GA review or how the issues raised therein were fixed; this makes me wonder whether the GA reviewer was aware of the previous review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist Givin the size, scope and number of issues outstanding I feel the best way forward is to delist and allow interested editors to address the concerns without the added pressure of a reassessment. I will add a few comments in this close regarding the identified issues and how they relate to the GA criteria. I would say page numbers in books are required for verifiable. Reviewers and readers should be given all the information they need to find where the information comes from and having a short statement sourced to a large book does not usually meet the spirit of criteria 2. I would also say that going over 78 KB prose is not a reason to cut information in an article this broad. The other points hold and there are a number of outstanding maintenance tags on the article that will need to be dealt with before renominating. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially unreliable sources:
  • Catholic.org: a WP:SPS. See this RSN discussion. Refs 2–5. Removed
  • Orkneyjar.com: looks like a WP:SPS. Ref 44 Removed
  • Kinneil Estate: a wordpress blog. Ref 45 Removed
  • Rampant Scotland: looks like a WP:SPS. Refs 176 and 352.
  • Partial citation without enough information to identify the source: 43 (Bryson), 121 (Evans), 122 (Sereny) Fixed this
  • Many of the book citations are missing page numbers. This isn't necessarily an issue with the GA criteria, but in some cases these references are supporting direct quotes or controversial information, such as "the one internationally recognised Scottish landmark". How are readers supposed to verify that without a page number?
  • Some citations do not support the content that they purport to, for example the citation in "Scottish Music" supports very little of the content in that section; the paragraph beginning with "Scotland's universities are complemented" is not supported by the ref.
  • There is overcite in some cases, see cleanup tags on the article.
  • The coverage in some areas is inadequate: for example, the section on Scottish literature does not mention any Gaelic writers, such as Nobel Prize nominee Sorley MacLean. Added content on MacLean. (Goodreg3 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • Also, some areas are too detailed for WP:SUMMARY: an entire paragraph (!) about what titles British monarchs are allowed to use in Scotland. Fixed this, at least.
  • "Other currently less popular candidates for the National Anthem of Scotland include Scotland the Brave, Highland Cathedral, Scots Wha Hae and A Man's A Man for A' That"—potentially controversial information without a citation. This has been fixed

I have sourced those "candidates" to a couple of newspaper articles and rewritten that sentence. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Direct quote with no source or citation: "largest electrified rail network outside London" Removed
  • Some of the prose is not NPOV: for example, "unrivalled anywhere in Britain", "Thoughtful Scots pondered their declension, as the main social indicators such as poor health, bad housing, and long-term mass unemployment, pointed to terminal social and economic stagnation at best, or even a downward spiral. Service abroad on behalf of the Empire lost its allure to ambitious young people, who left Scotland permanently." Removed
  • Another POV issue is the paragraph beginning: "During the Second World War", which omits the fact that German bombers targeted England more because it was closer and therefore easier to get to.

I have rewritten the sentence regarding the Blitz. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some parts of the article do not meet MOS:IMAGELOC: sandwiching in the "Demographics" section Improved.
I could go on. There's been a little bit of progress in the last week towards resolving these issues, but not nearly enough to bring it up to GA quality. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 17:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio report found some close paraphrasing that needs to be fixed. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Removed copyvio. buidhe 21:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've made some progress, but there are still no sections for art or architecture. At 78k prose after significant cuts, the article will have to be trimmed to make room for the additions. I suggest that the history and government sections could be cut somewhat. buidhe 21:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The verifiability problems are extensive. I just checked more than a dozen references and found that a majority did not support the content. Furthermore, the excessive use of official sources is evident; a close look proves that they are used to support opinion-based statements such as "The MOU lays emphasis on the principles of good communication, consultation and co-operation". Removed. This article is very far from passing the verifiability criterion of the Good Article criteria. buidhe 01:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Mickl

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is mainly based upon two sources by:

  1. Richter, Heinz; Kobe, Gerd (1983). Bei den Gewehren—General Johann Mickl—Ein Soldatenschicksal [With the Guns—General Johann Mickl—A Soldiers Fate] (in German). Bad Radkersburg, Austria: Selbstverlag der Stadt Bad Radkersburg;
  2. Schraml, Franz (1962). Kriegsschauplatz Kroatien die deutsch-kroatischen Legions-Divisionen: 369., 373., 392. Inf.-Div. (kroat.) ihre Ausbildungs- und Ersatzformationen [The Croatian Theatre of War: German-Croatian Legion divisions: the 369th, 373rd and 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Divisions and their Training and Replacement Units] (in German). Neckargemünd, Germany: K. Vowinckel.

According to this review of the sources, the article also fails criterion #4 as being non-neutral MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept Wrong venue to sort out edit warring. Instability is not a justification in itself to delist articles. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been continual edit-warring between pro-Pakistan and pro-India editors following the recent 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. Editors are routinely blindly reverting to keep their preferred version, removing any edits that are made by anybody else. The edit warring has not been stopped by spells of semi-protection, it has just been continued by auto-confirmed editors. As this has continued for over two weeks now, it is clear that the article is not stable, thus failing criteria 5: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." and criteria 4: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." It should therefore be delisted.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. It should be reverted to the pre-disruption state (which Guy Macon has done several times). I have fully protected it for now. The various warring parties can then discuss it on the talk page. Once a consensus position is determined, the article can be unprotected and the edits made. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with PM67; a delisting does seem to be premature for this situation. Applying criteria 5 in this way to justify a GAR seems unreasonable unless it is a particularly protracted situation that has not been able to be resolved through discussions on the talk page. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zawed and PM67. This shouldn't be here. Sort it out on the talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Partition of Poland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Consensus that the article meets the broadness criteria AIRcorn (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really seem as if this article can measure up to good article status. For example, the maps for the partition are too small to view properly, and the article just doesn't seem to provide good enough organization or provide concise, essential facts (see the Partition treaty section).

More detail please. Pictures seem big and can be easily resized. The treaty section seems quite comprehensive. What detail is missing? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Not that the article is not comprehensive, but it's not concise or organized enough. There's really stuff from the treaty in the background info, etc. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 23:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry but your criticism is still so generic that it is not actionable. It's like saying 'article is too short'. Well, I don't think so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the good article criteria do not require "comprehensiveness" like the featured article criteria do. All that's needed is "broad in its coverage", which is a pretty low bar and allows for short articles to become good articles in certain topic areas. Mz7 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Hollow (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist Sourcing and prose issues still apparent. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Plot" and "Cast" sections are currently completely unreferenced, and I have therefore placed the ((unreferenced section)) templates on them. This brings it under the "Immediate failure" criterion of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, so the issue either needs to be resolved or the article needs to be delisted as a GA. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: The plot section of a work of fiction usually does not require citation, per MOS:PLOTSOURCE: the film itself is assumed to be the source. I personally try to provide references where possible to avoid any potential for conflict, but it isn't a GA-pass criterion. The sourcing for the cast section is a concern, but one that should be a lot easier to resolve. Vanamonde (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: ah OK, thank you. I wasn't aware of the MOS:PLOTSOURCE allowance, but I guess that does make sense. I've removed the orange tag from that section. Hopefully the cast can be dealt with fairly easily then, and we can close this quickly.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the cast list can be covered by the film itself. It is statements about character motivations like An orphan who looks towards Ichabod as a father figure after his own father is murdered by the Horseman and extra info like Tim Burton and Michael Gough had previously worked together on Batman and Batman Returns, with Michael Gough portraying Alfred Pennyworth which really need sourcing. I might see what I can find. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources, but it was pretty lackluster to be fair. I have never seen the movie so just went off a few reviews and they all pretty much concentrated on the first three. I am not going to do that for all the minor characters. I guess someone could remove the descriptors or else look for more obscure sources. Probably neutral on whether this is delisted or not. It is pretty standard for a lot of film articles, but personally I find the overquoting in the development and reception sections a bit too overdone. The reception section is quite average as it is basically bullet pointed quotes minus the bullet points. Thinking about it more I would see this falling into delist territory as is. AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Racial wage gap in the United States

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist I think this is all the comments we are going to get on this. There is a weak consensus to delist this article at this time. AIRcorn (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Race Terms I've noticed there seem to have been some concern over the neutrality of this article and more recently some concern over the improper distinction between "Indian Americans", "American Indians" and "Native Americans". And on occasion the use of black rather than African American.

Race or ethnicity The sidebar calls this the ethnic wage gap, the title says racial wage gap

Suspicious Statements I feel like some weasel words may have snuck in since this article was granted good article status

General Formatting

Grammatical/fliw and context problems

Illustration The PNG

is of insufficient resolution to adequately distinguish its elements at thumbnail size. Specifically which pattern corresponds to which bar is unclear, and the text is fuzzy.

is of similarily low quality, but of sufficient quality to make out the patterns, just the text is fuzzy.Ethanpet113 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about this one. Some falls outside the criteria. Things like Blue links and percentage formatting. I tend to agree on the graphs as the colours are not clear even at larger sizes. I don't think we can hold the sidebar against it. As for neutrality I only found one discussion from 2016 on the talk page and that seems to have been resolved. The use of Black doesn't concern me overly as it is used in contrast to White and a quick google search [5] didn't lead me to believe it is generally considered offensive. It is also used a lot in literature. There are some grammer issues. The such barriers such as language show that such large dominance of immigrant population in such sectors only breed competition between lower-earning groups, further lowering average wages for such families linked above is just cringeworthy. One citation needed, but otherwise it is pretty well sourced. Given the time it has been under reassessment, the lack of response and the complicated nature of the topic I am leaning Delist on this one. AIRcorn (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also lean toward Delist. The most obvious criterion this article has problems with is 1a ("the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct"). I only got through about half the article's text, but I found a decent number of prose issues. I fixed several simple problems along the way. Some that I couldn't/didn't fix (not counting the ones pointed out by Ethanpet113 and Aircorn above):
  • Despite the improvement in wages made by educational attainment, less educated Hispanic men still have less return to education than non-Hispanic men that are statistically comparable. "less return to education"? Not sure what this is saying.
  • ...where many modern causes of racial wage inequity, such as educational disparities and discrimination, stem from were even more prevalent.
  • Public state records from the 1930s indicate white owned schools in the south spent approximately $61 dollars per student, or $1,074.14 in 2018 dollars when adjusted for inflation, compared to just $9 per student, or $158.48 in 2018 dollars. Compared to $9 per student for... which schools?
  • As the United States joined the global market economy, three outcomes occurred. Those who possessed financial and human capital, such as education, succeeded in the new economy because the money and skills they had to offer were in short supply. Those who possessed only labor did not fare well because cheap, physical labor was in oversupply in the global market. That's only two outcomes?
Some other issues:
  • This sentence which cites Wikipedia: However, Native Americans are the poorest ethnic group when measured by per capita income. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_per_capita_income#>
  • As of 1995, Hispanic women of all education levels, except for those without high school diplomas or associate degrees, had parity in earnings with white women. While this information is positive, a broader examination of Hispanic women's wages reveals that inequality still exists. While I'm sure the overwhelming majority of readers would agree with it, describing the change as "positive" is making a value judgement, and so I think technically a WP:NPOV violation.
I don't think it would require a huge effort to fix these issues, but since no-one seems to have stepped up to the plate on this since the article was listed for reassessment in early December, I think it's appropriate to delist for now. Colin M (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Martin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: There is no consensus to delist the article. One editor supports delisting, one editor opposes delisting, and one editor is neutral. There is no consensus that the article does not meet the good article criteria, so this defaults to the article's retaining good article status. Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been recent edit controversies surrounding this article. There is information without sources. I have also been finding fabricated information in the article not supported by sources. I think this warrants a review of the article overall.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Viriditas: Thank you for your reply and using your good faith to accuse me of having information "discarded". This is not the case. Looking at the article when it originally was granted GA status, there were some different sources used, for example RT's discovery of Martin and the information that was not originally only sourced by a college research paper. I did not remove such sources and much of this happened before my edits. I am only bringing this article to be reassessed because of genuine concerns regarding edits between the original GA article and what is currently posted. Since I can now see the original sources presented, I may be able to add them back and fix some issues.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • I stand by my comments, more so based on your reply to my concerns. How could you possibly request a GA reassessment without doing the bare due diligence, namely, checking the originally reviewed version? You are clearly biased against Martin based on your previous edits, and your claim to be interested in this reassessment is just an attempt to remove its quality rating. I therefore have zero interest in discussing anything further with you, and it’s this kind of extreme incompetence and blatant POV pushing that has led me to lose all interest in Wikipedia. Don’t ping me again. Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not ping you, but I admit that this is my first time requesting a GA reassessment. It was only done purely because I noticed multiple issues (mainly missing sources and WP:OR) and thought that there may be more fundamental issues with the article. Just replying to your response and thanks for sharing your concerns.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: @Aircorn: please let us know what is going on with this reassessment. As of today 17 June 2019, the template at the top of the article says "The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 09:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)" That links here. MPS1992 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the reassessment as "no consensus to delist" after a request for closure at WP:ANRFC. Would you or someone else be able to help with the technical work of closing a good article reassessment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisting. There are still problems with focus and prose and need for additional reliable citations.StoryKai (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this is a reliable article. Some of the sections have missing citations, and the writing at times comes off as an essay:

"All the colors you see on your computer screen are made by mixing them in different intensities." "Unfortunately for those who wanted or were required to wear green..." "Green laser pointers outputting at 532 nm (563.5 THz) are relatively inexpensive..." "although the price remains relatively prohibitive for widespread public use." "Green animals include, especially, amphibians, reptiles, and some fish, birds and insects."

Just to name a few. 100cellsman (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The § In nature and culture section is just bizarre, being an image gallery with no context.
  • The § On flags section is a bit of a mess. The gallery is probably too big. The bulleted list repeats a lot of information in the image captions above.
  • The one source I happened to check (http://www.ukfoodguide.net/e142.htm) was quite dodgy.
  • Some general concerns regarding "staying focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". At certain points, the article seems to veer into the territory of just listing things which happen to be green. Okay, sure, billiards tables are green. Dragons are sometimes green. Roman Catholic clergy wear green on some occasions. One of the belts used to show rank in Judo is green... where does it end? Are these facts essential to me understanding the topic of green-ness? It's worth noting that when the article was listed as a GA in 2007 it was a lot shorter - it's now about 4x longer than it was then.
For these reasons, I'd say the article isn't currently up to GA standards. That said, I think fixing the current issues would not be too difficult, and would mostly entail making a few cuts. Colin M (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@100cellsman, Aircorn, and Colin M: this GAR is an opportunity for 3rd, 4th and 5th opinions on some issues. SiefkinDR and I have had some on and off discussions since 2012 about various aspects of this article. In the interests of leaving it in the best condition, looking at the promoted and current versions would be good to see what hybrid version leaves it in the best shape. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure that is the best use of reassessment. These tend to stay open too long as it is. Also there is a major issue of participation at this part of the project. I can think of only one other editor who regularly comments here and they haven't for a while. I think expecting a 4th or 5th opinion not coming here via the article itself is probably optimistic.
The promoted version is from 12 years ago and while it is a nice compact article I don't think it is feasible to use it for anything more than a historical reference. It is quite possible for an article to be improved from a Good standard and also fail the Good criteria. "WP:Good articles" and "good articles" are often separate. For example useful information could be added, but not cited - causing it to fail the verification criteria - yet that information might make the article more informative.
Colin has already started a discussion at the talk page and I will head over there next to give my 2 cents worth. That is probably the best place to work on ingrained discussions. Also it looks like a lot of the issues are across all colour articles so it might require a RFC or something a bit bigger than what GAR was designed or is capable of handling. AIRcorn (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is a valid point. I have been a fan of the GA and FA process as acting like a Stable Version of sorts, and something that can be referred back to. In an ideal world, this would be a venue to roll up wikisleeves and fix now, but some articles are more complex and/or part of a more complex issue. And hence if the consensus is the article falls way short, then the most appropriate route is to delist for now. it can always be improved later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Rhodes

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Though the issue of the tagging still needs to be resolved, this is not sufficient to disqualify the article from "good article" status. The article is already well cited, and the consensus of the comments below indicates that any remaining issues can be dealt with without delisting.StoryKai (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)​[reply]

Based on my comments at Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA2. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I don't think the orange level tags are justified here they still need to be addressed. We can't have a good article siting around covered with them. They can be removed and replaced with more focused tags (or better yet removed when the issue is no longer present). Hopefully some of the wrestling focused editors here can address them. BTW my comment is not a keep or a delist at the moment, it was more an initial assessment of the tags. I haven't done a proper assessment of the article yet. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MPJ-DK: They are not topic banned it seems. An admin closed the post saying, we will see what happens when their block ended. Any more disruption needs to be reported to ANI immediately though. StaticVapor message me! 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Agreed. The The Brotherhood (2013–2015) section is basically unreferenced, but I don't think it's hard to source. The section on NJPW could do with being put into paragraphs (filmography needs citing too). Nothing that should really cause the article to be demoted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above. If anyone has any major issues that is going to require delisting, hopefully someone would be able to work on it. Otherwise I don't see reason for delisting. StaticVapor message me! 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coropuna

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: There is consensus that this entry does meet Wikipedia's good article criteria.StoryKai (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is a somewhat unusual request. This article was promoted to GA in April 2016 based on a version I wrote. With better developed Wiki skills and with additional sources I just did a total rewrite, with which the version assessed as GA has little in common. Thus the GA star the old version received might not carry over to the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the current version to the one that last passed good article review. The sourcing and writing are certainly of a high quality. I can't imagine why we would delist it.Martinthewriter (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Elisa Lam

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Other editors have been quick in responding to concerns raised, and there is no consensus that the article includes original research in its current form. The article otherwise fits the six good article criteria and will be kept.StoryKai (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)​[reply]

GAs cannot contain OR. Both the reviewed version and the present version include the text One page of the report has a form with boxes to check as to whether the death was accidental, natural, homicide, suicide or undetermined, in large type and a sufficient distance from each other. The "accident" box is dated June 15; however three days later the "undetermined" box was checked instead. This was at some point in the three days before the report's release noted as an error and crossed out and initialed., attributed directly to a scan of the autopsy report itself. The review did not address this, and seems to have completely missed that there was such textbook OR in the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88:Tell me when in the article the OR is and I will remove it.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
@Hijiri88:OK I fixed the problem you brought up.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
It doesn't matter if you "fixed the problem I brought up"; the article had a really blatant problem that was apparently missed in the review, so we should be assuming that there were a lot of more subtle problems that were missed in the review. A thorough source check is needed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I'm not reverting the edit, but can you do more to explain your complaint than say "textbook OR"? All the now-deleted sentences said was merely descriptive of what the primary source said. I'll grant that the wording needed a little work, but I don't find the verifiable description of what the autopsy report showed to be problematic. I think the cited source may even have discussed that detail. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly inappropriate to speculate on the reason why "accident" or "undetermined" was filled in unless reliable sources have done so previously, let alone to talk about how far apart they are and how clear the lettering is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: The source cited does indeed say exactly that: "On 15 June the cause of death was ticked as "accidental", but on 18 June the cause of death was ticked as “could not be determined” but was crossed out, and the word "error" was written next to it." That's why I included a link to the autopsy report, so readers could verify that detail with their own eyes.

Second, if we took out "in large type and a sufficient distance from each other" and left the rest in, would you still call it "OR"?

Third, just how does the text speculate on why? The mere juxtaposition of these details might lead readers to speculate, but they do not manipulate them into doing so, properly worded. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of details gleaned from a primary source, even if those details are completely accurate (and that's a big "if"), implies some reason for doing so. The text as it was at review clearly implied that there was some confusion over the cause of death, rather than the much simpler reading that it was simple clumsiness. I have not checked to see if you or someone else has inserted a new citation of a secondary source that actually supports the content, and I don't see why I should have to. The initial review was inadequate, and I decided to leave it to the community to discuss how to address that. This is not an individual reassessment (I have been very careful about that ever since an incident in 2016). Please do not ping me again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: The policy you cite does not address the issue of selecting certain material from primary sources and creatively interpreting it; in fact it doesn't apply to the text I quoted at all, since it is not transcription of quoted material (or faithful translation of foreign-language material) but rather original prose interpretation of a primary source -- yes, maybe a lot of it is accurate description of some of what is in that primary source, but that's different from faithful transcription of quoted content. 99% of experienced Wikipedians would demand a reliable secondary source for such content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't much difference between the now-removed prose you quoted above and the text Daniel Case quoted from the source. So the intent of transcription could be applied to this. And I don't see any further issues arising in the article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"These death of ..., murder of ..., killing of ... etc articles are a haven for fan theories and speculation. However, I don't think this is that bad compared to some I have run across." Why thank you ... what articles like this need is someone keeping a regular eye on them, and I've been doing that for the last five years.

. As for the description of that part of the autopsy report, I've been thinking about that that maybe we could just take a screenshot of that part of the page and put it in there; that would speak for itself and end any need to describe it. Such an image wouldn't create any copyright issues, either, as just words and incomplete phrases. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC) (signed belatedly)[reply]

The autopsy report is used 16 times as a reference. This is far too much use of this type of primary source in an article like this. Again if it is descriptive and not interpreting the results it is not strictly speaking OR, but it does again provide a weight issue, which is essentially a NPOV concern.
I am suspicious of long in popular culture sections. I looked at one at random - the "How to Get Away with Murder" paragraph - and from the review the only reference to Lam I could find was Is Lila Stangard inspired by Elisa Lam?. I don't know how a stray seven word thought from a reviewer deserves a paragraph and it overplays the source in suggesting that it is actually inspired by Lam.
Was this one recent? I have taken so much out of that section over the years that I can't remember all the additions. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overall there is enough to suggest this article relies too much on primary sources for information that would better sourced from secondary ones. Primary sources are allowed to be used so they don't all need to be replaced. I am not a fan of Hijiri88's hit and run approach to these reassessments, but there is merit to looking closer at this one. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: I am not a fan of Hijiri88's hit and run approach to these reassessments Umm ... what? That's a ... pretty bizarre accusation, given my history at GAR. Can you back it up with something? I've almost always been told that I should be less involved with these kinda things, and leave them for the community to decide, the one exception being a disastrous occasion on which I accidentally opened an individual assessment when I meant to open a community one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You tend to drop an article here after identifying one or two problems and then expect other editors to identify the rest. Now in theory that is perfectly reasonable and maybe even one of the purposes of this part of the project. I even do something similar myself to see if any editors are interested in addressing the concerns before I go too far in depth. However in practice you will be lucky to get many other opinions here and in the end it just creates work for someone else or ends up with the other issues not being addressed. So, yeah I am not a fan. I am not a fan of many things so don't take it personally. I don't know who told you to be less involved with reviews, I would say that unless things get heated or unproductive you should stay involved as much as you can. I feel that with your experience you are more than capable of conducting individual reassessments. BTW I see nothing disastrous about the above review. In fact you left some good points, others agreed with you and it was delisted. The beauty of this reassessment is that there are editors interested in it keeping its Good status. That is relatively rare and worth working with. AIRcorn (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point (about the description of the video). The prose there struck me as a bit repetitive, but nothing insurmountable. Perhaps it could be tightened up a bit, @MagicatthemovieS: @Daniel Case:? And I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to find a secondary source describing what she's doing in the video—considering the coverage this... "incident"(?)... attracted? As far as your point about the autopsy report being used 16 times, several of those occasions see that source being used as a secondary reference to information also sourced by other references—so that isn't necessarily a deal breaker. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: Part of the reason for the long description is that it has always been my goal to get the video itself in the article ... there are sure enough copies out there, if someone knows where we can get one and upload it I'm all ears (so to, uh, speak). It's entirely justifiable under fair use (although we may have to go with a 30-second clip; perhaps we can edit it down to the most interesting parts). If someone else can upload a good copy, let me know beforehand so I can write the fair-use justification. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: The only videos I've ever seen uploaded to Wikipedia are 100+ year old silent films whose copyright expired long ago. I'm sure hotel security footage is public domain, but I wouldn't even know where to start with any of that. Maybe someone at the Wikipedia:Teahouse might have some advice on how to proceed? Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: Take a look at American Beauty, which has one clip from the film nestled next to a section discussing critical interpretation of the film relevant to it, per the fair-use criteria. We also have user-created video, like the one I produced (my son was the cameraman; I edited the separate takes) showing how a French press is used to make coffee. I particularly like the one I found on Commons that has been the lede media on rain ... if you were one of the possible handful on the planet who had grown to adulthood without ever experiencing liquid natural precipitation, that video would explain it.

Under current US law copyright attaches to the video even though it was produced automatically by the hotel's security cameras. No, I don't think the Cecil would sue, but the fair use policy doesn't take the likelihood of a rightsholder suing into account. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: What exactly do you mean by "upload a good copy" of the video? Do you mean quality-wise? Because the video linked to in the article as an 'External video' is the best quality one I've seen. I seriously doubt anyone is going to remaster this, and I doubt we'll ever get a full, unedited version of it. Is the problem that you can't download it off YouTube? Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: If you find a downloadable version, I'll take it. Seriously, I thought you couldn't just download anything you wanted ... the uploader has to give permission? Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Technically, you can't download anything off YouTube, either with or without uploader permission. Technically. ;) Uploading to Wikipedia without permission of the copyright holder – if one exists, which in this case is extremely doubtful – is a separate thing entirely. I'll leave that up to you to decide. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorns comments

I guess I should make a more formal review section.

As I've said before, my goal has been to have the video in the article, so there wouldn't be a need to describe it.

A lot of secondary sources simply embedded the video, making it unnecessary for them to describe it, so there's a paucity of that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that but it is used as a source for the tanks being open and the roof being accessible after her death. Presumably we can trust the datestamp. If we just use specific time references in the video (near the end) to what it is said to support, which is visually self-evident, I don't see how it's a problem. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I personally don't like the use of primary sources in this article, and many of them should be pretty easily replaced with secondary sources. Some of the points above are important for a GA, while others are not. I really would like to know how you came across the autopsy report as it seems a strange site to be hosting it. AIRcorn (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don’t view this as being original research at all. It's just a straightforward description of what the document says, and it clearly wasn't meant to imply anything. Maybe there is some misunderstanding here, but a careful inspection of the article and the sources definitely shows no original research. Granted, it's already been removed, so this observation doesn't really matter anymore. The only issues worth discussing are those that haven't already been addressed. Looking over the original good article review, I can see that it was very thorough, so if the misunderstanding over original research is the only issue here, then of course I have to vote to keep. My recommendation is that further misunderstandings be discussed on the talk page, rather than through good article reassessment.ErinRC (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp2006: MOS:LEAD says the lead section should summarize the article and be no more than four grafs long. I think this intro fits within those parameters.

Whether other people have persuaded you to shorten intros to other articles during the GA process really isn't relevant to that, IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M9 half-track

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: delisted AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of conflicts are cited but not supported by sources. Some users, such as the Philippines, are also unsourced.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to remove the uncited conflicts and users than demote the article, which otherwise seems GA material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you remove all the unsourced foreign users and wars, you do not have a complete overview of the subject.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: since you are not involved on this discussion but did review Talk:M3 half-track/GA3, could you close this GAR with delist. I think there is a consensus.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, given that it has been open since April and there are still issues with "cn" tags and coverage (GA criteria 2 and 3), I feel it does make sense to close this as demoted. If the coverage could be expanded to discuss its service history in more detail, and the cn tags addressed, there should be no real issues with promotion back to GA, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E language

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted due to original research concerns outlined below. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As what I've just found, there are original researches for the contents citing the source "Greenhill, Blust & Gray 2008", and the article may not meet the second good article criterion: "Verifiable with no original research" (Criterion 2c. "It contains no original research…"). ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 02:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fix You

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Article is delisted due to the issues raised and lack of action to fix them, including the verification and other templates. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has had a verification tag since July 2017 and multiple parts clearly read like a bunch of bullet points thrown together. The "in popular culture" section is bulleted and has numerous that don't qualify WP:SONGCOVER. This should've been delisted years ago. – zmbro (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin M (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glina massacres

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist It would be much easier if editors !voting for delist would actively refer back to the criteria when doing so. From reading this discussion the main issues seem to be broadness and neutrality. Broadness is borderline as we are relatively lenient on that for Good articles. Neutrality is a more valid reason. Anything with massacre in the title needs to be strongly sourced and carefully worded. That there is some doubt over this the best course of action is to delist so that these concerns can be dealt with. AIRcorn (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not well-writen and not neutral. Use of unreliable sources, academically disqualified.

Misinterpretations and forgeries

  • That is a common but mistaken trope about betrayal. The Army and Army Air Force were outclassed in every area, and the war was already largely over after the first four days due to collapse of the southern front. And this was before the fifth column elements made their presence felt post-10 April. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. First example: "Kapetan Vladimir Kren, kao organizovani ustaša, 3. aprila 1941. prebegao je iz Zagreba u Austriju i Nemcima dao podatke o letačkom rasporedu Jugoslovenskog ratnog vazduhoplovstva." from Petranović, Branko (1992). Srbija u Drugom svetskom ratu 1939—1945. Beograd: Vojnoizdavački i novinski centar. pages 100-101
Second example: "Slovenački predstavnici u Vladi Fran Kulovec i Miho Krek su 5. aprila 1941. preko Poslanstva Slovačke u Beogradu nudili Trećem Rajhu izdvajanje Slovenije iz sastava Kraljevine Jugoslavije pod uslovom da se garantuje integritet tako izdvojene Slovenije. " from Branko Petranović: ISTORIJA JUGOSLAVIJE, knjiga I - KRALJEVINA JUGOSLAVIJA , Nolit Beograd page 413
Third example: "A number of Croat officers even went to the extreme of committing acts of treason. In one such instance, an air force officer flew from Belgrade to Graz as early as 3 April and handed over to the Germans the highly classified list of airfields where the Yugoslav planes were dispersed. Thus, when the Luftwaffe struck these fields during the initial attack wave, it virtually wiped out what little Yugoslav air power there was. In the ground fighting, shortly after the Germans attacked, entire Croat units simply threw away their weapons and quit. In some instances, Croat officers led their men in organized attacks against Serb elements that ware actively resisting the invaders. On 8 April, Croat troops openly revolted in Vinkovci, the main railroad junction along the vital Belgrade-Zagreb line. They launched a concerted attack against the headquarters of First Army Group and held as prisoners its commander with his entire staff until they were rescued by loyal Serb troops. Such occurrences were not unusual and happened in other sectors as well." from PART TWO THE YUGOSLAV CAMPAIGN in The German Campaign in the Balkans by DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON 25, D.C., 17 November 1953
Fourth example: About treasonous behavior of the Yugoslav Volksdeutsche male population read in The Danube Swabians: German Populations in Hungary, Rumania and Yugoslavia, and Hitler’s impact on their Patterns by G.C. Paikert, Springer Science & Business Media, Dec 6, 2012 page 276 here--Bocin kolega (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge all of that, but fifth column activity was ancillary to the actual fighting. Tomasevich 1975 pp. 84–86 weighs it up and makes that clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, you are playing again with names and pages?! What exactly your Tomasevich (amateur historian) wrote there? How he countered Petranovic (a history Universty professor) and the US Army military analysts about treason and sabotages? Somewhere else, the same Tomasevich wrote: "The chief task of the Yugoslav Volskdeutsche at the time of the invasion was to act as a fifth column. Under Janko's direction, German men had been organized into a sports group, the Deutsche Mannschaft. Overnight it was converted into a paramilitary organization that collaborated with German forces entering the Banat from Romania and with those entering Slovenia, and Slavonia form Austria and western Hungary."--Bocin kolega (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have it both ways, dismiss Tomasevich on one hand and use him as an example on the other. Your argumentation is barely coherent. Tomasevich p. 86 concludes, inter alia, "The rapid military collapse of the Yugoslav army in April 1941 was the consequence of the tremendous economic and military discrepancy between the adversaries... All other factors, including the fifth-column activity, were ancillary, having nominal effect on the speed and totality of the military collapse, and only a small effect on the way in which the army and the state collapsed." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not dismissig Tomasevich this way - just pointing at contradicion in his writings. I'm dismissing him as a military analyst since he is not a military analyst. On my side I referenced the credible military analysis - the US Army analysis from 1953.--Bocin kolega (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a contradiction. Tomasevich acknowledges the fifth column activity, but says that it was only ancillary to the final outcome. He says the defeat was due to the mismatch between the forces. ie that the Yugoslavs were outclassed. Do you have a reliable source that contradicts that assessment, or just a grab bag of mentions of the fifth column activity that admittedly occurred? BTW, the US Army analysis, which was drawn from debriefs of German commanders, is 20 years older than Tomasevich, and on p. 66 actually agrees with Tomasevich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter 11 of the US Army analysis lists three reasons for destruction of the Jugoslav army not reducing it to pure technical superiority of Germans nor it says anything about insignificance of treason and the fifth column. Tomasevich js just an amateur as to the military affairs here.--Bocin kolega (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense--Bocin kolega (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have more of idea what is normal practice on en WP when explaining where a location is. What exactly is your problem with saying what size the town was, in what region it lies and how far it is from Zagreb? Seems a strange position to take. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't have a reliable source for the information, just say so, and then drop it. Otherwise, indicate where you have got this information. Because that's how we decide whether information goes in an article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the most reliable source supporting my statement above - the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1931 census.--Bocin kolega (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a primary source for starters. What is the citation for the 1931 census? What page is it on? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, troll elsewere.--Bocin kolega (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing an editor of trolling without any basis is a personal attack. Personal attacks are not permitted on WP. Pull your head in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without any basis, you say? Here is visible that you removed the disputed tag twice claiming that nothing was given on talk page justifying the tag, contrary to the facts. Here at the beginning of this entry I clearly stated "accordng to the 1931 census" You again pretended not to see the fact. This kind of behavior is trolling.--Bocin kolega (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't pretend not to see it, I asked for a reference, a published version of the 1931 census and page number so the material can be added to the article. There is little point in saying something should be added to the article without providing a citation to the reliable source you are suggesting contains the information. Otherwise it is just your say-so, and we don't add material to articles on the say-so of an editor. Have you actually read this information in a copy of the census? If so, it must have information about its publication, and you must be able to provide a page number. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You again pretending? What was the reason for removing the disputed tag twice? As to the census, find it and download it, use the proper document viewer and search for the "Glina" string. Come back when you do what is asked here.--Bocin kolega (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one suggesting the article is inaccurate, so the burden is on you to produce the source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting, the proof is given. For verification purposes, get Definitivni rezultati popisa stanovnistva od 31 marta 1931 godine:Prisutno stanovnistvo po veroispovesti, page 86 a secondary source is BOLJE DA TI UĐE U KUĆU VUK, NEGO PUK.--Bocin kolega (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Viktor Meier in his Yugoslavia: A History of Its Demise on page 127 says: The murderous actions of the Ustaše against the Serbian population in Lika, in Banija, and in Bosnia began around June 1941, around Glina, where the Ustaše Minister of Justice, Marko Puk, had his political base.
In the article Meier was interpreted as: Shortly after the Ustaše took power, the Croatian Minister of Justice, Mirko Puk, established a base in the town.[18]
page 159: Sometimes entire villages were completely
page 160: wiped out, such as Prkos in Kordun, Croatia; at other times, more than one massacre occured in the same village, such as Glina where a first massacre was followed by the slaughter of about 700 peasants, who were taken to a church, ostensibly to be converted to Catholicism (Mirković, 1993: 324)
In the article the quoted text above was interpreted as: Estimates of the number of Serbs killed from 30 July to 3 August vary widely. Sociologist Damir Mirković[19] and historian Paul Mojzes state that 700 Serbs were killed.[31]
First of all, Mojzes did not mention any dates, just wrote: first massacre was followed by the slaughter of about 700 peasants quoting Mirković. Actually, there were two massacres: one between July 26-29 and the other between August 3-5 1941. Obviously Mojzes refers to the first one.

Use of sources disqualified academically

Use of marginal to this topic authors and their works

Marginal authors and their works: Singleton, Berend, Ash, Hoare, Meier, Dizdar, Glenny, Segel instead expert authors like: Aralica, Bulajić and Vujasinović et al

  1. Аралица, Ђуро (2010). УСТАШКИ ПОКОЉИ СРБА У ГЛИНСКОЈ ЦРКВИ (PDF) (in Serbian). Музеј жртава геноцида Београд. ISBN 978-86-86831-03-3.
  2. Bulajić, Milan (1988). Ustaški zločini genocida i suđenje Andriji Artukoviću 1986. godine, kniga 2. (in Serbian). Rad Beograd.
  3. Vujasinović, Brankо; Višnjić, Čedomir; Roksandić, Đurо (2011). Glina 13. maja 1941. (in Croatian). SKD Prosvjeta Zagreb.

--Bocin kolega (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23 editor just making sure you are aware of this, as you have access to some sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parkala Massacre

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Clear consensus to delist AIRcorn (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WBG's comments

Vanamonde's comments

Gog the Mild

Skåneland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted Unresolved POV tag. While it is not meant to be a badge of shame there is discussion on the p[age about the issues and I have seen no attempt by anyone to resolve them. AIRcorn (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been tagged ((POV)) since Sept. 2014. I am not sure if the tag is still appropriate, but if it is, this article needs to be delisted per WP:GAFAIL #3. --MrClog (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smartsheet

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Not really fishy and found a citation for the release date AIRcorn (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The GA status of this article strikes me as fishy- it was initiated by CorporateM (talk · contribs), a wikipedian who admits to running a business that "contributed more than 50 Good Article-ranked pages about businesses and individuals", and completed by Samtar (talk · contribs), who I wasn't able to find much on.

As for the article itself, it's decently NPOV and does an okay job of talking about the company and the product, but there's not a lot of content. If GA is supposed to identify articles that are better than average, but not at FA status, I wouldn't argue that this page meets that criteria. Given my inexperience as an editor, I'm nominating it for community reassessment. Rivselis (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and I must say I was not really impressed. I could immediately tell that criteria 1a and 1b of GAC needed attention. I also uploaded a new logo, added two ((citation needed)) tags, two ((Clarification needed)) tags, and fixed one contradictory statement. (And I learned about all of these today.) It still needs more work. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Unfortunately you are not going to get much of a review here. The tags themselves are enough to delist it and it is probably better to work on it and then resubmit for GAN to get a proper review. Good luck AIRcorn (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would love some help in trying to bring this back up to GA standards and perhaps FA in the process. I am asking for help by way of a review because it's an article with a contentious history and I think multiple editors should be involved. We have a few problems that have arisen since this was look at in 2015.....we have ref needed tags, update tags, when tags, whole paragraphs missing sources , and a religious section that looks like it was copy and pasted from the main articles bloating the article.--Moxy 🍁 22:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Turkey? If so unfortunately I think unless the ECHR orders the Block of Wikipedia in Turkey to be lifted it seems no one else but you has the editing access, time and inclination to fix it. So if you cannot fix it yourself I think it should be derated.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watford F.C.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Main issue appears to be broadness. Missing owner is important. Not too concerned about the low detail over the 1990-2000 era as broadness does not mean comprehensive. Still the issues have been clearly identified and there has been enough time for a editor to address them. AIRcorn (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this passed GA before, the current article is not up to current GA standards.

I really feel the article needs to be reassessed and the current GA be dropped. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first review Talk:Watford F.C./GA1 was hardly in-depth. However, the reassessment happens here before being removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, are you looking to make improvements to the article yourself or simply want it downgraded? Kosack (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: For the moment, just to downgrade the article. It's doesn't help either that there is currently an argument over the found date of the club, that also makes me feel that GA is void. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be a shame as I think the core of the article is there and the majority of the damage has been done post-review. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually disagree to an extent, I didn't think the previous version was fantastic. However, there being a dispute over the date (with both sides being sourced) isn't an issue to stop this being a GA. Realistically, all sources should be used and associated in the text. The GAR is here to let people have a chance to fix issues with the text, so usually, you'd want to point out the biggest issues with the text. with that being said, this article does need a massive shakeup Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there's definitely issues here no doubt about it and I think standards have improved in the seven years since this was promoted but we're not starting from scratch here. Kosack (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KingSkyLord: Firstly, you can't vote keep, a non-partisan reviewer is required to assess the article for or against. Secondly, I have mentioned there are issues here that modern GA assessment would deem this a fail that haven't been address, Petchey era 1987 to 1994, this certainly isn't the Elton John era! 1990 to 2000, a whole decade seems a bit dry on content. Club identity has alignment and white space issues. As noted above there seemed to be edit-war, WP:OR problems with the found date! There are a few basic issues to address and I frankly think it's a bit rude of you asking me to address all the issues. Govvy (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laozi

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted by the person opening the review. I assume this was meant to be an individual reassessment. As it has had no response from the community there are no issues here with the closing AIRcorn (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons this article's status as a Good Article needs to be reviewed.

The following points address short comings concerning content & coverage.

I would rewrite myself this article entirely, but I doubt the final product would meet GA standards. For one thing, I admit I don't know enough about Chinese intellectual tradition to explain Lao Tzu's role in it adequately. But perhaps there is someone who is able to make the necessary changes to get this article on an important subject to GA or even FA status. -- llywrch (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the concerns/criticisms I raised here have been addressed, even though I waited 4 months for any kind of response. With regret, I am downgrading this article. -- llywrch (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen Metro

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result': Delisted Consensus here that it doesn't meet the GA criteria AIRcorn (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through this page, I have noticed that their are certain sections of the article that doesn't have any references in it at all which in my eyes would fail if it was done today. There is also the fact that in the section, "Future lines discussed", there isn't enough prose in this section to have this bit of the article. Add to the fact that their are sections which needs a reference and it's probably worth a shot at maybe reassessing this article. HawkAussie (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. I would say the article is pretty far from GA status (my recent edits only patch the worst holes). I would, however, consider it worthwhile to make sure the editors active around the time of the original GA award are made aware of this process (since they are presumably native Danes with the best access to DA language sources) CapnZapp (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dough4872:, @Arsenikk: are the two that was around those people who nominated and did the nomination respectively in that year. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Killer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Consensus this does not meet the Good Article criteria AIRcorn (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as a GA by an editor making only their 95th edit. Talk:Golden State Killer/GA1 was brief, to say the least. Although not unprecedented, I'd say it's unusual for an article of this length to pass without any changes being needed, no matter how small.

The article is a strange hybrid of information about an uncaught serial killer, and biography of the suspect. Yes I'm aware he's innocent until proven guilty per WP:BLP, but you have to look at things such as this pre-arrest section which still largely exists at Golden State Killer#Suspect profile and Golden State Killer#Suspects. Removing information about exonerated suspects, redundant lines of inquiry about construction work near 1979 Goleta murder etc. does't violate BLP, it keeps the article up to date and on-topic.

The lead doesn't summarise the article properly. To give just two examples, the claim about Virginia's DNA database being seen as the most effective and that Michelle McNamara coined the term Golden State Killer. While both are true, neither of these appears in the main body of the article.

The book source in footnote #2 is frequently cited without an accompanying page number. Footnote #9 appears to be a television show that is no longer available on the A&E Networks website, therefore unverifiable and needing to be replaced. Footnote #24 is hosted on googlepages and does not appear to be reliable. Footnotes #30, #34 and #38 s a podcast on Soundcloud hosted by "12-26-75". Simillarly Casefile podcast is used repeatedly. I listen to casefile, it's won awards, but it hasn't won them for its reporting and accuracy but for being entertaining. There's nothing in Wikipedia:Reliable sources about podcasts being reliable, although you could easily make a case for the LA Time's "Man In The Window" podcast about the Golden State Killer being reliable for example. Footnotes #36 and #37 are for what appears to be a self-published website about the Visalia Ransacker, the website's contact form makes it clear by the use of "don't hesitate to contact them [law enforcement]" makes it clear the publisher is independent of law enforcement. Why are we citing the opinions of random website creators about whether the Visalia Ransacker case was linked the Golden State Killer, when we should really be citing law enforcement and/or other reliable sources? Footnote #119 is a website titled "The Quester Files" containing all sorts of information about Bigfoot, UFOs, the Bermuda Triangle, the occult and cold cases. His about page makes lots of grandiose claims such as he is the "controversial and highest profiled independent investigator of the East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker. His work as presented on the Q Files and in books has inspired the reopening of cases, national press conferences, and various news reports." Given the many reliable sources covering the case, do we really need to scrape the barrel with sources like this? This shouldn't be considering an exhaustive list of problematic sources, just ones that jumped off the page at me. The whole sourcing needs to be properly checked, and the many self-published ones replaced with more reliable sources. On the subject of sources the table of East Area Rapist attacks at Golden State Killer#East Area Rapist (June 1976–July 1979) contains many entries lacking a citation.

The above shouldn't be taken as a complete list of the problems with the article, hopefully other editors will be able to bring up any issues they see as well. Rising5554 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms of the Confederate States Armed Forces

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist, lacking sources and possibly containing OR Skjoldbro (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made GA more than 10 years ago. It has a complete lack of sources, with whole paragraphs without a single source.Skjoldbro (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look through the article and straight off the bat I noticed that their is a lack of references which would fall under WP:OR and would straight away cause the red flag. Yeah their is references and notes but most of those references are only linked in certain sections of the article. For now I say delist unless it can be improved. HawkAussie (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I agree with the above. There is a lot of original research here (done in good faith of course) but it cannot be verified with sources. Lizzy (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Agreed. Most sections have minimal to no references. Everything said above pretty much sums it up. FredModulars (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catch 21

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept AmericanAir88(talk) 17:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Admittedly this is probably a bit weak for a GA as it stands, but I thought it was the best I could do given the limited resources of GSN shows at the time (and, as evidenced by the promotion, at least one other person seemed to agree). Regardless, that was three years ago and my researching skills have improved since then, so maybe there's some more stuff out there (especially now that it's back).
I have fixed the former About.com link; regarding reliability, I have used the two in numerous GAs before and haven't had many issues with it, nor have the sights ever to my knowledge deliberately given out false information. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is more that very few sources are not from GSN in some fashion. Compared to the level of detail some GSN originals get this is practically the Lord of the Rings books. The reboot of this show has just started too, meaning there might be a chance to gather more information on both the original and rebooted runs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that is exactly what I am hoping. We have a few GSN originals at FA and many more at GA because of what's available, but some get more press than others. Hopefully this revival leads to discovering some more sources (and it seems MWright96 has already gathered a few below as well). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from MWright96

I admit the review that was done three years ago was weak and did not review the aspects raised above. Here are some points that I have: MWright96 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main game
Online game
Sources

The latter two sources are particularly helpful for expanding the production section. That is all I have for now. MWright96 (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • plus Added all of these. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is another further source I located and added above that could further help in the article's development. MWright96 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MWright96. TenPoundHammer, could you give me the weekend to work on this? I am busy today but should have some time tomorrow. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I assume you mean in the caption, I'll expand overall with updates later. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Modular Buildings

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

Result: Not Listed The article is clear to not have references. Illustration and up-to-date information is also lacking. Major contributors and nominatees are also inactive. FredModulars (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was rewarded its status back in January of 2009. Since then it has barely been updated other than new products and minor edits and has been extremely less active than it used to. Only one image is included in this article and has only minor importance to the article displaying only 3 products. References are extremely lacking, with over half of the products and features of this article being unsourced and most likely based off of original research. No references are mentioned in these product descriptions or explanation sections. Also, the two sections, "Challenges" and "Reception" lack up-to-date information and are very old source material. FredModulars (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: I agree, there are missing sources all over the article. The information here cannot be verified - that is enough to fail a GA! Lizzy (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Phonetic Alphabet

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist I agree with Colins position that not everything in a GA needs to be cited, but Fiamh has acknowledged this and given an example of something which needs a citation. Since this has not been rectified and this has been open for over 4 months I am going to delist it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are long chunks of unreferenced sentences. I have identified and tagged, removed or corrected some OR and inaccuracies from time to time,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] but problems persist. IMHO it does a poor job particularly of differentiating what is the official, canonical IPA as set out by the International Phonetic Association and what are applications of the IPA; for example, [brackets] and /slashes/ are the only enclosing symbols recognized by the IPA, but the article only distinguishes them and other conventions as "principal" and "less common", with hardly any citation.

It may have deserved GA in 2006 when it became one, but I don't think it meets the standards we now expect from GAs. Nardog (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wizards of the Coast

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Agreement that the raised concerns have been addressed AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was reasonably promoted to GA status ten years ago. Since then, however, I believe the article has suffered sufficiently that it is no longer GA. There are numerous reasons for this, however, for brevity I note the following three, specifically:

  1. Approximately 25-percent of all sources in the article are to the company's own website or press releases. While much of this content is relatively basic information, it's previously been demonstrated (e.g. here) that the company publishes significant exaggerations about it and its employees' accomplishments and even the most basic content cited to the company itself should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.
  2. The article omits a major, mid 2000s abortive initiative [17], [18], [19] that was characterized by many sources as a "critical failure", though there are more RS about this than just about any other aspect of the company.
  3. The article omits a major IP dispute that led to a protracted, federal lawsuit against Pokemon even though, again, there are more RS about this than pretty much the rest of the company's history combined (see: [20], [21], [22], [23], etc.).

Chetsford (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's great, thank you! This was a GAR in progress and I hadn't fully submitted it yet but I'll just backburner it until you have time to look at it further. Chetsford (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess that was my error then; I saw your edit to the article's talk page and found this page. I think these can be fixed, especially with some assistance. :) BOZ (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a bit of time today so I'm adding in citations next to the press releases. I'm leaving up the press release citations for right now so someone else can confirm the new citations are a good replacement. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did a first sweep through the following sections: Acquisition by Hasbro, 2000s–2010s Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the Magic The Gathering section, it goes into great detail about the change in Core Sets, which is weird and not exactly super-relevant? Core Sets are a small part of Magic's overall sales from a corporate perspective: it's like talking extensively about ticket sales to preseason football games. They exist, but they aren't the important part. Overall sales of Magic would be much more interesting to talk about, as would good & bad years / expansions. (For example, Mirrodin block in 2004-2005 set sales records that weren't exceeded for some time afterward, implying a dropoff later.) SnowFire (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Shirelles

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Fixed a few problems outlined below. I don't feel the non-charting singles reach the required "likely to be challenged" level to effect the GA status. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. AIRcorn (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manzikert

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept Most of the issues presented here (lead cites, consistently formatted references and Llywrch's comment) go well past what is expected of a Good Article. That leaves the referencing. There is no requirement for a reference per paragraph, instead we require references 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. There were a few citation needed tags on the article, which generally implies they are challenged so I fixed them up. Otherwise this meets our definition of a Good Article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. The lede of the article has a number of references, which should be avoided. A lede should summarise the article, and references there are unnecessary.

2. The article lacks references.

2.1. The second paragraph in the "Background" chapter has the non-sequitur issue.
2.2. The first three paragraphs in the "Prelude" chapter is not referenced, and the text is sandwiched between the two images.
2.3 The second paragraph in the "Battle" chapter is not referenced.
2.4 The third paragraph in the "Captivity of Romanos Diogenes" chapter is not referenced.
2.5 The first two, fifth and sixth paragraphs in the "Aftermath" chapter are not referenced.

3. There is a problem with the references. The footnotes aren't uniformed. While some just use the author's name, title and page number, other use author's name, book title, publisher, place of publishing, etc. Sometimes, only a link is used. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I feel point #1 is not significant, points 2 & 3 are. I have started addressing point #3, & will give the citation format a complete overhaul in the next few days when I have the time. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot I made the following criticism about this article back in 2015:

I'm a little surprised that this article was considered GA quality. (I looked for the discussion that promoted this article, but it wasn't linked to this page.) While it is well-written, & I believe it explains its subject for the most part accurately, its sources are problematic. First, it appears to rely on the work of J.J. Norwich, although a decent historian, is more of a popularizer than standard references like Ostrogorsky & Vasiliev -- although mentioning Runciman helps. Another thing this article needs is a discussion of the primary sources: looking at the account in Vryonis' The decline of medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor: and the process of Islamization from the eleventh through the fifteenth century (another standard reference), primary sources for this battle include Niketas Choniates, & Michael the Syrian, & a letter by Manuel to the English king Henry II written shortly after the battle; except for a passing quotation from Anna Komnenos, the existence of these sources are completely ignored -- which hampers any reader who wants to go beyond the secondary sources. Lastly, although I wouldn't use this even as a reason to deny this article FA status, it would be very nice if Turkish sources were used in this article; I believe Turkish academics have written an article or more on this event, & may express some opinions or conclusions that would surprise even citizens of that country.

This concern also needs to be addressed. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llywrch: your comments from 2015 seem accurate enough, but would you mind confirming which GA criterion or criteria you feel is/are not being addressed by this shortcoming? Cheers Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, generally my critique on articles focus on how well or complete the subject is covered, & whether the best possible sources are used. Which criteria 2 & 3 address in part. So while I will concede my criteria aren't identical with the official set, yet I feel when my expectations are met so are the GA criteria in this regard. On the other hand, one could write a nomination that meets the official set of criteria, yet fails mine because it doesn't attempt to accommodate to the spirit of a GA, only meet the letter of the requirements. -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Llywrch, I think your criteria go beyond what is required for GA. When making these evaluations, one has to use the official criteria and not your personal preferences or what you think GA should be.Fiamh (talk, contribs) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right. But then again, can you explain how the criteria I expressed is critically different from an interpretation of the official criteria? Otherwise, we are merely splitting hairs, a matter that is addressed by WP:IAR. FWIW, I try to pick only articles that I feel either meet, or are close to meeting GA standards; I sincerely don't enjoy telling someone their labors are inadequate. -- llywrch (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Reinfeldt

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Too many tags for a Good Article, especially a BLP AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has suffered significant POV damage since it was promoted to GA. Now that the subject no longer serves a very public role. It is a good time for a reassessment to bring this article to GA quality again or delist. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgedale Center

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Issues below still persist. Will also add that there are organizational issues with a half the "1974–86: Grand opening" section referring to things that happened in the 90's AIRcorn (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is overall very short for a GA, and is missing an awful lot of key points found in other GA-class shopping mall articles. For instance:

  1. How did the developers choose the site and stores?
  2. What were major stores on opening day or throughout the mall's history? Did it have anything noteworthy, like the first or largest in the area of a certain store? What were major architectural features or other noteworthy facets?
  3. There is almost nothing on the mall's first decade of existence. No key points between 1974-86 are covered at all.
  4. How and when did the current owners acquire it? Did it have any other owners at any point?

Compare other GA-class mall articles such as Meridian Mall and Lansing Mall, or even Merle Hay Mall which was promoted in 2008 and still holds up reasonably well, and it's clear that this article falls woefully short. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanAir88 comments

Review

@TenPoundHammer:

AmericanAir88(talk) 19:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Miller

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted Already delisted AIRcorn (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Overall the article seems considerably less complete than other country music GAs; compare Trisha Yearwood, Tracy Lawrence, even Lonestar or McBride & the Ride which are broader in scope.

Last major editor left in 2013, GA nominator left in 2014. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC) •Delisted as per above. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorne, Florida

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Fails the broadness criteria and has not been substantially edited since the reassessment started. Plenty of good advice here for anyone wishing to move forward with this article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This recently-passed GAN fails to fulfill criteria 3(a) (addressing the main aspects of the topic), as there are large gaps in content that were not mentioned in the review. The history section is top-heavy, with paragraphs given to a certain period (1880–1910), but a similar 30-year span (1980–2010) given a single sentence. Much of the information in the section is not backed up with enough detail or information, such as the "suffering during the Great Depression" (no hardships were mentioned) or the appreciation of the area's "rural lifestyle" (which reads straight out of a realtor's listing). The Geography section only has a single sentence for a neighboring border and another with the original, bot-generated area statistic; no mention is made of the area's topography, the town's layout and neighborhoods, or any nearby natural features. The Demographics section includes unnecessary table entries for Florida and U.S. statistics; the government section lacks information on the day-to-day administration of city affairs; and there is no Economy section, which is fundamental to a city entry. Having experience with writing town articles myself (for similar settlements in the sub-2,500 range), it's entirely possible to wring out enough information to fill these sections with more thorough research. SounderBruce 00:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the reassessment. Would you be able to help me get access to the sources that you mention? I have not been able to find additional information. The information in the article is what I could find; I didn't leave gaps on purpose. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 01:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest looking into getting a TWL subscription to Newspapers.com or another source like NewsBank (usually available through a public library). They are extremely helpful in getting newspaper coverage that is the backbone of a lot of good research for casual city articles. SounderBruce 03:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SounderBruce, hi! I was the reviewer who passed this article. I'm still relatively new to this, so I understand if you have concerns - I'm here to learn!
What are some examples of town articles for "similar settlements in the sub-2,500 range" that would be good to look at? I did note the sparsity of the Geography section in my review but I can understand why it would be difficult to fill out an article for such a small town. Any tips you have would be great.
As to recent (1980-2010) history, what kind of content would be appropriate for an article like this without falling prey to recentism? I'd like to be good at this - let me know how I can improve my future reviews. Thanks.
Ganesha811 (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just had Darrington, Washington pass at GA (and I am prepping it for FAC), so it might be good to look at it. It is fine to describe a bit of the surrounding area, especially since this town doesn't directly border another jurisdiction, and features like the nearby lakes are an easy ask for this kind of section. Just a quick browse through a major regional newspaper's archives for hits on Hawthorne is good enough to pick out events that might be notable enough to escape recentism, as they would be significant enough to be noticed. SounderBruce 03:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal of Saudi Arabia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept First look at the article I noticed Faisal's sons received exceptional education compared to other princes born to Saudi monarchs., which seemed too peacocky (I toned it down). I then read the rest of the article thinking I would agree with the nominators view. Apart from the first paragraph in "Religious inclusiveness" (whose source I can't access) it struck me as positive but not overly praising. There are also a few negative sections. Without a presentation of sources showing more criticisms that have been missed there is nothing here that we can really use to judge the non-neutrality of the article. I commend the original reviewer for looking up other sources in this regard and read through this one myself and am seeing nothing negative not presented. There is agreement here that the presented quotes from the article are fine and given the absence of other red flags this appears neutral enough to meet the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should have a ((POV|date=August 2019)) tag added and be entirely rewritten in a neutral POV. The article reads like an extended resume from a fan, especially the "Early experience" section (which is not even a real section title for biographies). The sentence "In 1962 Prince Faisal helped found the Muslim World League, a worldwide charity to which the Saudi royal family has reportedly since donated more than a billion dollars," is exceptionally braggy.

Sentences similar to "King Faisal seemed to hold the pluralist view," should be entirely rewritten; they are both puffery and biased. The article is also written like a dramatic play, with struggles and winners and losers. There are countless run-on sentences.

This is not a good article. It is poorly written, with unclear and unconcise prose (1a). The article is full of peacock language, and should be entirely rewritten to address the facts (1b). As well, it is not neutral, as the article alternates between a praise piece or governmental propaganda (4).

tldr; This is frankly the worst article I have ever read that qualified as a GA. The status should be removed. Zkidwiki (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Felton

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted Aggrement it doesn't meet the criteria at this time AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was listed back in 2007, when Order of the Phoenix was brand new. 12 years later, it's had a ref tag for two & a half years and every piece of info added since 2007 in is its own paragraph, on top of an awards table that's completely unsourced. Clearly needs to be delisted. – zmbro (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A lot of the sources are unreliable, plus refs 18 and 19 are not formatted properly. Also there is inconsistency in usage of websites on refs, awards and nominations has no references and many more issues. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: Sources are missing and some of his career has not been updated with more recent information. -Hiya111 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal famine of 1943

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted Kept. Another month has passed and no new comments. It was passed originally as a Good Article and the editor who objected to it being passed as well as another editor that conducted one of the more thorough reviews here agree it now meets the criteria. This is probably as good as we get here at community reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article embraces an extraordinary range of topics. It is about one of the great tragedies of the 20th century, the bewilderingly complex and multifarious roots of the tragedy, the unfolding of the tragedy, the attempts at ameliorating the tragedy, and the lessons and legacy of the tragedy. Scholars of extraordinary range, such as Amartya Sen have built their careers by analyzing the tragedy.
This article is starkly different from the great majority of articles that routinely achieve FA status on Wikipedia. If you are a reviewer here considering contributing a review and your review will be limited to grammar and punctuation, please consider doing something else on Wikipedia. If you are are a reviewer that is not willing or able to discuss in some detail why the article satisfies GA criteria 3 and 4, then don't bother to review the article. You very likely have nothing to offer in this reassessment. It may be that qualified reviewers will not appear immediately, but it will be worth the wait. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS In fact, I would urge reviewers to skip grammar and punctuation entirely. This article has been worked on for so long by so many competent editors (for example at three FACs) that grammar and punctuation is very likely a marginal issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PPS Lingzhi: Sorry I didn't realize it was out of process. I was, however, pointing out a greater inequity, the GA-fate of an article of such range and depth pivoting on the words of just one reviewer. This is not one of those hurricane or movie articles, littering the FAs, with hackneyed templates and rudimentary sourcing, that anyone can write or review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, a reassessment needs to look at all of the GA criteria, and the recommendation that people ignore any of them should itself be ignored. Everything should be on the table, and I think it would be helpful if Fowler&fowler stopped giving directions to potential participants and sit back and allow the GAR process to run its course, the more because we want all of the criteria to be met, not just the two they happen to feel need work, though those naturally will need to be addressed. This is a GA reassessment, and FA criteria and reviews are irrelevant here. Finally, the GA criteria and process are the same for all articles, however structured; this may be a flaw in the process, but it does not change the fact that the GAN does of its design rely on a single reviewer, and if an editor feels the reviewer has gone astray or insufficiently deep, GAR is the (perhaps also flawed) backstop. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @BlueMoonset: I apologize, of course, and defer to your considered judgment. (I'm assuming you have some position of authority in the GA process.)

I do understand your point about reassessment and agree with what you have stated, and also with your calling out my error. But, with respect, the previous reviewer said not a peep about criteria 2 c, d, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Not a peep, in return, was heard from anyone before its promotion, nor after. That is, other than me. I do understand that going around monitoring every GA is not any part of your charge, but you have to understand my concern. All too often reviews are only about grammar, or about perfunctorily affixing the green cross six times against the GA criteria. How often do reviewers explain their choices? Anyway, now that I'm reassured you are watching, I will step away. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Fowler on this. The article has already been heavily copy edited during its FACs, and anyway it was never a major concern in those reviews, with a general view that it is quite well written. Would prefer if review efforts focused on more substantial matters. Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vami's review

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As per Fowler&fowler's comment(s) above, I'll (mostly) keep my review to GA criterion 3 & 4 (Broadness and Neutrality, respectively). The nominee, other reviewers, and readers should note that I know little about the topic at hand but am an experienced editor. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I: As a pre-reading note (to myself), this article is really big (164,134 bytes at time of writing), and "Broadness" will probably mean "what can safely be condensed, removed, or better yet moved to another article". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
II: Many of my comments will be made with the intention of reducing the article's size, if this was not already made clear. Prepare to see more "axes" than you'd find in a lumberjack's lodge. I will also make comments on grammar and style, but they won't necessarily be my focus. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Background
Pre-famine shocks and distress
Footnotes & references

Why are footnotes containing the content of a cited passage present in the article? Are the existing citations and the prose they support not reliable enough without them? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the total number of footnotes has been reduced from 63 to 47, but I am starting to run out of opportunities to reduce them by converting to (({sfn))}. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Famine, disease, and the death toll

(←) That footnote is already a named footnote. It is used in the lede and used in the infobox. So you wanna use it three times? Fine with me... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I slept on it and realized my suggestion was dumb since the article prose is supposed to expand on the lead content. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi2: Go with the idea you responded to this inquiry, but maintain the first Footnote. Move the majority of its content out of it and into a paragraph under this section, and have that Footnote refer to this paragraph, or better yet link to it with the anchors/bookmarks you use elsewhere in the article.
To be honest, I still think "Dyson had this number, Greenough had that number" is too detailed for body text...I tried to add the total mortality, the footnote, and beef up the text.. actually, I've sorta kinda reordered that entire section. Please give it a look and let me know what you think. Tks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Economic and political effects
Causation

A better name for this section would be "Historiography", as "Background" and "Pre-famine shocks and distress" already give the causes while this section discusses what historians thought the cause was. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GA(R) Progress

This review, though it will be slow in coming, is in progress.

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments by Lingzhi2

"The Bengal Famine of 1943 stands out as a great calamity even in an age all too familiar with human suffering and death on a tragic scale."

 — The opening sentence of Famine Inquiry Commission (1945), Report on Bengal, Government of India Press, quoted in W. R. Aykroyd (1974), The Conquest of Famine, London: Chatto&Windus.

I generally agree that this topic is a major topic, and that the usual rules of WP about article size not be applied stringently to it. The Famine Commission of 1945 said it all. See the quote box. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
indeed. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that I'll be taking a vacation from Wikipedia very soon. After this rigorous GAR, I expect the article will go to its well-deserved FAC. I won't be here, but please consider this post an expression of my Support for promotion to FA. The article has seen major improvements since I opposed it at an earlier FAC. May I take this opportunity also to express my thanks, admiration, and congratulations to @Lingzhi2: for persevering with this article through thick and thin. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) This is Triple Crown material if I ever saw it. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you muchly, Vami_IV, for such a diligent review. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

Now that Vami_IV is satisfied that the article now meets the GA criteria, as this is a community reassessment, other editors need to weigh in as to whether they think the article meets the criteria and retains its GA listing, or if it doesn't and should be delisted: During the reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it. It should not be unilaterally closed by any involved editor, even Vami_IV, though they have done excellent work in reviewing the article on the basis of the criteria, and merit great thanks. I have reopened the GAR so it can continue and conclude in the prescribed manner. Thanks to anyone who weighs in going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador Retriever

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Clear consensus to delist AIRcorn (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I believe this article should be stripped of being listed as a Good article due to the fact that there are multiple additional citations tags in a lot of the article's sections, which IMMEDIATELY disqualifies it according to the third GA criteria. It was listed over a decade ago, in 2007, so I don't know if the rules were extremely lenient back then? Because though I haven't checked a lot of the sources, I know that it needs a lot of fixing up with updating prose with reliable citations.

There is also an issue with people simply adding free-use pictures of their labradors for the heck of it rather than with an image matching commentary reflecting the section's information. Doubt that's a GA issue though, just something I should mention. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to see. ..but this needs lots of manpower to fix up. Will research sources soon.--Moxy 🍁 04:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it Moxy! -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 18:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NowIsntItTime, TenPoundHammer, Moxy, William Harris, and Cavalryman: I am speedy delisting . I guess if you want to start a reclamation drive, the article's talk page would be a good place to do it. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... we can now clean it up without people say ..."no no dont remove its a GA article". I am up for helping this weekend.--Moxy 🍁 01:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC
Well done Lingzhi2. Also, whether an article is at GA or even FA, that should not deter editors from ensuring that it complies with WP:POL. I will place my watch on the LR page for a week in support of the efforts here - there may be some biting necessary. "Let the games begin!" William Harristalk 04:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B. J. Prager

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept Nominator happy with current state of the article AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is choppy and basically a list of his accomplishments (which admittedly, are many). Each section is relatively short and only contains positive information. Many of the references are statistics, lists, or record books. None 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the criteria for a GA are not met in my opinion. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 04:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work and I'm fine with passing the article now. Thanks. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Westenra

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Clear issues here. I think 2007 is too long ago to revert back to, but it could be a good base to build this article up again if anyone desires AIRcorn (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GAFAIL 3. Pinging @Drmies: who added the tags and pruned content, and also @Nerd271: who also pruned some content. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAk_SNu1QNk
More