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

Result: With thanks to Corcs999, this GAR is a success. Article kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2008. There's some uncited material such as

• Riverside mammals are seen frequently and Eurasian otter, American mink and red fox are common. Trout and salmon are less common in the Shannon than they once were, however pike is still plentiful and attracts anglers.

Cited Corcs999 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• and most recently Páirc Uí Chaoimh in Cork. Other notable employers include Banagher Sawmills and the cruise liner businesses located at the marina.

Cited Corcs999 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Banagher was once a centre for river transportation on the Shannon system. River transportation fell into decline with the advent of rail and road transportation improvements. Banagher is still a centre for river cruisers, with a number of hire companies operating the town's marina.

Cited Corcs999 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire religion section

Religion section removed and Places of Worship Updated and cited Corcs999 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the British garrison had left the town in 1863, the barracks were looted and burned shortly after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921–22.

Updated and cited Corcs999 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And more, along with an original research tag for

• Banagher's greatest literary association is probably[original research?] with Anthony Trollope, who had been employed by the General Post Office in 1835 and was sent to Ireland in September 1841 at the age of 26.

Cited Corcs999 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also an update using the new census would be good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent census data is included (2016). 2022 census results are not available yet. Corcs999 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corcs999 significant material is still uncited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the case - I cited everything that was highlighted and can only deal with specifics. Corcs999 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to source the remaining ((citation needed)) tags Corcs999? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Corcs999 (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues fixed by Rupples, who is continuing to improve the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2009. There's some uncited statements that need to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this article also needs to be updated as well for the 2021 UK census as some sections are sourced to the previous ones. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GA status. I should say at the outset this is my first contribution to a GA reassessment discussion and I'm not entirely sure of the procedure. I formed my opinion by reading the article as it looked after being awarded GA status in 2009[1] alongside the current version.[2] I'm assuming the criteria for GA status is largely unchanged from 2009.

My overall impression is that the article has improved. Large sections of text have been rewritten to improve flow/readability. Additional relevant images have been included. Further encyclopedic content has been added with supporting inline references.

My criticisms are:

(i) Governance section needs to be updated.

(ii) Demography section needs updating

(iii) Notable people has a lack of referencing. Many of the entries do not describe the person's relationship with Arbroath.

(iv) House price stats in Economy section outdated. Haven't come across this in other articles on towns/villages. Maybe better scrubbed as it requires constant updating.

(v) Public services has excessive detail re the list of recyclable materials.

However, I think the shortfalls can be overcome without much difficulty. Indeed, I'm unsure whether failing to update statistics invalidates GA status so long as the material is supported with reliable, sources at the time of writing.WP:GACR Rupples (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC) (signed late after reminder) (Edit: added diffs for versions compared) Rupples (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rupples please remember to sign your talk page comments. If you are willing to find and include sources, that would be great. Failing to update statistics after a reasonable time does invalidate GA status; however, as the most recent census only took place in March 2022, I wouldn't have nominated the article this early. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2010 listing which is heavily biased towards recent events, and which, lacking any general references since 2008, is considerably uncited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Per reasons above. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited material. Including

• A marionette's arms are manipulated by strings, but Henson used rods to move his Muppets' arms, allowing greater control of expression. Additionally, he wanted the Muppet characters to "speak" more creatively than was possible for previous puppets, which had random mouth movements, so he used precise mouth movements to match the dialogue.
• The popularity of his work on Sam and Friends in the late 1950s led to a series of guest appearances on network talk and variety shows. He appeared as a guest on many shows, including The Steve Allen Show, The Jack Paar Program, and The Ed Sullivan Show. (Sullivan introduced him as "Jim Newsom and his Puppets" on September 11, 1966.) These television broadcasts greatly increased his exposure, leading to hundreds of commercial appearances by Henson characters throughout the '60s.
• During this time, Henson continued to work with various companies who sought out his Muppets for advertising purposes. Among his clients were Wilson Meats, Royal Crown Cola, Claussen's Bread, La Choy, and Frito-Lay, which featured an early version of his character Cookie Monster to promote their Munchos line of potato snacks. Like the Wilkins Coffee ads of the late 1950s and early 1960s, the formula stayed fairly similar. For instance, one of the Claussen's commercials featured Kermit the Frog dangling from a window while a character named Mack asks him if he brought a loaf of the company's bread; when Kermit says he did not, Mack closes the window on Kermit's fingers and causes him to fall, suggesting he "drop down" to the grocery store to buy a loaf.
• His entire filmography.

along with many more. These will all need to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness this article is bad. There are entire sections that are unsourced such as.

• Development under the Glasgow and South Western Railway
• Topography
• 1994 - present: Privatisation and current operations

And is this even written well? There's sections called

• A resilient mood; but then collapse
• Regaining momentum
• The Glasgow and South Western Railway is formed

This article seems to have a lot of problems. This will take a lot of effort to fix. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The article was assessed as GA way back in June 2008. Since then it's had the usual here-and-there editing, except for one of Afterbrunel's throw-everything-away-and-start-again expansions in December 2014. This, I believe, means that WP:GAC#5 is no longer met. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Onegreatjoke. the stability criterion is: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". That does not apply here. Femke (alt) (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Onegreatjoke. This is an artifact from the early days of Wikipedia, and no longer meets our expectations for a good article. Unless someone quickly commits to serious improvements, this should not maintain GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to suffer from a lack of updates. There are two citation needed tags for

• After completing a major tour of Australia and Europe as opening act for superstar Pink in early 2010, the band took some time out of the spotlight, stating on their official website and blog that they were currently writing and recording their next studio album.
• The first single, the title track "Follow the Sun", was used by HBO America in a major end of year promotion for the station.

But that main problem is that the article is not updated after 2012. Sure, they haven't made a single album since then, but there's probably still more to talk about. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have started working on the article, generally proceeding chronologically. I have found some new sources and will continue to look for more. My work on the article may take about a week or so. I ask for no decision on whether to demote this article be made until I have had a chance to bring it up to date.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe I have addressed the concerns raised by the nominator. The article is greatly expanded and now includes a new section Afterwards, which details the various works by the Hume brothers since the end of their asssociation with Evermore.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep comprehensive improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. CMD (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being passed as GA in 2022 it doesn't seem this article ever met the criteria; there is considerable unsourced content. (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was hoping that I'd get some feedback from the reviewer on areas to improve on, but they seemed to be just as new to GA reviewing as I was, and flagged it through with no improvements, so I put it up for reassessment. I am in a good position to source and improve the article, I have a lot of offline sources on the topic, so I'll get round to ensuring everything is properly sourced. (Although I'm a bit busy IRL, so it could be a couple of days before I start) :) HenryTemplo (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of work could be done. Existing content obviously needs sourcing, and many areas could use some sort of expansion to fix choppy prose. The Ancient monuments and historic buildings as an extreme example, is not even prose. (I'm sure there is some stuff to say about them, there is surely a thematic historical or cultural theme or themes.) There are plenty of UK Geography Good Articles, have a look through those and see if there are any good ideas or good ways of writing certain parts of the article. CMD (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! HenryTemplo (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HenryTemplo, unless huge progress is made in the next few days, the article will be delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just haven't been able to find the time yet to sit down and work through it all (with all my books!). I'm not terrifically fussed if the article is delisted or not though, but I'll see what I can do in the next few days (I know what needs doing, it's finding the time to do it that's the issue!). Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imo the GAR should be kept open as long as improvements are being made. Although in this case it may be that closing and renominating might be the fastest route to genuinely being a GA. (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm keeping open GARs where improvements are being made, but I pinged because the article hadn't been edited in five days. I'll judge when the time comes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HenryTemplo, if you let us know your timeline, I'm sure we can keep this open for longer than usual. The best outcome of a GAR is for an article to be saved :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I'd appreciate a little bit more time! I hope to do some editing this evening, focusing on finding citations using my collection of offline sources, then move on to expanding sections (The history section is definitely not complete, it completely misses the 19th century). If I don't get that all done this evening then I should be able to do a little on Wednesday and Thursday night, and potentially Saturday and Sunday as well. Sorry for the late reply, I haven't been checking my watchlist as much as of late. Have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HenryTemplo, any updates? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not keeping to my schedule! I was able to do a bit of work the Sunday before last, but then I realised the full extent of the improvements needed! The History section is woefully incomplete (it fails to mention any of the events of the 19th century), the Economy section needs updating (much of the section is sourced from integrated area plans and strategies from the early 00s, as well as primary sources from organisation's websites), and I'm worried about the scope of the article; I personally think that there should be separate articles for History and potentially transport, as both these topics are far to broad to adequately cover in this article. Additionally, I have struggled finding sources! Much of the current prose is written in quite a general, vague tone, making it rather difficult to source claims such as "Tourism is also a highly seasonal industry owing to its reliance on outdoor recreation, and the lower number of tourists in winter results in a significant constriction of the islands' commercial activities.". I could tell you that extract was true, based on my knowledge of Scilly, but I'm not a reliable source, and trying to find a reliable source for that specific claim is quite difficult, despite my collection of local history books. I could rewrite the offending extract, but this type of prose is so common I would have to rewrite large portions of the article, something I unfortunately have time for. However, if any experienced or less time restricted editors would want to help improve the article, I would be more than willing to help point them in the right direction in terms of sources, coverage, etc. I also may be able to do some editing next week, when I will have more time!

TLDR: I severely underestimated the time and resources needed to sort out this article! HenryTemplo (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Henry, it sounds like you've got a pretty good idea of what needs doing, especially if you're feeling a need to spin off history and transport. That is a good sign. Unfortunately, that makes me suspect you're probably right when you suggest how much work needs doing, and how much time that might take! GAR is not a great place for time-pressured work, so if it's alright with you, this should close as a delist and you can continue to work on the article at your leisure (and the history and transport articles?), and renominate once all that work has been done. CMD (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your probably right! As I've previously said, I don't really mind wether it stays GA or not, the article probably didn't fit the criteria to begin with! I'm grateful for all the help and pointers on how to improve, its very much appreciated! I'll try and do some editing on the article if and when I find the time, but it'll probably end up being a long term project. Anyway, have a great day! HenryTemplo (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was last reviewed in 2009. Since then, it has not been fully maintained to GA standards. There are a number of areas lacking citations, and in general the article gives very little coverage post CP acquisition. There is clearly still history missing, as I found this from less than a year ago [3] and other sources are unused such as [4] [5] [6]. I am not satisfied this article meets the broadness criterion, and it certainly does not meet the verifiability criterion. The article does not make it clear which tense it wants to use for the railroad, either, mixing present and past tense. This would need a significant amount of work to maintain its GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per reasons above. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No improvemnent, so delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2007 listing of a still in-use programming language; no surprise that huge amounts of material is unsourced, violating GA criterion 2. I also feel that too much detail is being paid to the syntax of the language, possibly violating criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above for further issues. No harm in starting the reassessment now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: can you notify the major contributors, reviewers and initial nominator? Pings may be missed, and I only pinged those with over 5% authorship. Feel free to remove this comment afterwards. Femke (alt) (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive, Comp.arch, Thumperward, and Akeosnhaoe:

Perhaps @Peterl, Gadfium, TJRC, MrOllie, and Peaceray: too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Femke (alt), this article annoyingly dates to before the days of nominator/reviewer.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a major contributor to this article, I just ran a couple of bots on it. Abductive (reasoning) 14:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: With some improvements made, I join the ranks of the weak keepers, and form a clear consensus to keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2011 listing. There are no general references but a large amount of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few places with paragraphs ending without references, but I'm not sure what "no general references" means. I believe the GA nominator, Smokeybjb, is inactive, but perhaps someone else from the paleo project can step in. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General references are when multiple paragraphs are cited to one citation. No general references means that there is none of those meaning the article is likely uncited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About general references: WP:GA? specifies that not all statements require inline citations. You're allowed to have a list of citations at the end of the article. De facto for WP:GAN, we do seem to demand inline citations for most statements. Femke (alt) (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure I understand the issue; is it that citations are bundled together at the end of paragraphs? That few citations are used more than once? Either way, I haven't encountered such styles to be a problem even at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, no general references isn't a problem. There are just a few uncited passages (e.g. the paragraph ending "Embolomeres are now identified as reptiliomorphs distantly related to temnospondyls", or the " simplified taxonomy of temnospondyls showing currently recognized groups", and a couple of others). Should be easy to fix, if you can find suitable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Koskinonodon, who recently (~one year ago) expanded the article massively and may have comments. Personally, I would hardly characterize the amount of uncited material as "large", and the overall article quality is actually somewhat above average for palaeontology GAs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then hopefully it's easy to fix, Lythronaxargestes; which other GAs did you have in mind ;)  ?. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To that, I'd suggest that WP:Some stuff exists for a reason... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Some uncited passages are now cited. I think compliance with WP:V is compromised by WP:overcitation in places. Mostly in Temnospondyli#Cranium. Some paragraphs are too long to comfortably read for non-academically schooled people (1a). Overall, I would ask for more work in this state for a pass in GAN, but would not want to delist either. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep the article looks good, though I would say it has too many citations, like [22][23][24][25][26][27] or [40][41][42][43][44][45], but it's not an obstacle for GA. Another problem is that class tree in Classification looks extremely ugly and unreadable on mobile, would suggest some change to it but I honestly don't know how to fix that. Artem.G (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No improvements. Article delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the article are unsourced, such as the promotion section (the one source there doesn't verify most of what comes before. Some questionable English too: "However, this mix leaked in the internet in November 2010. " —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issues here aren't too great and could probably be fixed quite easily. Unfortunately, nobody seems to be coming forward. Steelkamp (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Currently unsourced from 2014 onwards, also misses out 2016-2019. Fails broadness criterion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has not been maintained since its promotion that's for sure. Every tournament past 2015 is only given a 1 sentence paragraph with no summary of events while also not being cited along with the 2015 tournament. There's slight citation issues but the real problem is the lack of updates. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've given some of my time to that article. But it would be great if others would help update the post-2015 tournaments by expanding from 1 sentence form to paragraph form. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure why you would create a paragraph per year. Seems more like a list-page article thing. The other sections cover decades. Other than the Covid cancellation, I don't think there was anything more notable for the recent period. I would leave in the Covid cancellation, but the other sentences seen unnecessary. Alaney2k (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: I saw you made a few improvements to the article, thanks :). I see there are 3 cn tags remaining. Would you be willing to work on it some more to save the GA status? Femke (alt) (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my priorities are elsewhere. The article will benefit from a short summary of the incidents at the 2021 IIHF World Championship. Flibirigit (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 19:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a GA from 2010. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited, and needs to be cleaned up (for example, the lead banner). I've gone ahead and added some ((Citation needed)) tags. ¹⁴¹Pr 09:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Significant unsourced material is still there. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a GA from 2010. There are lots of uncited material which needs to be cited. I've gone ahead and added some ((Citation needed)) tags. ¹⁴¹Pr 16:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have updated and cleaned up the article. Materialscientist (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Mew article no longer meets the criteria for a Good Article. Much of the reception is either trivial coverage from listicles or content farm style articles, and standards have increased significantly from when it was first reviewed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The design section especially needs to be sourced to WP:RS, instead of WP:PRIMARY sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept - Clear consensus the article meets the GA criteria now that it has been rewritten and expanded. Note, that GAR is unsuited for discussions around notability. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information on when or how the road was constructed. There are no sources other than from the Michigan State Highway Department. I note that I found this article because it is currently the shortest good article on the English Wikipedia. Steelkamp (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this even an article? This is the problem with the "all state/province-supported roads are notable" attitude taken by WP:GEOROAD. This should have never been a GA, none of the sources are even independent (and most are maps, making them all WP:PRIMARY SOURCES) and the article consists of basic route description and a "the road existed from year X to year Y" section. This probably needs to be deleted or redirected. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist comprehensive issues as outlined above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. Though do you know how annoying it is article is to hear in conversations as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Like seriously, everyone goes "Oh, if this article is so short to be a GA, anything can be a GA" and it's like, have you ever thought that maybe this article is too short?? Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, just over 12 hours and the nominator has not had a chance to respond yet, and already 2 delist votes. May I suggest putting the pitchforks aside and waiting to see what the response is. --Rschen7754 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What response could logically buttress an argument that this should be kept as GA? The only defense for this ever getting GA status in the first place was that it was over 10 years ago back when our standards and application of scrutiny were low. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to mention the evidence of original research (my edit) by using a modern state map tool similar to GMaps to make calcualtions about the size of the old route which hasn't existed since 1939. Also, how can we support the claim that the road went "through farm country and rural areas" without a source which actually says that? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What response? [7] --Rschen7754 01:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—thank you for the prompt, Steelkamp, to rewrite and expand this article. Perhaps a heads up (say 72 hours notice on either the talk page for the article or me) would have allowed us to avoid the bureaucracy of a formal review. That said, everything should be fixed up to allow this article to stay listed as a GA with just a few hours' effort.

@AirshipJungleman29, Onegreatjoke, and Indy beetle: you may want to re-evaluate the article as it's been changed since you voted before I had a chance engage with this nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 02:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, part of me says "touché" in acknowledging your recent improvements to the article, but there still are some problems. What is going on with reference 4 aka the PR Finder. It's just a link to a search tool, it doesn't say anything about this highway. How is it being used to support the claims about "major intersections" and route length? Also "Running through what is today farm country and rural areas" appears to be an original observation of Google satellite images, though that is admittedly more nitpicky. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That mapping tool is used on 233 articles on Michigan's highways and other roadways to accurately and consistently measure their lengths. It is the second generation of a mapping tool called the Physical Reference Finder. MDOT maintains physical reference data on every public roadway in the state, meaning the map can be, and has been used, to measure the mileposts for any extant roadway. The only roadway in the state with an article that cannot be mileposted with PR Finder is Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive because it is neither a city/village street, county road or state trunkline highway. Since the appropriate segments of Kilmanagh and Grassmere roads still exist in the 1939 configuration of M-105, they're in the PR Finder. Imzadi 1979 → 19:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The point is it's verifiable. I've had to do this myself many times, and not just on road articles. As an example, the State of Utah has a search tool to search through a library of documents. However those documents are stored on a Google Drive account owned by the state. Problem is I can't (well I can, but not without grief) link to the raw destination document. Wikipedia has edit filters that gray list anything from Google Drive. Sometimes I feel like fighting the battle, and click "yes" repeatedly on the "are you sure you want to link to this" crap, and then have to constantly defend a link to Google drive. Sometimes I don't feel like it, so I link to the search page on the state of Utah's website, which nobody questions, and hope the user has enough common sense to enter the right search terms that will point them to the document I used to source the article. Colorado has a similar database to the one Imzadi used, where a URL to the results of a database search will not work. The only way I've found one can link to it, is to link to the search page, and tell the user what to search to produce the intended results. It's still verifiable, and better than an offline source that requires a trip to a distant library to verify. As to the final point, requiring a source that a highway in rural Michigan passes through farm country is approaching WP:SKYISBLUE territory. Dave (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what is it I would have to type into the PR Finder to get the info it supports here? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Indy beetle: in short, you zoom and scroll to display the desired roadway, whether it is currently a state highway, a county road or a city/village street. State highways and other roads under current MDOT jurisdiction are organized into Control Sections (CS) that are subsections of the highway numbered on a county-by-county basis. You can see these CSs numbered in the Control Section Atlas if you want to reference a roadway by its CS numbers. All public roadways in the state are assigned to Physical References (PR).

    The Advanced Search tool allows someone to work with either CSs or PRs. The search tool allows someone to zoom and scroll to find their target, and then click the button next to the Route ID box to click on the roadway on the map to select it. There are other buttons to allow someone to select the crossroad at one end of a desired segment and get the milepost for that intersection. Then it's simple arithmetic.

    Mileposts run from the southern or western endpoint in a northward or eastward progression. CS mileposts in the southernmost or westernmost county directly correspond to the milepost that would appear on the mile markers. The CS milepost values reset at county lines, but through a chain of continuing arithmetic, the mile marker values on the signs continue to increase to the overall terminus of the highway. PR mileposts work in the same fashion. Not that it's a factor here, but when concurrencies come into play, additional arithmetic may be needed because the CS/PR mileposts may follow a more dominant designation and appear to regress in the direction of an overlapped designation: the MPs along US 41/M-28 progress westbound along along the CS/PRs to follow US 41 northbound, which is M-28 westbound.

    All of this follows WP:CALC: "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible." In fact, when M-28 received mile markers for the first time a few years ago, they generally lined up with the mileposts derived from the PR Finder Application years previously, thus showing that the calculations are correct. (Mile markers can be posted up to a tenth of a mile off their correct location per FHWA guidance.) For freeways that had mile markers posted before the exit list tables were created on Wikipedia, again, they generally line up with the values in the field. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—I had concerns with the article in its condition before yesterday's needless shock doctrine, but the rewrite has resolved any doubts on my end. VC 14:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The citations added meet GAC 2b, the rewrite brings the article up to GAC 1a and 3a compliance, and the other issues brought up by the other comments here seem to have been resolved or addressed adequately. SounderBruce 00:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With the recent improvements to the article made by Imzadi1979, the article is comprehensive and broadly covers the route with both map sources and newspaper articles and therefore meets the GA criteria. Dough4872 01:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The recent improvements have brought the article up to snuff. Steelkamp (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Imzadi1979: Since you wanted notice of this good article reassessment, I will tell you now that there are several other really short highway GAs which you might want to improve. I would go from the top of this list. Steelkamp (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steelkamp: Do you plan on nominating the non-roads articles on that list too? --Rschen7754 02:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of them at least. It depends, articles can be comprehensive without being that long. If I can spot something missing, then I will nominate that article. I don't have a specific hatred of road articles if that's what you're thinking. Steelkamp (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Without comment as to the earlier state of the article, the two concerns raised were 1) missing construction details and 2) no independent sources. The two concerns were addressed. I found the manner in which this GAR was conducted to be less than professional, but so be it, I guess this is civility on Wikipedia nowadays. --Rschen7754 06:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist - while some inappropriate information inferring discrimination has been deleted, no signs of people tackling the wider issues. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is quite a bit out of date, has unsourced content, contains trivia about who was in its leadership when, and contains quite a few weird sentences:

• The committee will draft new bylaws (2011 source)
• A gallery of photos of the art works is shown here, on the WMATA web site
• is to be funded by a special taxing district that will cover commercial properties (2010 source). Femke (alt) (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the Discrimination section. It gives a vague statement that there have been claims of discrimination within WMATA and then provides a table of gender and race as if readers are supposed to draw the implied conclusions on their own. Only after the table does it state what the nature of this discrimination is. I object to the Christine Townsend paragraph; it is so vague as to what the alleged sexual discrimination is. I also think a better source for that statement is. The advocacy advertising paragraph has an unfinished conclusion. Did the advocacy advertising ban hold up? Without a source linking the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority court challenge to the WMATA, I don't think that sentence even belongs in the article. The aforementioned problems of unsourced content and out of date information applies to this section as well. I think this article should be delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the table as it was both 18 years out of date and asking the reader to infer there is discrimination without actually linking to a source which makes that connection. In other words, it was original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have removed the claim about the MTA, which is a non-sequitur. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article suffers from quite a few things: there are buzzwords in the lead(4), the investments are an extremely long list (1b), cn tags / occasional use of unreliable sources, many one-sentence paragraphs. Will need significant work to remain a GA. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Without even looking into the sources, it's disqualified by the fact that it's mostly proseline and excessive lists. And I don't enforce this because I've yet to see a community mandate to do so, but I personally consider a criticism section to be a layout and NPOV issue in most cases. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting per below, but noting that it should be a relatively easy return to GA status if someone wants to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has 10 citation needed tags. Looks good overall, so should be relatively easy to save for somebody knowledgeable. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not allowed to edit this article anymore (long story). Ask for someone else to try to manage this nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina. If nobody picks it up, pretend the original nominator has left Wikipedia. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Fails GA criterion 2, as significant unsourced material is present; also violates criterion 4, with some overly-promotional writing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not meeting the GA criteria in a few ways:

• 5 cn tags, but some uncited passages not tagged
• Self-contradictory statement in lead (which airline is biggest)
• Not sticking to summary style. Contains many phrases like "On 7 February, several news outlets reported that", which rarely belong in encyclopedic articles.
• External links in the body of the article. Femke (alt) (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old GAR request. Article looks outdated, with latest info from 2008. It also doesn't look broad, with only 7 sources (most of them some news pieces, and one (hultengren.com) probably self-published). Artem.G (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Article content is very outdated, and hultengren.com and beijingchina.ca are self-published. Moreover, none of the other sources are that reliable. My biggest problem with the page is that it's way too small for a tunnel system that supposedly took 10 years and 300,000 people to construct. There needs to be a lot more content for the article to fulfill the broadness criterion. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this article is good, but there are a few sections that need citations near the end. In particular, the "Records held" section has been tagged since March 2017. Steelkamp (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Large-scale WP:RECENTISM issues, along with violations of GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been maintained to GA standards and requires a bit of work to get back:

• There are 8 cn tags
• The history is slanted towards recent events (summary style)
• Some WP:overcitation
• Neutrality concerns in recent history
• Unclear sentences (clarification needed). Femke (alt) (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per below citation issues, especially concerning WP:MEDRS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2008. Some problems include uncited statements like

• However, mixes can vary widely (between countries and often between brands) in ingredients included, their ratio and their quality.
• Today, hot chocolate is consumed for pleasure rather than medicinally, but new research suggests that there may be other health benefits attributed to the drink
• ...hydrogenated oils, or fats.
• Some brands also contain hydrogenated oils and fats, the most common of which are coconut derivatives.

There are also some other problems such as

• I'm not convinced that the ingredients section is broad enough. It barely mentions any addons and could probably be expanded.
• Several negative effects[which?] may be...

If these can fixed that would be great. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending to close, but am not convinced, so additional opinions are needed to make a decision. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this one might need to be delisted. There's not enough information about global usage or about terminology/ingredients (which should really be one section) to meet broad coverage. Its health information should also be subject to stricter citation requirements per WP:MEDRS, meaning that there shouldn't be any citation issues in that section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No non-basic improvements; article delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in need of work to meet the GA criteria again

• Bare URLs
• External links in body
• Too many external links
• Updates needed
• Citations needed
• Overly long quote in "delays since 2009' section. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this nomination is a little more of an interesting one. When this became a GA I nominated it for DYK like I always do for most GAs. However, the nomination actually got rejected because of reliable sourcing concerns. There are reportedly unreliable sources such as youtube and a forum post while there's also a supposed overuse of primary sources. This is concerning considering i've never had a nomination rejected for unreliable sourcing and DYK is usually more relaxed than GA with its criteria. So, i'm nominating this for GAR to see if these concerns are valid and enough to be reassessed. For more information see the DYK nomination Template:Did you know nominations/GLaDOS Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There numerous listicles that may need to be removed. This one for example is just pure fluff. This one may also be fluff, especially since it's written in a very geeky tone. There don't seem to be many that are outright unreliable, though, but I am not sure if PopMatters is a WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend delist until sourcing issues are fixed due to such wide ranging use of content farm style articles. It's clear the review was simply not thorough enough, and the fact that no fixes were asked for by the reviewer is surprising and points to a rushed review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section "Relationship to other characters" is cited to G. Christopher Williams of PopMatters. They might be cited in-depth in part because of their position at the University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point, but there may be good reason to trim this section down. I don't know. Primary source usage does not seem out of the ordinary. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the GA reviewer of this Article. I admit that more work should have been performed on my part. I apologize for this. I agree that a delist should be performed. This article does not meet all of the GA Criteria. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is redeemable and probably close to GA. But there are a few sourcing issues that need to be resolved. I agree about a delist and I hope it encourages editors to work on it. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept per discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual, there's uncited material. I'm not sure exactly how much since i'm not good with sciencey general references that the article has but I do know that

• Avogadro's law allowed him to deduce the diatomic nature of numerous gases by studying the volumes at which they reacted. For instance: since two liters of hydrogen will react with just one liter of oxygen to produce two liters of water vapor (at constant pressure and temperature), it meant a single oxygen molecule splits in two in order to form two particles of water. Thus, Avogadro was able to offer more accurate estimates of the atomic mass of oxygen and various other elements, and made a clear distinction between molecules and atoms.
• It was proof that atomic theory was not merely a convenient tool for predicting how the elements react, but reflected the actual nature of matter.
• This model was validated experimentally in 1908 by French physicist Jean Perrin, thus providing additional validation for particle theory (and by extension atomic theory).
• Bohr's model was not perfect. It could only predict the spectral lines of hydrogen; it couldn't predict those of multielectron atoms. Worse still, as spectrographic technology improved, additional spectral lines in hydrogen were observed which Bohr's model couldn't explain. In 1916, Arnold Sommerfeld added elliptical orbits to the Bohr model to explain the extra emission lines, but this made the model very difficult to use, and it still couldn't explain more complex atoms.
• For his discovery of the neutron, Chadwick received the Nobel Prize in 1935.

And many more. Also, i'm using the GAR script for the first time so their may be something wrong that happened with this nom. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep (this is an option under the new guidelines, so this !vote will likely be valid within the 7 days): Onegreatjoke: it is not clear from your statement how the article does not meet the WP:GACR. None of the above statements are "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". The Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines also do not mandate inline citations (even though it is recommended). Femke (alt) (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I forgot to mention but the things i've listed were uncited material and not anything you mentioned. Even though there's likely general references, these were uncited statements I found at the end of sections which I feel go against the general references criteria. Besides, these are uncited to begin with which I feel are still a problem. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you know they were uncited? For some of these statements, I do expect them to be in any book about atomic theory. The inline cites before those examples are to the seminal papers, so I wouldn't be surprised if the entire sentence is based on a secondary source. You may be able to figure this out better using mw:Who Wrote That?. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is all standard stuff, written up in many physics and chemistry textbooks at the college level. Some of it has filtered, in simplified form, down to high school. The only challenge in sourcing such statements is to pick the best reference(s) from among the many options. XOR'easter (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made a first pass (don't really have time for more than that). It could benefit from another pair of eyes, but I don't think there are serious issues yet remaining. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks a lot XOR'easter! Important article to get right :). You found and fixed some more serious issues it seemed.

  @Onegreatjoke: are you satisfied? There are still some paragraphs that seem to rely on the general references, but the fraction is certainly reduced. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is, these are things that are uncited at the end of sections. For example the sentence "Avogadro's law allowed him to deduce the diatomic nature of numerous gases by studying the volumes at which they reacted. For instance: since two liters of hydrogen will react with just one liter of oxygen to produce two liters of water vapor (at constant pressure and temperature), it meant a single oxygen molecule splits in two in order to form two particles of water. Thus, Avogadro was able to offer more accurate estimates of the atomic mass of oxygen and various other elements, and made a clear distinction between molecules and atoms." At the end of the Avogadro section is fully uncited. Sure, it could be cited to citation 20 but the citation is placed before, not after the sentence and nothing indicates that there's a general citation for that sentence in the next section. As much as general references are fine, there should be something that at least cites the entirety of the Avogadro section instead of halfway in it because that's just bad citation formatting to me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely agree with you that the citation style is/was suboptimal, and I'm very happy with the improvements made. WP:scientific citation guidelines do allow for us to cite the first sentence to cover an entire paragraph, as long as this is done consistently in the entire article. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per general consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this article for GAR because of uncited paragraphs throughout the article. I listed this for an individual assessment in Oct. and the article went through subsequent improvements, although work seems to have stalled. There was disagreement in the individual GAR about if the article met the GA criteria, which is why I am seeking further comments with a community assessment. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist the problem of content whose source is unclear is still present in the article. (t · c) buidhe 21:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist many cn tags. No distinction between further reading / potential general references. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been updated much since it's listing in 2008. Contains sentences like:

• after the current eruptive cycle began and the new dome began to split the glacier (2004 sources)
• The latest aerial imagery taken in 2012 (2009(!) source)
• Quite a few unsourced sentences too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Per the discussion at WT:GAR#Please keep topical limits in mind and below, this chemistry article is far below the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. There's some uncited information including

• Finally, X-ray crystallography had a pioneering role in the development of supramolecular chemistry, particularly in clarifying the structures of the crown ethers and the principles of host–guest chemistry. X-ray diffraction is a very powerful tool in catalyst development. Ex-situ measurements are carried out routinely for checking the crystal structure of materials or to unravel new structures. In-situ experiments give comprehensive understanding about the structural stability of catalysts under reaction conditions. In material sciences, many complicated inorganic and organometallic systems have been analyzed using single-crystal methods, such as fullerenes, metalloporphyrins, and other complicated compounds. Single-crystal diffraction is also used in the pharmaceutical industry, due to recent problems with polymorphs. The major factors affecting the quality of single-crystal structures are the crystal's size and regularity; recrystallization is a commonly used technique to improve these factors in small-molecule crystals. The Cambridge Structural Database contains over 1,000,000 structures as of June 2019; over 99% of these structures were determined by X-ray diffraction.
• which is on the scale of covalent chemical bonds and the radius of a single atom. Longer-wavelength photons (such as ultraviolet radiation) would not have sufficient resolution to determine the atomic positions. At the other extreme, shorter-wavelength photons such as gamma rays are difficult to produce in large numbers, difficult to focus, and interact too strongly with matter, producing particle-antiparticle pairs. Therefore, X-rays are the "sweetspot" for wavelength when determining atomic-resolution structures from the scattering of electromagnetic radiation.
• The Electron and Neutron diffraction section.
• Each spot is called a reflection, since it corresponds to the reflection of the X-rays from one set of evenly spaced planes within the crystal. For single crystals of sufficient purity and regularity, X-ray diffraction data can determine the mean chemical bond lengths and angles to within a few thousandths of an angstrom and to within a few tenths of a degree, respectively. The atoms in a crystal are not static, but oscillate about their mean positions, usually by less than a few tenths of an angstrom. X-ray crystallography allows measuring the size of these oscillations.

And many more. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the post at WT:MOLBIO. Woof, this article is a beast. Just in the History section this article needs some heavy lifting:

1. Too much detail/Not enough detail - some of this is undue and should be merged into the History section of X-ray or trimmed. Some is not about History and should be moved to the Theory section (e.g. the top of the "X-ray diffraction" subsection). Partly it's to make the section more readable, but also we need to make space to discuss the post-1920 history of crystallography in greater detail. This history section would make you think we stopped using X-ray crystallography 100 years ago. See this (very long) review to fill in some of the gaps.
2. Wrong citations - The History section is written like a scientific review article. The references are links to scientific works of the distant past, rather than actually supporting the claim that so-and-such discovered this-and-that.

I haven't made it further yet. But unless someone else is interested in working on this, I'm afraid it'll be a task beyond the time I have available. Ajpolino (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist - concerns about close paraphrasing, and accuracy. Iazyges may attempt complete rebuild. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of Doug Coldwell's noms (see WP:DCGAR), that I intend to run through GAR to preserve it from suffering from the mass delisting. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

1. There are (at least) four newspaper.com sources that need to be individually checked, verified, and reviewed for copyvio.
2. Why are there three different citations to the same visitors bureau? That is, are we citing old info that has changed?
3. More importantly, the entire Freezing phenomenon section is cited to either very old or inaccessible sources, and it contains the sort of technical detail that DC was known to get wrong. What makes https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1BJ3R_the-mystery-of-the-clam-lake-canal reliable? I would question this entire section and think it should be rewritten to incorporate modern sources.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found https://apnews.com/article/cadillac-michigan-traverse-city-archive-lakes-34dcdac54482411ca4ea95ced67d588d but it was written after the DC content on this, so the possibility exists that AP was mimicing Wikipedia; it would be ideal to find better sources that describe the phenom and to make sure we have it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found https://archive.org/details/northernmichigan0000joll/page/82/mode/1up?q=%22Clam+Lake+Canal%22 ... do we know the stream keeps flowing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for https://cadillacmichigan.com/lake-river-angling/ ... it says the canal remains ice free, but doesn't claim the water flows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely too-close paraphrasing to copyvio from https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1BJ3R_the-mystery-of-the-clam-lake-canal ... and the text misattributes the explanation to the DNR, when it is one person speaking ... but the original source (a newspaper interview) might be found via newspapers.com SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the issues, I think a complete rebuilding in my userspace might be the best way to go TBH. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges, I assume that means you wouldn't mind delisting here? If the article is built up from scratch, a new GAN would be more appropriate. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: Sounds good; happy to delist it now and I'll re-run it through GAN later. For what it's worth, this one doesn't seem to have copyright issues so much as sourcing, and misunderstanding of sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A controversial figure; difficult to write a GA about. Article has not been maintained to standards since 2007:

• The lead dedicates no time to his views or academic work, but an entire paragraph to two incidents in 2007/2008
• Contains overly long quotes throughout the article. Many from Finkelstein himself, giving me some NPOV concerns
• One cn tag.
• Too many external links. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, not great. There are a huge number of quotes sourced directly to Finkelstein himself, making them primary with no real sense of the appropriate weight for the extracts established in secondary sources. A large volume of material is self-published on his personal website. To produce a B-class article, let alone a GA status article, this page would basically need to be half-scrapped and rewritten from scratch. Like many GAs listed in 2007, it is not worthy of the status. Definitely one for delisting. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2014 listing is very out of date. Having now reached fourteen seasons in total, the storylines section only reaches the tenth, and is near-completely unsourced from the seventh onwards. GA criterion 3a not satisfied. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listed in 2007, this article is in need of updates to the main sections. On the other hand, the Events section possibly violates GA criterion 3b, as has WP:UNDUE detail on WP:RECENT conventions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue with this article is the lack of updates or citations in the aftermath section. The civil liability section can also use some more recent sources, to reduce the NEWS-like tone "On 17 March 2006 a High Court official, Senior Master Turner, adjourned a hearing on whether to permit the class action until October 2006.[18][needs update]". Finally, some of the links are bare, so that they are vulnerable to link rot. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has significant unsourced material including

• Banquets have been a venue for amusement, entertainment or pleasure since ancient times, continuing until the 21st century, when they are still being used for many of their original purposes – to impress visitors, especially important ones; to show hospitality; as an occasion to showcase supporting entertainments such as music or dancing, or both. They were an integral part of court entertainments and helped entertainers develop their skills. They are also important components of celebrations such as coronations, weddings, birthdays civic or political achievements, military engagements or victories as well as religious obligations. In modern times, banquets are commercially available, for example, in restaurants and combined with a performance in dinner theatres. Cooking by professional chefs has also become a form of entertainment as part of global competitions such as the Bocuse d'Or.
• Music is also a universal and popular type of entertainment on its own, constituting an entire performance such as when concerts are given. Depending on the rhythm, instrument, performance and style, music is divided into many genres, such as classical, jazz, folk,, rock, pop music or traditional. Since the 20th century, performed music, once available only to those who could pay for the performers, has been available cheaply to individuals by the entertainment industry, which broadcasts it or pre-records it for sale. The wide variety of musical performances, whether or not they are artificially amplified, all provide entertainment irrespective of whether the performance is from soloists, choral or orchestral groups, or ensemble. Live performances use specialised venues, which might be small or large; indoors or outdoors; free or expensive. The audiences have different expectations of the performers as well as of their own role in the performance. For example, some audiences expect to listen silently and are entertained by the excellence of the music, its rendition or its interpretation. Other audiences of live performances are entertained by the ambience and the chance to participate. Even more listeners are entertained by pre-recorded music and listen privately. The instruments used in musical entertainment are either solely the human voice or solely instrumental or some combination of the two. Whether the performance is given by vocalists or instrumentalists, the performers may be soloists or part of a small or large group, in turn entertaining an audience that might be individual, passing by, small or large. Singing is generally accompanied by instruments although some forms, notably a cappella and overtone singing, are unaccompanied. Modern concerts often use various special effects and other theatrics to accompany performances of singing and dancing.
• and Michael Leunig who entertains by producing whimsical cartoons that also incorporate social criticism. The Japanese Manga style differs from the western approach in that it encompasses a wide range of genres and themes for a readership of all ages. Caricature uses a kind of graphic entertainment for purposes ranging from merely putting a smile on the viewer's face, to raising social awareness, to highlighting the moral characteristics of a person being caricatured.

And much more. This will need heavy work to bring back to a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not on the original list of 223 Doug Coldwell GAs as part of DCGAR, but 62% of the content is DCs, so I am submitting it for review per the Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment drive of all DC content. Talk page, reviewer and nominator already notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be resolved (from this version):

• Almost the entire article is cited to a non-independent sources; the one independent source is a book review, hence also relies on Slier & Slier
• Inaccessible sources that can't be checked for copyvio (and that don't seem to mention Slier at all, rather are WP:SYNTH)
  • Amersfoort 2010
  • Mueller 1999
• From page 25 of Slier & Slier both copy-paste and too-close paraphrasing copyright issues are found, so someone would need to rewrite the article. It appears that a broad application of presumptive deletion, reducing the article to a stub, is in order, unless someone intends to look for independent sources and check every piece of text for additional copyvio, as it is already apparent just from looking at page 25.
  Also, looking at page 11 of Slier, and the first version of the article, reveals that copyright problems are evident from the first version, and with the SYNTH and lack of independent sources, and copyright problems still in the article, it never gets better. G12 or copyright deletion may be appropriate for this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to come up with any other reliable, independent sources. [8] [9] (the book is a translation) and there's not many internal links other than Lists and See Also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delist. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delist Not even a question. Closing. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by an IP to nominate this at GAR for missing citations and a short reception section. I don't quite agree with the second point (I'm against inflation of the broadness criterion), but the article does need to be cited properly and merge / rewrite single sentence paragraphs. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist I took a single glance at the reception and immediately knew it wasn't up to par. This is simply not a Good Article by modern standards by any stretch of the imagination. It's so fancrufty that it's unclear if it should even have its own article. These days it takes more than just regurgitating every single mention in a "top 10" list on the Internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I support delisting too. The writing and citations just aren't GA quality. Maybe it can be resolved, but that will be up to editors who care enough to try. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Per the below discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so, while the article is cited, I think it fails the broadness category. There are multiple tornadoes in the confirmed tornadoes section that don't contain anything about the tornado. And it's the majority of tornadoes in that section. This is weird to me, especially about an article of a storm that killed 58 total and took place in 1975. I can understand a lack of information in maybe 1918. But 1975? There has to be more information you can use to talk about the storm. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onegreatjoke, what do you expect to find about these tornadoes? From my understanding, they occurred way out in the countryside, and the only damage for most of them would be to fields (and maybe some unlucky cows or sheep). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they were on the countryside there's possibly still more to talk about. Maybe you could find some newspaper sources on a newspaper archive website or something. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unlikely many newspapers would talk about tornadoes which didn't cause incidents, when there was an abundance of other tornadoes which did. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though. looking here https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=Great%20Storm%20of%201975&p_country=us&dr_year=1975-1975 on newpapers.com shows over 200 thousand entries that's possibly for the great storm of 1975. Though I don't have a subscription so I can't check these for anything. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's over 100 thousand on there. mine said 200000 Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through around half a dozen reports on ProQuest; all of them focus solely on the McComb tornado. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you can't find anything we'll see if Femke can. If they can't then just close this a keep due to a misjudgment of mine. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no interest in this topic. Gotta save electricity. If no specific faults can be identified, it should be closed a keep. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article requires updating (8 tags) + referencing (8 tags) + clarifying. Examples/issues:

• The delivery of the first batch of 10 i-MiEV electric cars is scheduled for May 2011
• Many one-sentence sections. No need to group by individual European country.
• Bit too full of unlinked jargon (rebadge?). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks citations for large parts of the article. For instance, the sections school layout, music, and performing arts are largely uncited. Also some updates needed (f.i. Currently, Garden City requires students to complete 26½ credits in order to graduate -> stil true 13 years later?). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Per above. No signs of any issues being solved. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual, some uncited material including

• The DMT group is removed with a solution of an acid, such as 2% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) or 3% dichloroacetic acid (DCA), in an inert solvent (dichloromethane or toluene). The orange-colored DMT cation formed is washed out; the step results in the solid support-bound oligonucleotide precursor bearing a free 5'-terminal hydroxyl group. It is worth remembering that conducting detritylation for an extended time or with stronger than recommended solutions of acids leads to depurination of solid support-bound oligonucleotide and thus reduces the yield of the desired full-length product.
• The reaction is also highly sensitive to the presence of water, particularly when dilute solutions of phosphoramidites are used, and is commonly carried out in anhydrous acetonitrile. Generally, the larger the scale of the synthesis, the lower the excess and the higher the concentration of the phosphoramidites is used. In contrast, the concentration of the activator is primarily determined by its solubility in acetonitrile and is irrespective of the scale of the synthesis. Upon the completion of the coupling, any unbound reagents and by-products are removed by washing.
• The First commercially available oligonucleotide synthesizers section (there's a weird external link in the middle of it)
• (2) The second approach is only used when the intended method of purification is reverse-phase HPLC. In this case, the 5'-terminal DMT group that serves as a hydrophobic handle for purification is kept on at the end of the synthesis. The oligonucleotide is deprotected under basic conditions as described above and, upon evaporation, is purified by reverse-phase HPLC. The collected material is then detritylated under aqueous acidic conditions. On small scale (less than 0.01–0.02 mmol), the treatment with 80% aqueous acetic acid for 15–30 min at room temperature is often used followed by evaporation of the reaction mixture to dryness in vacuo. Finally, the product is desalted as described above. For some applications, additional reporter groups may be attached to an oligonucleotide using a variety of post-synthetic procedures.

And more. These will have to be cited in order to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Chemist234 who nominated the article for GA in 2009. It's not clear if it got much of a GAN review at the time, so I'm not sure how much work would be needed to get it up to the criteria. But if C234 is still interested/able, perhaps they can deal with your notes above. Ajpolino (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments from someone who has not worked on this article and who is indebted to those that have done so much fine work on an important topic:

• • Statements like "...with a solution of an acid, such as 2% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) or 3% dichloroacetic acid (DCA), in an inert solvent (dichloromethane or toluene). The orange-colored DMT cation formed is washed out; the step results in the solid support-bound oligonucleotide precursor bearing a free 5'-terminal hydroxyl group." seems too detailed for encyclopedia.
  • Phrases like "It is worth remembering", "recommend" may be in conflict with WP:NOTMANUAL and/or WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.
  • Article is too heavy on primary references, many of which have been summarized in secondary references WP:SECONDARY and, in the case of this mature area, WP:TERTIARY. Large numbers of primary references put off readers and suggest the absence of any editor with an overview of the topic.
  • Article cites several patents. At least in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, we rarely cite patents. They are not peer-reviewed, they are often narrow. Most chem editors question whether they are RS.
  • Article uses the term "recent" several time. That adjective becomes stale with time.
  • Artcile uses the term "very" often. Such intensifiers lose their impact after multiple uses.
  • The section "Characterization" is sorta generic and not very interesting (to me at least).
  • --Smokefoot (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old GA from 2010 that, unfortunately, has not been maintained over the years. This article has several outstanding maintenance tags, including numerous ((citation needed)) tags, two ((more citations needed section)) tags which have not been addressed for nearly a year, and several instances of failed verification. Thus, this article no longer meets WP:GACR criterion 2, namely that the page is verifiable with no original research. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept citation issues have been addressed. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord what happened to this article. There is an entire 15 paragraph streak of uncited material in the article. For some of it, here's

• Brownlee attempted to leverage his relationship with King to win provincial control of natural resources. He won such an agreement in 1926, but it was soon scuttled by the federal addition of a clause requiring Alberta to continue supporting separate Roman Catholic schools. Wrangling over this clause persisted until 1929, when a compromise was reached. All that remained was the question of compensation to Alberta for land given away by the federal government, and by the end of 1929 agreement on this too was reached. Brownlee returned from Ottawa to Alberta, where he was greeted by 3,000 cheering supporters. Brownlee was similarly successful in divesting the government of its railways. When his initial attempts to sell them to the CNR or CPR failed, the provincial government took over direct operation of the lines in 1927. In 1928, they began to show a profit, and one of the lines was soon sold to the CPR. A joint offer from the CPR and CNR for the remaining lines was judged too low, and they were sold to the CPR near the end of 1928 for $25 million. Control of natural resources and the divestment of the railways were two factors that permitted balanced provincial budgets, the first of which was registered in 1925. Despite this success, Brownlee continued to advocate austerity, and tried unsuccessfully to persuade the federal government to assume a greater share of the costs of new social programs, such as the old age pension. His resulting reputation as a penny-pincher came at a cost to his personal popularity. Brownlee's government also attempted to advance a progressive agenda. One way this manifested itself was an attempt to consolidate Alberta's thousands of school districts into a far smaller number of school divisions. The plan was supported by educational reformers who believed that the decentralized status quo made province-wide reform impossible, but was scrapped when rural residents expressed fears that it would mean the closure of local schools. Another progressive initiative was the Sexual Sterilization Act, which allowed for the sterilization of "mental defectives". While the Act, repealed in 1972, is now viewed as barbaric, at the time it enjoyed the support of moral reformers like Nellie McClung, who believed it was for the subjects' own protection.

I do not know if it got lost when it was split but something needs to change. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steve Smith, who originally brought the article to GA in 2009, completely revamped the premier section with this edit in 2011. The user might have intended to add citations later, but never did. I think a fairly simple fix would be to reinstate the GA version of the offending sections, which satisfies the requirements. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the section generally summarizes Premiership of John Edward Brownlee#Road to prosperity (1925–29) (Featured Article) which has citations. It would be easy enough to check those citations and add to it. - Caddyshack01 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would really be a shame to delist this article seeing as the sub-articles are featured. The citations are already in the sub-articles. Give me a week and I'll see what I can do. Steelkamp (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steelkamp, do you intend to continue? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please bear with me. Steelkamp (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My work is done now. It should be good enough to pass. Steelkamp (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with thanks to Steelkamp. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As part of WP:DCGAR, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR to prevent it from being mass-delisted. I have a concern that the article may not cover all major aspects of the subject. The building is over 130 years old but has only three paragraphs about its history; there is a huge gap from 1920 to 2010. It may be the case that this gap exists because the subject may not be notable, but either way, I do not think it is broad enough to meet the GA criteria. Epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this can be accessed and looked at, chunks of content here may need to be deleted per WP:PDEL:

• "Demarest Building". Las Cruces Sun-News. September 18, 1972. p. 11.

The problem I've seen in much of DC's work is that he sometimes lifted content from one source, but then cited it to another, so getting access to that source will matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time understanding dates for

• https://vdoc.pub/documents/famous-first-facts-a-record-of-first-happenings-discoveries-and-inventions-in-american-history-7rrvgckm7te0

Did we copy from them or they from us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the aforementioned issues, some of the content cited to https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/realestate/03scap.html does not seem to be in that source, raising the question of whether some of that content was lifted from elsewhere and then cited to the NYT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I belatedly noticed the source-text integrity issues as well. The NYT source is used to cite the fact that the building was designed in the Beaux-Arts style, but not only does the source not say that, the image does not even resemble a Beaux-Arts building. Anyone with moderate knowledge of architecture, or anyone clicking through the link to Beaux-Arts architecture, would have noticed this apparent discrepancy - the sketch in the article resembles a Romanesque or Renaissance structure more than it does a Beaux-Arts structure. I can only assume that DC saw "Beaux-Arts" further down in the NYT article and believed that this was the style used for the Demarest Building. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's as messed up as DC's articles usually are, and large portions may need WP:PDEL; sorry for the disappointing news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, all the usual needs to be checked here; that is, a line-by-line check of source-to-text integrity and for copyvio is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: can I delist, or do you intent to bring the article back up to GA level? Femke (alt) (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke (alt) and Femke:, yeah, you can delist the article. I may bring this page back to GA later, depending on how much information I find and how much time I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted, on basis of poor citation quality (GA criterion 2). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains 35 cn tags, and will need quite a bit of work meet the GA standards again. Also tagged for using unreliable sources. Femke (alt) (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Problems with OR, and plagiarism, and general sourcing issues. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted back in 2007 upon its second nomination. Even then, the promotion was controversial because of perceived issues with the sourcing. Looking at this today, there are major sourcing issues, some of which I have highlighted by adding maintenance templates to the article. Large portions of the article are unsourced. Several references are to sources that do not appear to be reliable. Spotchecking sources reveals both material failing verification and plagiarism. The article consists to a large extent of WP:Original research by way of editorial WP:Synthesis, where sources are used to verify the underlying factual basis for the assertions made in the article (rather than verifying the assertions themselves) in a manner one would expect to find in an essay, rather than being cited in context and on topic as WP:NOR mandates. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In its present form this article falls far short of GA requirements. Much of the original research and synthesis, especially in the Variants section, is unlikely to be sourceable to anything reliable, and I'd suggest stripping all that out as a first step. Much of the rest (scientific rather than fictional/speculative) looks better, and there might just possibly be enough of that to save the article. Before things are removed wholesale - does anyone think the tagged material is at all sourceable? MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts almost certainly are sourceable. I expect that the article would fail the broadness criterion if all the dubious material were removed (in fact, it might already do so). I agree that removing it would be a good first step, but I don't think it would be sufficient to meet the criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Femke (alt) (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is far away from meeting the GA criteria:

• Content unique to lead (consequences of US withdrawing from JCPOA)
• 23 cn tags
• Quite a few places with figures that need updating (mostly ~2010 numbers).
• Too many external links. Femke (alt) (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I often edit articles about the neighbouring country of Turkey it would be useful if the Iran articles about the same subject could be improved so that I could use their content about cross-border issues such as trade. The international trade section in this article is not GA standard at the moment.

  As editors of Iran articles can use material from Turkey articles I have brought to GA - for example about electricity interconnections between the countries - it would be really great if I could get something back from this article if I ever dare to tackle economy of Turkey which looks really tough for me. But in the past I have not been able to attract editors to Iran articles. If anyone takes this article on please ping me if you need international trade info re gas to Turkey as I have that article at GAN now.

  On a more general point do you know who I ask to request that the GAR tool automatically notifies the projects listed on the talk page when a GAR is started? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also I don’t understand why Iran does not ask Gazprom to fix the gas system to send the flared gas to us - surely you guys would like to sell us more gas wouldn’t you? Then we could sell our Black Sea gas to the EU. Every winter Iran says there is a fault on the pipeline - Iran editors please write are they really faults? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-07/iran-cuts-gas-exports-to-turkey-by-70-citing-fault-turkey-says Chidgk1 (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chidgk1: there was no consensus to implement this: Wikipedia_talk:Good_Article_proposal_drive_2023#Proposal_31b:_Have_a_bot_handle_WikiProject_notifications_for_GAR. Most of the times, less than half of WikiProjects should realistically be notified. Only with important articles like this do I notify all projects. Now that GAR is alive again, it's starting to become quite spammy. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: The effects section has not been updated since 2015, with the exception of one sentence. No significant improvements since nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for update needed, original research, failed verification. Overly long sections make it difficult to parse. Use of the word 'current' to mean 2011(?).. Needs significant work to get back to GA standards. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the word current from the article body. Removed sentance with failed verification - was a speculation that never happened.

What do you mean by parse? As in difficult to read? The tool you are using is having issues with it? MediaWiki itself having trouble with it? or something else? Snævar (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the work :).

I mean it's difficult to read. Ideally, there shouldn't be more than about 6 paragraphs in a single section, and those paragraphs shouldn't exceed ~150 words typically. The WP:Proseline makes it even less attractive to read, and is a symptom of not adhering to WP:summary style imo. There is something odd going on with the tables making it more difficult too; there is no space to the right of any of the tables.

If you plan on bringing it back to GA standards, I'm happy to make a more detailed list of issues. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Snævar. Do you intent to continue working on the article to bring it back to GA? Femke (alt) (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad but there's some uncited material being

• The reverse of an acid–base reaction is also an acid–base reaction, between the conjugate acid of the base in the first reaction and the conjugate base of the acid. In the above example, acetate is the base of the reverse reaction and hydronium ion is the acid. One hallmark of the Brønsted–Lowry theory in contrast to Arrhenius theory is that it does not require an acid to dissociate.
• The essence of Brønsted–Lowry theory is that an acid only exists as such in relation to a base, and vice versa. Water is amphoteric as it can act as an acid or as a base. In the image shown at the right one molecule of H2O acts as a base and gains H+ to become H3O+ while the other acts as an acid and loses H+ to become OH−. Another example is furnished by substances like aluminium hydroxide, Al(OH)3.
• According to the Lux–Flood theory, compounds such as MgO and SiO2 in the solid state may be classified as acids or bases. For example, the mineral olivine may be regarded as a compound of a basic oxide, MgO, with an acidic oxide, silica, SiO2. This classification is important in geochemistry.

It looks like there's more but those could likely be general references. Anyways, these will have to be fixed regardless. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the last GA review (2014), there were general references. They were removed shortly after the review without an edit summary.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep General references restored. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been tagged as an advertisement since 2021. I share concerns about neutrality. There are elements that are too positive, but the article also has a controversy section,(WP:CSECTION).

• Article uses a facebook post by Brown to talk about endorsements
• Third paragraph of early career lists distinctions, which I believe needs culling
• Last paragraph early elective experience is also bit too positive. Unclear why he was called James Bond..
• Sentences like: " By January 2009 State of the City Address, Brown reported that crime had fallen 12% and homicide by 50% since he had taken office". As numbers can be cherrypicked, these should come from a secondary source. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: delist 19:04, 21 January 2016 Graeme Bartlett

This article clearly does not fulfill the GA criteria. It's lede is not a well-written summary and includes text which is not introduced in anyway in the body and one paragraph is unsourced. This article used peacock terms in recent revisions, which I have now removed. This article shouldn't have been promoted to GA class in the first place. Furthermore, it has original research and was written like an advertisement, more like a portfolio page, which I've fixed to some extent. There's original research on this article and many citations are unreliable. I've revamped this article over the last couple of days, but it doesn't deserve GA yet. Now, I'd have done an individual reassessment but there was a full-scale row at ANI over this article and I think a second opinion would genuinely help. Thank you. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 13:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks QEDK for your recent improvements to the article.

I have some experience with GA trying to bring Ethernet and Moore's law articles back up to these standards after being delisted. I would assess CobraNet as lower quality than these two articles which have not yet regained their GA status. It does appear that there is quite a bit variation in how GA criteria are applied in different situations and by different assessors. I'm not in a position to make anything but an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here so I'll trust others to make an accurate assessment. ~Kvng (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar, SilkTork, Imzadi1979, Dr. Blofeld, and Cirt: Guys, I'm sorry for pinging any of you. But, it's almost impossible to get a community reassessment (or so, it seems). Five of you seem to be quite credible in the GA field and it'd be good to have your opinion about this reassessment as well as this RfC about the same article. I wouldn't do this but everything was coming to a standstill here and there and I like to wrap up whatever I do. Thank you for any help that you provide. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 16:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a reviewer's point of view I would say that half of this article needs a re-write in order to meet the "well written" part of the criteria. Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead doesn't need to be sourced and would be better off being merged into two paragraphs. The prose of the history section needs to be copyedited slightly as three paragraphs begin with "CobraNet". The latter half of the article (especially the Hardware and software section) comprises of long lists, which are discouraged in GAs usually. I'm not well versed in this subject but I would say it's quite comprehensive. Despite this, numerous citation needed tags and fears of original research would result in a quick-fail. JAGUAR  16:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed User:QEDK Horrible lists and formatting and unsourced material in places. Definitely shouldn't have been promoted. As Jaguar says, we'd have quick failed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting delisting per comments above. --QEDK (T ❄ C) 13:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept The article was updated and no new concerns were raised AIRcorn (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how a completely outdated biography can still have Good Article status. It seems that it has not been updated for nearly four years! -- RJFF (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Article is outdated and as it isn't updated regularly there appears little chance it will be. Szzuk (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There doesn't appear to be much else to say. The end of the article notes that he was retired after the coup. Since then, the sources say that he's still retired. It appears that a politician accused him of plotting a coup, but that appears to have been a hoax. We can't really "update" an article if nothing's changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the main problem is the lead section: it suggests that he still holds these positions, what he AFAIK does not. -- RJFF (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you have not boldly fixed this because... why, exactly? WP:Be bold applies to all of our editors, including you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead seems to be updated to 2010 now. Are there any other updating concerns or general GA concerns? AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't look great but I'll switch to neutral. Szzuk (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: kept. All concerns have been addressed regarding original review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the review at Talk:Secret Truths/GA1 was, to say the least, cursory and am asking for community reassessment of this article's status. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Points:

• One dead link.[10] I think SaveSpashley.com is probably not RS
• ref #9: "Tom Lynch Interview 11/2/09". South of Nowhere Online. November 2, 2009. Would expect a web link for an online publication.
• After the casting process was complete, the episode was filmed in October 2004, but when the show was picked up for a full season, Lynch decided to recast almost every one of the characters and the pilot was shot again in July 2005 with the different cast. Clumsy phrasing, perhaps "with the new cast"
• The premiere of the episode was promoted with branded MetroCards handed out to teenagers in Manhattan. Again clusmsy phrasing.
• Critics' reviews of the pilot were mostly positive, particularly regarding its treatment of current social issues, but other critics found the show's introduction of these issues to be forced and inauthentic. Again clumsy phrasing
• After striking up a conversation with a girl named Chelsea Lewis (Aasha Davis), he is beaten up by her ex-boyfriend Dallas (Marcus Brown) when he tries to defend her. Unclear- who is defending who?
• He "sat with the idea for a few days" before spending a few weeks to develop the show's characters and write an outline of the pilot. Poor grammar. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the more thorough review. You're right about those instances of bad grammar/wording - I've (hopefully) made all of them a bit easier to read. The ref to South of Nowhere Online isn't linked because the site is blacklisted on Wikipedia (I assume somebody did some serious spamming with it at some point). I removed the ref with the dead link completely. 97198 (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my concerns have been addressed and this article is worthy of GA status. There may be others who will chip in as this is a community re-assessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this is more of a test than anything. I'm nominating this because there are lots of [non-primary source needed] tags that I feel are important to address. Though, if that's not a problem with GA criteria then feel free to vote keep. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes primary sources are unreliable for statements, other times they are suboptimal and wouldn't qualify as a high-quality reliable source needed for WP:FA? purposes. Could you give one or two examples where you believe the primary sources do not meet the lower GA standards and are unreliable for the text they support? Femke (alt) (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if their unreliable but there are some sentences that would probably be better with secondary sources such as

• The German defences were knocked out by air raids, artillery-fire and coordinated ground attacks
• The primary Soviet leader was Timoshenko, a veteran of World War I and the Russian Civil War. Timoshenko had achieved some success at the Battle of Smolensk in 1941 but was eventually defeated
• By 14 May the Red Army had made impressive gains, but several Soviet divisions were so depleted that they were withdrawn and Soviet tank reserves were needed to defeat the German counter-attacks; German losses were estimated to be minimal, with only 35–70 tanks believed to have been knocked out in the 3rd and 23rd Panzer divisions.
• Soviet troops in the northern pincer suffered even more than those in the south. They achieved spectacular success the first three days of combat, with a deep penetration of German positions.
• Although Timoshenko's forces successfully regrouped on 21 May, he ordered a withdrawal of Army Group Kotenko by the end of 22 May, while he prepared an attack for 23 May, to be orchestrated by the 9th and 57th Armies. Although the Red Army desperately attempted to fend off advancing Wehrmacht and launched local counterattacks to relieve several surrounded units, they generally failed. By the end of May 24, Soviet forces opposite Kharkov had been surrounded by German formations, which had been able to transfer several more divisions to the front, increasing the pressure on the Soviet flanks and finally forcing them to collapse.
• And honestly most of the Analysis and conclusions section

There's also an citation needed tag in the article too. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear, there is a lot of OR/Soviet propaganda in there. A fair bit of work would be needed to sort it out. Might be easier to start over with up to date RSs. The recent A class review, although to a higher standard, is interesting. What is the protocol for commenting on these? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The GAR process is simpler than FAR; you can immediately say delist if you believe the article does not meet the GA criteria. Given the examples by Onegreatjoke (especially the later ones, with words like "spectacular", and your concerns), delist is probably best. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. It is well off GAN standard as is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, Delist is the best hope for this page. I am willing to look past some primary sources, but using primary sourcing for the 'Analysis and conclusions' raises red flags. Additionally, there are some citations missing and there are serious WP:POV issues that are obvious to anyone.

  @Mzajac, I see you were working on this after the GAR began, do you intend on trying to save this page? 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I just saw the inconsistent use of place names and thought I’d identify some of them. Was led there by this discussion in a notice board.  —Michael Z. 20:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult article to keep up-to-date. This 2015 GA needs a bit of work to meet standards again

• 6 cn tags
• 8 tags to self-published source
• NAF may order 35-40 more JF-17s if the aircraft meets its requirements -> cited to 2020 source. What happened?
• Any update on Sri Lanka?
• The accidents section is tagged with " possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text". I have not checked if this tag is warranted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is a dab page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Link fixed. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks pretty bad. There seems to be numerous uncited material such as

• In some languages, the dart that these snails use before mating is known as an "arrow". For example, in German it is called a Liebespfeil or "love arrow", and in Czech it is šíp lásky (which means "arrow of love").
• possibly many things in the tables

Then there's the fact that this article is mostly empty and likely fails broadness. There are three tables that are completely empty, 2 tables that are incomplete and other tables who may not be cited. There needs to be some fixing here. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tables have been empty since 2008. Wow. Not good at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Onegreatjoke: Going to delist this for 2a (missing citations), but I disagree on broadness. Some empty tables are a layout issue (1b) / a comprehensiveness issue (at FA level). But there is plenty of material in existing tables to meet the broadness criterion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odd one this. Was originally listed in 2007 and delisted in 2016. Somehow, it passed GAN in 2021 despite being very low on detail for Milner's time at Liverpool.

This not only verges on violating GA criterion 3 (covering the major aspects of the topic), but also calls criterion 4 (neutrality) into question, as the article is thus biased in length and in detail towards his early career.

Eager to hear people's thoughts on this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a slight disbalance in weight causes neutrality issues? Unless the person did loads of controversial things while in Liverpool? Not convinced it fails 3 either. There is a massive difference between broad (say at least 2 paragraphs on each issue) and comprehensive. Are there specific details you believe to be missing? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call it a slight disbalance in weight. There is more information on his two years at Newcastle and Aston Villa, during which he performed passably in two fairly mediocre teams, than there is in his eight years playing for one of the best teams in the world, about which far more has been written and studied. There's very little information about his role in the team, how his tenure there has been viewed, or anything beyond "on [date] Milner [played ***th game/won thing/scored goal] x20". There are huge numbers of reliable sources describing all of the above accessible with just a Google search too, which makes their omission inexplicable, to my mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Consensus to delist, due to citation issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. I have two problems. One is the citation issues being

• The modus operandi of the FALN was to perform bombing and incendiary actions and then admit responsibility through press releases. The first of these news releases announced the group's intention; in this document they admitted responsibility for attacks on several locations in New York to weaken the "Yanki capitalist monopoly", and demanded the release of five political prisoners, these were: Lolita Lebrón, Oscar Collazo, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Andres Figueroa and Irvin Flores. In this communique the organization warns that they had opened two fronts, in Puerto Rico and the United States respectively, the goal of these were to organize a People's Revolutionary Army which they expected would "rid Puerto Rico of Yanki colonialism". Both fronts were supported and maintained by allies within Puerto Rico and North America.
• FALN prisoner Oscar López Rivera rejected the 1999 Clinton pardon. U.S. president Barack Obama later commuted his sentence, and López Rivera was released in May 2017, after 36 years in prison. He had been incarcerated longer than any other member of the FALN.

and that's it. However, I also have problems with broadness. First of all, the philosophy section is a single sentence paragraph. Along with that, the article just seems small in general for 30 year long american terrorist organization. A quick google search shows that there are possibly some sources you could possibly use to expand it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure what you are proposing or suggesting. It sounds like you are suggesting/proposing it be demoted from GA or that it be stripped of GA status. Is that it? If so, I would agree. For one thing those references to latinamericanstudies.org and nycop.com are references to WP:SPS and I just replaced them with cite needed tags. Mercy11 (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per WP:DCGAR and lack of improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not on the original list of 223 Doug Coldwell GAs as part of DCGAR, but a third of the content is DCs, so I am submitting it for review per the Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment drive of all DC content. Talk page, reviewer and nominator already notified.

DC was not the nominator, but they created the article (with copyright issues in the first version), and have still about a third of the content. The article has the usual mix of problems associated with DC editing: citations are not attached to the content they intend to verify, resulting in source-to-text integrity problems, there is failed verification and uncited text, and one of the main sources is an incomplete citation (when searching for "American Machinist" by the generic McGraw-Hill for checking copyvio, there are over 3,000 entries at archive.org; the citation gives no volume, etc. And it is unclear what makes http://www.twainquotes.com/ColonelSellers.html reliable. Without having a lead on the "McGraw-Hill" source, it can't be easily determined to what extent presumptive deletion applies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On reliability of Twainquotes, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/44504992 (courtesy of EEng). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closer, it appears that most of The Gilded Age section was taken from the Schmidt website, but with other citations tacked on instead, that don't verify the text (something frequently seen in DC's work, that makes copyvio checking hard and obscures too close paraphrasing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Keep. Closing on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 because GARCloser user script wasn't working. Bug fixed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CCI issues cleaned, minor issues fixed, so article kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not on the original list of 223 Doug Coldwell GAs as part of DCGAR, but the main editor is community banned and DC is a significant contributor and DC claims it as a GA on his user page, so I am submitting it for review per the Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment drive of all DC content. Talk page already notified. Because most of the sources are offline, copyright issues on DC content cannot be accessed, and the extent to apply presumptive deletion cannot be determined. DC's significant contributions were: [11], [12] and [13]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With only 16.4% authorship, it's a tough sell to say that cutting out the 'Assassination of Abraham Lincoln' won't fix the page well enough to keep. There is a strong case for WP:PDEL since we're delisting 200+ articles and likely stubbifying many. The prose is also very poor overall, and emblematic of Doug's writing. Thankfully, it appears that even the first major edits Doug made ([14] and [15]) were later rolled into the 'Assassination of Abraham Lincoln' section and the damage is exclusively contained in this section. The page flows fine without the assassination section, in fact, the section as a whole feels somewhat forced in. Excising the potential copy-vio is the safest route in my opinion.

TLDR: Cut the offending section and keep. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut DC's material, and note it was added a few days after the GAN. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both; marking the CCI as cleaned. I'm fine with whatever others decide here re GA status, as I am not that familiar with the standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• a fear rooted in the actions of American privateers during the War of 1812. This could do with some clarification as to what those actions were. Steelkamp (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Once the war ended, little cotton from southern Australia was imported to England. This confuses me since the previous sentence talks about Queensland and I don't believe cotton was ever grown in southern Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• However, in the aftermath of the war some Australians were interested in acquiring the Fiji Islands and their cotton fields. What does this have to do with the war? It could do with some explanation. Steelkamp (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No improvements to the issues raised for over a month. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2009. My main problem for this isn't sourcing (though there is the occasional uncited sentence) but rather it's lack of updates. Most sections, aside from history, end off at 2010 max, making some of the article outdated in way. The history section also has some weird sentences like

• "The Second Intifada was a major gamechanger in Gaza, too.[citation needed]" (Game changer?)
• "A tower block was bombed in the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis.[72]" (importance?)

This could probably be easily fixed however. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Removed some unsourced statements, which were about the Strip in general, not the City specifically. Will go through the entire article soon and also attempt to update it for developments in the last 12 years. Al Ameer (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer son, do you intend to edit this article more? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Yes, other than some cleaning and c/e, I intend to update it. Requesting 2 weeks for this. —Al Ameer (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks should not be a problem. Thanks for working on it :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: can you give us an update? Very happy to give you another few days to start the work: articles that are actively being worked on can stay open, even if the work is slow. Otherwise, we'll likely move to delist (and hopefully get is back as a GAN later). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: Being that the main issues raised here have been updating the article, this can be done within a week or so. The problem had been finding sources, but I believe the Pal census stats will cover a good portion of this information. My apologies for the slow start. Al Ameer (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: could you give us another update? Thanks! Femke (alt) (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept as issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The original article covered the historic product, and nothing more. In the recent month it was loaded with poorly formatted unrelated content and outright spam. It's an unmanageable mess. Retired electrician (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the version before the promotional material was added and have left a COI-notice on the talk page of the two editors who added that content. In the future, please try to resolve issues before bringing an article to GAR. Femke (alt) (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: Am I in the clear to close this as keep? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've not checked if the current version is GA?-compliant, so let's ask @Retired electrician. I don't mind it being closed as keep if there are no outstanding issues noted. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. CMD (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was redirected in 2014. This GAR has been created pro-forma to provide a technical moment of GA delisting. CMD (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No significant improvement, even giving the extra allotted time. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 2 March.

There's lots of uncited material including

• "In the framework of the immune network theory, CDRs are also called idiotypes. According to immune network theory, the adaptive immune system is regulated by interactions between idiotypes."
• The protein structure section
• Antibodies also form complexes by binding to antigen: this is called an antigen-antibody complex or immune complex. Small antigens can cross-link two antibodies, also leading to the formation of antibody dimers, trimers, tetramers, etc. Multivalent antigens (e.g., cells with multiple epitopes) can form larger complexes with antibodies. An extreme example is the clumping, or agglutination, of red blood cells with antibodies in the Coombs test to determine blood groups: the large clumps become insoluble, leading to visually apparent precipitation.
• Each antibody contains two identical light chains: both κ or both λ. Proportions of κ and λ types vary by species and can be used to detect abnormal proliferation of B cell clones. Other types of light chains, such as the iota (ι) chain, are found in other vertebrates like sharks (Chondrichthyes) and bony fishes (Teleostei).
• The entire Antibody–antigen interactions section.
• Being able to control the combinational design of the sequence and three-dimensional space could transcend the natural design and allow for the attachment of different combinations of drugs to the arms. Heterodimeric antibodies have a greater range in shapes they can take and the drugs that are attached to the arms don't have to be the same on each arm, allowing for different combinations of drugs to be used in cancer treatment. Pharmaceuticals are able to produce highly functional bispecific, and even multispecific, antibodies. The degree to which they can function is impressive given that such a change of shape from the natural form should lead to decreased functionality.

And more. These will all need to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No significant improvement, even giving the extra allotted time. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 2 March.

Some uncited material including three citation needed tags and

• The word lipide was unanimously approved by the international commission of the Société de Chimie Biologique during the plenary session on July 3, 1923. The word lipide was later anglicized as lipid because of its pronunciation ('lɪpɪd). In French, the suffix -ide, from Ancient Greek -ίδης (meaning 'son of' or 'descendant of'), is always pronounced (ɪd). In 1947, T. P. Hilditch defined "simple lipids" as greases and waxes (true waxes, sterols, alcohols).
• The glycosphingolipids are a diverse family of molecules composed of one or more sugar residues linked via a glycosidic bond to the sphingoid base. Examples of these are the simple and complex glycosphingolipids such as cerebrosides and gangliosides.

It's honestly not much and could be fixed with enough effort. Though, i'm not exactly sure that the history section is written well. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No significant improvement, even giving the extra allotted time. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 2 March.

Quite a lot of uncited material including

• the Molecular orbitals and persistent carbenes section and its subsections
• Diaminocarbenes have diagnostic 13C NMR chemical shift values between 230 and 270 ppm for the carbenic atom. The X-ray structure of dihydroimidazole-2-ylidene shows a N–C–N bond angle of about 106°, whilst the angle of the acyclic carbene is 121°, both greater than those seen for imidazol-2-ylidenes.
• Exposure to oxygen (a triplet diradical) converts this carbene to the corresponding benzophenone. The diphenylmethane compound is formed when it is trapped by cyclohexa-1,4-diene. As with the other carbenes, this species contains large bulky substituents, namely bromine and the trifluoromethyl groups on the phenyl rings, that shield the carbene and prevent or slow down the process of dimerization to a 1,1,2,2-tetra(phenyl)alkene. Based on computer simulations, the distance of the divalent carbon atom to its neighbors is claimed to be 138 picometers with a bond angle of 158.8°. The planes of the phenyl groups are almost at right angles to each other (the dihedral angle being 85.7°).
• The Mesoionic carbenes section

and many more. These will need to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted on 1b) of the GA criteria - the lead isn't satisfactory, as pointed out below, and there are issues with MOS:LAYOUT. Contributors didn't respond to pings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2005 and last reassessed in 2007. This article has an orange tag and some uncited material that needs to be cited. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Working on it. Might take a few days. DMacks (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DMacks: can you give us an update? A quick glance at the article showns a lead that's a bit too short, some cn tags, and possibly an overreliance on lists rather than prose. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still working. Currently organizing what was the long and mostly-uncited "other uses" list, which helped merge some into other prose sections, find cites for most. I will add an intro sentence or two for each theme there (now that I've figured out what the themes are!) for what can't easily be merged into other sections. I think I have some leads but not strongly-RS for most of the remaining ones, or could move them as side-notes for other well-sourced sections. I could put the bullet-points as a paragraph-style set of examples if GA folks prefer. "Lead a bit short" is an out-of-the-blue concern. While obviously many eyes each see different details, it feels like a discouragement/moved-goalpost when a major wave of GA-reassessments land, and only note certain problems, and then suddenly become an even much larger task to rescue. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your dedication and I'm sorry I discouraged you.

    I've never felt lead expansion is too much work. Usually, you can copy the most important sentences for section not yet covered in the lead, and only do a small copyedit (~10 mins work). For an article like this, I expect a lead of two short paragraphs, not more. It is the part of the article that most people read, so it's quite important. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi DMacks, do you intend to work further on this article? Do you feel it meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. This weekend's project. 18:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• DMacks, do you intend to continue? It is fine to say no; I might try myself. As it is, though, I do feel this fails MOS:EMBED—the lists would be better suited as prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smokefoot, I note you've been working on the article. Do you think it meets the GA criteria, and if not, do you intend to work to fix that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Fails 2b) and 4, and possibly 2c) and 3, of the GA criteria. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After checking this article's sources, I removed many of them for being unreliable, and I believe the article fails criterion two. The coverage is also poorly weighted, with very little information on the history but significant coverage of globalization that leans into coatracking, suggesting issues with criteria three and four. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted by consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous GAR was open for 14 years due to technical errors; as it stands, the article needs citations and updates, as the brigade was reactivated in 2018. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Needs updating. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per Doug Caldwell CCI investigation. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, I was browsing the article the other day from (yes) my hair app't with my iPad, and found copyvio. But didn't write it down because, wet hair :) I can go back and search again if need be, but everything needs to be re-checked. If you can't find it, I'll look again. The article is worthy of a save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also my comments at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Automatic scorer/1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the normal issues, the single quotes around the types of apples is a big MOS problem --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I dunno about "big", but yeah, they shouldn't be there. I'll have a good look later - there's a link flagged up by earwig, but it must be a newly added item to Earwig as I didn't see it when I did the review, nor when I said I'd open a GAR. I think it'd be easy enough to fix as it can be reworded easy enough I think. I've been a little bit quiet the last month or so with some off-wiki work, so I'll give this my full attention when I get half hour. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I won't be able to revisit probably for a few days, but will re-locate the issue as soon as I have a free block of time to dig in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First copyvio fixed (every source needs to be reviewed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First example of source-to-text integrity (entire article needs checking). DC was quite fond of "firsts":

• ... was released in 2006 and officially available to the public in 2007. The apple first sold in eastern United States in 2009.

Source doesn't support "first", and says "will be" sold in the fall ... how do we know it was ? And that's an old source; when did it become available actually? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First example of failed verification (extending a general statement made in the source to the Sweetango):

• The apple variety 'Minneiska' was intentionally bred and selected for its combination of 20 fruit characteristic traits.

Entire article needs to be checked for same, which is characteristic of problems found in other articles.

These are samples only. My suggestion is to delist, patch up the article, and re-submit to GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That's fine. I don't think it's super eggregious, if you changed to not comment about it being sold first in the US and the second piece is more puff than anything. I don't think it is too difficult to fix up, but I'm not in the position to make the necessary changes (maybe another time). It's a bit of a shame, as the copyvio issues are much less obvious than other articles in the list. When I get 20 free I'll see if I can fix the puff, but we do need to chop up some of the actual copyright violations (or close paraphrasing at least). I'll desist for now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 listing is significantly out of date. There are no sources from the 2010s onwards, and the demographics section relies entirely on the 2001 census (there have been two since then). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delist Tagged the article, spectacularly fails criteria 2 and 3. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. poorly sourced and outdated (Demographics talks about 2001). And even the first sentences are strange and ambiguous Žirmūnai is the most populous administrative division (elderate) in Vilnius. It is also a neighbourhood in the Lithuanian capital city Vilnius, encompassing the city district of the same name. Artem.G (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept; issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Because of an overload of chemistry articles at GAR, if delisting, do not close before 1 March.

Looks like there's some amounts of uncited material including

• "an acid is a species that can donate a proton to another species, and a base is one that can accept a proton. This criterion is used to label the groups in the above illustration. Notice that aspartate and glutamate are the principal groups that act as Brønsted bases, and the common references to these as acidic amino acids (together with the C terminal) is completely wrong and misleading. Likewise the so-called basic amino acids include one (histidine) that acts as both a Brønsted acid and a base, one (lysine) that acts primarily as a Brønsted acid, and one (arginine) that is normally irrelevant to acid-base behavior as it has a fixed positive charge. In addition, tyrosine and cysteine, which act primarily as acids at neutral pH, are usually forgotten in the usual classification." From Zwitterion.
• "This pH is known as the isoelectric point pI. For amino acids with charged side chains, the pKa of the side chain is involved. Thus for aspartate or glutamate with negative side chains, the terminal amino group is essentially entirely in the charged form NH, but this positive charge needs to be balanced by the state with just one C-terminal carboxylate group is negatively charged. This occurs halfway between the two carboxylate pKa values: Similar considerations apply to other amino acids with ionizable side-chains, including not only glutamate (similar to aspartate), but also cysteine, histidine, lysine, tyrosine and arginine with positive side chains. Amino acids have zero mobility in electrophoresis at their isoelectric point, although this behaviour is more usually exploited for peptides and proteins than single amino acids. Zwitterions have minimum solubility at their isoelectric point, and some amino acids (in particular, with nonpolar side chains) can be isolated by precipitation from water by adjusting the pH to the required isoelectric point." From Isoelectric point
• "D-amino acid residues are found in some proteins, but they are rare." from Istoterism
• and "The obsolete term remains frequent." from general structure.

Most of side chains looks uncited but I think citation 6 is supposed to be one large general reference. Though I'm not sure. Either way, the things above will need to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also this may just be me but the history section seems really small for something as important as amino acids. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to address some of the points raised here:

• I've reworded this paragraph to remove the confusing references to aspartate/glutamate as acidic, and protonated Lys/Arg as basic. Instead, I put the focus on their typical acid/base nature at physiological pH. The way this paragraph was previously written seemed to me that it was coming from someone who has had to correct a lot of undergraduate students on their misconceptions of acid/base chemistry or who were getting tripped up by their conjugate acid/base states. I also included a textbook reference from the one I had lying around, since no one should have to dig for an article from the 1920s unless they're into that.
• included a reference to the relevant pages in that same textbook for amino acid pI's
• pulled a reference from the D-amino acid article and placed it here with an added explanation.
• someone else removed the reference to the obsolete term.

Regarding the side chains section; citation 6 does not cover any of the claims there, and would require time to sort those out. The history section, while short, does seem to cover the main points of early amino acid well. Though I am no expert there. ― Synpath 22:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the side chains section leaning heavily on a textbook for reference. I invite anyone interested to read it over and make changes, as I'm sure what I've written can be made better. ― Synpath 23:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little tidying and wikilinking throughout the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2015 that have multiple problems. I posted this comments 20 days ago, but it seems that nobody is willing to update that article and thus GAR is required.

The article is not bad, but currently lacks citations is several sections. Chronology and the Big Bang is mostly unsourced, with cn and clarification needed tags. Physical properties uses really strange source ("Antimatter". Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council", see citation 44). Age and expansion ends with a strange sentence This acceleration does not, however, imply that the Hubble parameter is currently increasing; see deceleration parameter for details. Spacetime has unsourced sentences. Support of life is just a few sentences with really strange sourcing: "Isaak, Mark, ed. (2005). "CI301: The Anthropic Principle". Index to Creationist Claims." (see citation 78). Halfs of Dark energy and Ordinary matter are unsourced. Same for Hadrons.

Historical conceptions are also problematic. Half is unsourced, and the sourced parts are often built on really old sources: see "Stcherbatsky, F. Th. (1930, 1962)" (citation 152), citation 13 lacks year and page, cit 150 lacks year. Astronomical concepts is either unsourced or sourced to "Aristotle; Forster, E. S.; Dobson, J. F. (1914)"; the article abruptly ends with The modern era of physical cosmology began in 1917, when Albert Einstein first applied his general theory of relativity to model the structure and dynamics of the universe. with nothing about modern era.

There is also a question on talk page about the audio version being outdated (13 June 2012 (!)) - maybe it should simply be removed? Artem.G (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a public-outreach website from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council is a decent source for a general statement like that, all things told. It would be nice to have a citation that isn't an archived copy of a web page, and we can swap it out, but I wouldn't stress over it. The Index to Creationist Claims is probably also OK for mainstream scientific responses to pseudoscientific nonsense, and thus for short summaries of mainstream positions on out-there speculation.

In "Ordinary matter", the stuff about four familiar phases plus BECs and such is standard, and a decent college textbook would be a reasonable source. I will try to dig up the Allday book which is cited in the "Hadrons" section; it might cover that whole paragraph already. XOR'easter (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that we recently put Planet and Solar system through successful FA reviews, and the historical material in those could also be applicable here. It took a long time for the Universe to be recognized as a much bigger thing than the solar system, after all. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last remaining cn from the Chronology section after adding links to the flatness and horizon problems, which were being alluded to, but unclearly. These are quite complicated ideas and so best not to attempt to summarise in a sentence or two. PaddyLeahy (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's in better shape now. I'll leave it for someone else to decide whether it is "Good". XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep looks good, and I trust XOR's knowledge more than my own ability to assess. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, thanks to XOR article looks better now! Artem.G (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: First contentious close as GAR Coord: The consensus seems to be towards Keep. Length discussions are not really under the purview of GA Criteria, except per 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". Given that the topic at hand is the life of an individual, the necessity of detail is much vaguer and possibly more subjective than it might be for many other topics. While I do agree that the length should be considered excessive from a MOS standpoint, I don't really see any violation of 3b taking place, as most events directly relate to the subject. Sections should, IMO, be spun off into their own articles, with many possibilities such as an article on her early life, works/literature, and a subpage about her relationship to the Eichmann trial, among others. After that, these subjects can be linked, and discussed in less detail here, to cut down on the size. As many experienced editors are involved, I would suggest taking to the talk page to coordinate this process. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Way WP:TOOLONG, needs to be split into multiple articles - car chasm (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As can be seen in the Talk page comments, there are divided opinions on this, so would recommend leaving alone. Besides which, it is easy to say something is too long and should be split up, but a biography does not lend itself easily to such treatment, eg it does not make much sense to have a page on Arendt's childhhod and another on her final illness. Many sections are already summaries of other articles- particularly her writings and the Eichmann controversy. It would be interesting to see the views of the reviewer (J Milburn) although they are not very active at present. CodexJustin was also involved (notified). If anything, the review process actually asked for expansion. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 04:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do split biography articles all the time, some philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle have almost 100 subpages.

While there were divided opinions on the talk page, the editors who were in favor of keeping the article unsplit did not make any arguments based on policy. I believe the cleanup banner I added should not be removed until the issue is addressed. Do you feel that the article should remain listed with a cleanup banner? - car chasm (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to make it clear, I believe this article was promoted in error, as it very clearly does not meet WP:GAN. The only thing that needs to be settled here is whether or not improvements can be made, not whether or not the article passes the criteria, which it very obviously does not do in its current state. - car chasm (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carchasm: I believe you misunderstand WP:Article size. In your edit summary, you state that the article is 3x too long. You seem to be confusing readable prose (93k) with total article length (275k). The article is at the very end of the range of WP:TOOBIG. Article size is not mentioned in the GA criteria, but it is relevant for two criteria:

• WP:summary style: are there irrelevant details?
• Possibly controversially, I believe long articles sometimes don't comply with Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable; reading overly long sections is difficult for nonexperts.

The article underwent a thorough GA review in 2019, and I see no faults there. Article size was mentioned as a concern, and some work was done to address this. I think a bit more can and should be done.

1. The Hannah_Arendt#List_of_selected_publications section is so large that it does not help the reader. It seems to be text that should be under 'further reading', and comply with the selection criteria of WP:further reading.
2. I see a lot of harvnb errors in the bibliography. Where all of these works actually used? The inline citations are very clean, so I have doubts (maybe not relevant for GA?)
3. The The Death of Truth: Notes on Falsehood in the Age of Trump seems to get undue attention.. Was this such a seminal book that it requires

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments The momumental folly which is the List of selected publications section needs to be moved to some other article (WP:NOTDATABASE). Unsure about the numerous sections in the work section, which are a) crossing into MOS:OVERSECTION and b) sometimes rather too reliant on primary sources. Some notes lack in basic grammar, while others need not exist at all (GA criteria 1a and 3b). Otherwise, a very good article, and I don't think the size issues hold too much water. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist on discovering that the article violates GA criterion 2a; it does not satisfy the layout style guidelines as the references are split between the middle and the end of the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A friendly note that this may not have been the most encouraging edit summary. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but consider a WP:SIZESPLIT. I think a WP:SUMMARY-style child article about her work/theory/views could be useful in its own right. The "List of selected publications" might just need to go. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A long article, but one with few existing subpages and no argument has been put forth as to which prose part might be particularly undue. (Perhaps some areas might be worth their own article, but that might not necessarily mean the current text here is undue.) I would agree the long publication list could be its own listicle though, keeping the notable ones mentioned in prose as the current article already does. Some prose might need tightening ("Arendt had close friendships"), and a bit of oversubsectioning, but I wouldn't delist just on that basis. CMD (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Others have pointed out that GA2a is not met. This is a more clearcut issue, and needs to be addressed. There are also quite a few citations to primary sources, which need a closer look. Some may not be being used as references, for example the source after "She also draws on Arendt's essay "Lying in Politics" from Crises in the Republic" appears to be there to provide a link to the Crises in the Republic source. CMD (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:TOOLONG isn't explicitly in the realm of GAR (I've personally never seen it used as justification), though I can see it as a MOS issue. Apart from some sourcing concerns, wordpress, 'Hannah Arendt Center' likely being primary sourcing, and Youtube, I am not seeing anything that would immediately howl 'delist'. I haven't taken the time to go source by source so please consider that. Also, the references for this page are a beast, which is likely a source of much of the bloat. Frankly a separate article 'Works of Hannah Arendt' is in order. Otherwise the article is very well written and it'll be a hard sell to delist simply on length grounds. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - My logic on not meeting the good article criteria was WP:TOOLONG -> should have a cleanup banner -> doesn't meet GA criterion 3. I think some of the confusion might be that article size is often judged solely on the size of the article body, but the references and bibliography are a big part of the issue here, it's just so long that it's hard to scroll even on desktop. I agree though that I think a bibliography/works article and cleanup of the references would probably fix most or perhaps all of the specific problem, though. - car chasm (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles can always be "improved", whether GA or FA, although some, no doubt well intentioned, attempts post promotion are often unhelpful. There were no inline citations originally. However, the issue at question is an attempt to delist on the basis of length, and that needs to be the focus. WP:TOOLONG is being overinterpreted here, it actually urges caution. I understand that the nominator has very strong feelings that it should never have been promoted in the first place, but there is no concensus on that. No convincing evidence has been advanced to delist on the basis of length. Arendt's influence has been profound, and every few months another article appears stressing her relevance to the current world. If anything, I kept the parts relating to her life after coming to the US relatively short, compared to the definitive biography, because it was relatively uneventful, other than the Eichmann affair.

It is true that it is a common practice, where a list of publications is long, that they are often listed separately, however here they form part of the biblography, and moving them would throw the citations into chaos. However I could look at trimming it to the works cited and copy the full list to a daughter page (I have actually started a subpage). In the meantime I have capped the TOC, which saves some space.

Two examples of "split" philosopher biographies, Plato and Aristotle (a GA) were cited, however they are distinguishable because the subpages appropriately lead to discussions of Platonism and Aristotelism, which is not the case here. Interesting and useful discussion. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 04:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Goodyear: could you change your 'keep' !vote to 'comment'. It now seems like you're !voting twice.

There is precedent having separate bibliographies about people such as List of works about Søren Kierkegaard and Bibliography of works on Davy Crockett. I agree with AirshipJungleman that is necessary to meet criterion 2a. It hides which sources are actually used. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige, if it causes confusion Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As suggested a bibliography daughter page and referring hat has been added and all works not specifically cited have been removed - - but most of them are cited Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 23:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites over 50 primary self-pub sources? CMD (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD with a bibliography in the middle of the article, no less. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that list was actually serving as sources, I assumed it was just using reference formatting. (I don't think it should be there either way, but if they are being used as sources that is more of a problem.) This prompted me to look at the Bibliography section at the bottom of the article, and a significant proportion of entries there don't appear to be sources that are cited in the article. That does need cleanup; items used as references need to be clearly distinguished from a general bibliography. CMD (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Goodyear: there is a user-script that can help you 1) figure out which sources are actually used, which should be removed/moved to further reading 2) where your culling has caused citation errors: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. The bibliography is still overly long, and contains web sources that are bibliographies themselves. The Kohn one is also used as a source, as should therefore be in the sources section. It takes very long to edit the article due to a large set of unused sources (I noticed for instance an unused MA thesis.. ) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did use that script, and yes, not surprisingly the article cites her work extensively - there are 426 citations. The issue of Bibliographies and sources is a long standing one. I happen to belong to the school of thought that believes a bibliography is a list of sources used in compiling the article, rather than only those that are directly cited, and therefore think it should stand as it is. I am not aware of any citation errors caused by culling - I checked carefully for them at the time and again just now. Can we just focus on the original complaint - should this article be delisted purely on the grounds of length? Otherwise we risk debating the nuances for ever. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 03:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the original issue was a statement that the page should be split, not simply a separate bibliography, which I have used many times. But if an example is required it would be difficult to do better than List of works by W. Somerset Maugham, which is a FL. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that that's not how this process works, but I'd be happy to clarify that my argument for delisting it (or improving it...) is on the basis of the *overall* length of the article, which includes the bibliography. I originally nominated it because of how much trouble I was having navigating it, and was shocked to see it was considered "Good" when it appears in dire need of cleanup and reorganization to be readable.

I'm not sure the more general attitude here holds water though either, that we should err on the side of "grandfathering" articles that have other underlying issues with them. If other people find additional reasons that the article should be delisted, there's no reason to ban discussion of those. I think addressing those concerns would likely address the issue of overall length as well, so in this case they are particularly beneficial. - car chasm (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear - I am by no means suggesting any discussions be 'banned', as that would be counterproductive. I am merely saying that we need to distinguish between (a) the remit to delist on the basis of length, and (b) any other 'improvements' people might like to make, and indeed are free to do so, which is what Talk pages are about. Otherwise we are all going to get lost in the weeds. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael: I emphatise with your frustration. Issues like this should be brought to talk before a GAR is started, as it can be frustrating to work on them with a time limit in mind (as long as improvements are made, articles are not delisted). It is normal that new points are brought up during a GAR that go beyond the initial assessment. I'm conservative in bringing them up, even though I do feel strongly about making technical articles understandable (I think this article is too difficult in places), as I know GARs are not always pleasant.

I think a second split of this article would be beneficial: a bibliography about her. I agree that the article's sources can include a few general sources that are used to inform the structure or tone of an article, but not necessarily cited inline. It's a common practice on for instance nlwiki, and I've seen it here on enwiki as well. These sources are always separated, and usually number between 3 and 5. I find it hard to justify adding half of the bibliography that way. There are 101 harvnb warnings, which is too much. It makes verification (2a) more difficult, but more importantly, it's excludes people with a poor internet connection from enjoying your work, given how difficult it is to load the article.

One more specific issues (in addition to my comment about The Death of Truth)

• Arendt argued that some Jewish leaders associated with the Jewish Councils (Judenräte), notably M. C. Rumkowski, acted during the Holocaust, in cooperating with Eichmann "almost without exception" in the destruction of their own people. I needed 5 rereads to understand this. Can you perhaps rewrite into two sentences? I'm struggling myself a bit.

Femke (alt) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased, as requested Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of prose quality, I think the article would benefit from a trip to WP:GOCE. Would you be okay if I nominate it? Not really needed for GA, but would improve article. Wanted to check first as copy edits need a pair of expert eyes to double check if the meaning hasn't been changed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, by count it appears that literally hundreds of 'improvements' have been added since this article was promoted four years ago, and I suspect not always constructively. Since there are Arendt haters around, I notice some attempts at vandalisation Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:GOCE is horribly backlogged, and in view of your comments about meaning, why don't I go over it with a fine toothcomb, in its current form - otherwise we will be in GAR for ever Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant for the copyediting to speed up the GAR: as in, no need to look at prose now when we ask copyeditors to make the prose easier to understand in a couple months. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 19:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The GA criteria do note in 3b "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" for any article, so one of this size you can make the argument that some stuff should be trimmed. I haven't read through the article (and due to the size do not intend to) but just noting this since others are claiming size isn't in the GA criteria. Wizardman 04:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is unnecessary is somewhat subjective. I'm assuming that people who are interested in reading past the lead are sufficiently motivated to want to read the whole story - and this is by no means the whole story. Also the guidance on length and subpages advises against discarding material, as opposed to delegating it. Personally, I don't see a lot of "unnecessary"detail. In the meantime I am continuing copyedit, which may make it slightly shorter Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 19:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be highly subjective to me as well. It would say it is quite uncommon for somebody with Wizardman's experience to make a comment like that. Having read the article I don't see a lot of extraneous or unnecessary detail. It does seem quite odd to make a statement like without reading it. scope_creep^Talk 09:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, having some knowledge of the subject, I have been going through this article word by word focusing on that criterion. Arendt was a very complex individual with an extraordinary life and an influential thinker. A true understanding of her and her work requires a knowledge of the many influences on her, which I have tried to outline. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be worth pointing out that, while we have been debating the length here, over the last few weeks, others have actually been adding material. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 23:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Speedily delisted as a DCGAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a missed WP:DCGAR that needs to be manually delisted. The message used on the en masse delistings was:

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315. A consensus was reached at the administrators' noticeboard to delist these articles in one batch, without the normal discussion period. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA delisting of this article.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm, not so simple. DC initiated a GAN, but then withdrew it, and it was then re-sent to GAN by 7&6. But then a faulty GAN, and then a DC copyedit request, followed by something else, and then this. So it seems to be a DC GA, but what a mess; it's more of a DC/7&6 collaboration, and since 7&6 is topic banned from all DC content, that leaves them unable to respond here.

The content will need to be independently re-evaluated by others, and any content cited to offline sources by DC presumptively deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified 7&6, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the content added by DC is cited to this source, which is illegible on my screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot verify this to its source:

  The Milam Company advertising proclaimed air conditioning as the building's principal feature, naming it Carrier's "Manufactured Weather."[16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a reliable source ? It appears to be user-generated; I've never encountered it before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen Waymarking used a fair bit, but it's not RS. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• All of the first paragraph here was added by DC, and I'm unable to verify it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Found archive.org source; contains copy-paste copyvio, content removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]