Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GA reassessment)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsOctober 2024 Backlog DriveMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

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

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

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

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

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

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

Closing a reassessment

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

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
  4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

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

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. Crash Bandicoot (character) 2024-04-28
  2. Ben Nevis 2024-06-08
  3. Leeds Country Way 2024-06-27
  4. Louvre 2024-08-11
  5. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  6. Joan Crawford 2024-08-19
  7. Pest control 2024-08-22
  8. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
  9. Bleeding Through 2024-09-15
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023

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

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

Articles listed for reassessment

Big Four Bridge

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

There is uncited prose, including uncited paragraphs, in the article. The "Fires" section seems like information about the bridge's history: I think it should be interspersed within the history of the bridge, not given its own section. There doesn't seem to be any post-2016 information. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the flags of Romania

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

There are uncited statements throughout the article. I also do not think the "Acts of heroism under the flag" section is written encyclopedically. Instead, some of it seems like nationalist rhetoric, off-topic, or should be redistributed to other article sections. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill

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

There is uncited information throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

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

This article has over 13,000 words: WP:TOOBIG says that it should probably be trimmed and WP:SPINOUT. There's also some sections that are very long: if after the trim they are still long, I recommend additional headings. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berghuis v. Thompkins

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

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire sections. The article relies on a lot of large block quotes: these should be summarised and reduced when able. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at some of this. I agree that block-quoting the reactions and background material doesn't work. However, I don't see a problem with quoting significantly from the opinion itself. It's an effective summary of a public domain text where the specific language is important. Paraphrasing it risks making the document less useful and potentially less accurate. lethargilistic (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that you follow MOS:Law when evaluating this GA article. As to other comments, the block quotes are limited and appropriate when discussing this legal issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a GA by current standards, in my opinion. For one, it cites few reliable sources and instead relies mostly on the text of the decision itself. For another, it's rather poorly written and formatted.  White Whirlwind  12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing primarily to the case in the decision section is well-accepted. Outside of that section, the article cites primarily to other sources. lethargilistic (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, quoting large sections introduces legalise into the article, making it harder for the reader to understand the arguments. If the reader wanted to read the decision, they would have looked up the original text. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be a tertiary source and provide summaries of the decision: if this was a fiction article writing a plot section, I would encourage editors to remove quotes from the piece of fiction and instead summarise the plot. The lack of citations in other sections, including the entire "Legal background" section, has not been addressed yet. Also, the "Media response" section puts a lot of weight on the opinions of three sources, while the subsequent paragraph mentions sources that are only used to state that they reported on the case, without using those sources as inline citations for the information in the article. I suggest that this section be formatted more like the suggestions in WP:RECEPTION: while it is an essay for how to format reception sections for media, it would be helpful for organising and summarising the information in that area more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:. This isn't a piece of fiction, it's an article on a landmark legal decision by the US Supreme Court. It is completely appropriate to quote a few sentences to show the legal principle decided, especially when you consider the length of the opinion, including any concurrences or dissents. GregJackP Boomer! 04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GregJackP: It is appropriate to use some quotes from the case, but I think the article relies on quotes too much, as much of the prose is quotes, especially in the "Majority opinion" and "Sotomayor's dissent" sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@White whirlwind: Please refer to MOS:Law, which states that for articles on legal opinions can use both primary and secondary sources. Both are reliable sources, and your objection seems to be that their are not sufficient secondary sources. Just under half of the references are reliable secondary sources (20 of 41), and the others are all reliable primary sources (21 of 41). The formatting follows U.S. Supreme Court Style Guide, and is written in the same style as other featured and good articles on SCOTUS cases. I'll defer to others on whether it is poorly written or not. GregJackP Boomer! 04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Like all niche policies, MOS:LAW is inferior and subservient to general policies such as WP:NOR. NOR specifies that articles should be "based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on ... primary sources."  White Whirlwind  13:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the document as a primary source in the article about that document to make straightforward statements about its content is not OR. WP:NOR says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, ...an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." When WP:NOR says the article ought to rely "to a lesser extent" on primary sources, that means at least half of the references should be to secondary sources (minimum, of course, and I'm aware that that's an essay). In context, that is an expression that the article needs to "establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." (The latter is operative now, obviously.) In this article, the opinion is being cited for its contents and nothing more. Per WP:NOR, where there is no neutrality issue like undue weight, "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents." The article needs at least one more secondary source to get over the minimum by Greg's count, but it's otherwise fine on this point. lethargilistic (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say using a primary source was OR; I said only that NOR requires articles to be based primarily on secondary sources. Moreover, whether it is "straightforward" to summarize a case using itself as a primary source is still up for debate on this site. I have always been on the "no" side of that argument. There are many benefits when editors follow secondary sources' description of cases instead of trying to summarize cases directly: It avoids problems of WP:WEIGHT, it avoids the wide discrepancies in editors' legal training and understanding, and so forth.  White Whirlwind  18:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian School of Law

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

The "History" section stops at 2002, there are uncited passages throughout the article, and the lead is too short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the in-line writing is too casual in tone, and there is still course-catalog content, and laundry lists (clubs). The article, on the whole, is not especially well-written nor is it better than average. My vote is to reassess out of good article status. --Melchior2006 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Just Wild About Harry

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

The entries in "Use in other media" are unformatted and most are uncited. The lead does not summarise all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Osborn

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

At over 13,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed or WP:SPINOUT. There are also uncited sentences in the article, and new information has been added since its GAN which should be formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Hasan Dani

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

There are numerous uncited statements in the article, the lede is too short and does not contain information on all major aspects of the article, and a talk page issue about the lack of information about the reception of Dani's scholarship has gone unaddressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - My concerns — raised over a couple of years ago — remain unaddressed. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It appears that even the GA version wasn’t fully prepared for that GA status, as it lacked proper sourcing. I’m surprised a bio was elevated to GA status while still containing WP:OR. Better late than never, though! This should be downgrade now unless someone wants to help fix it up and get it re-reviewed. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors (2008 TV series)

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

This 2009 GA has many unsourced statements (i.e. DVD extras, parts of the Media section and parts of the Differences section.). I also doubt the article has been appropriately covered, with little information on reception or viewership; expansion is definitely needed on that front. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lottery

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

The article contains a lot of uncited statements, including entire sections and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's magnetic field

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

There are a lot of uncited passages, including entire paragraphs. The sources listed in "Further reading" might be helpful for adding inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Public Service

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

There a lot of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The "Mental health" section relies too much on block quotes and these should be summarised or reduced. There are lots of sources in the "Further reading" section that can be used for the uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mario

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

The "Legacy" section is my biggest concern: the first paragraph is uncited, while the rest of the paragraphs are an assortment of appearances in other media. There are also some uncited statements in other parts of the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's probably not very desirable to wipe out a decade's worth of edits with a wave of a wand. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the originally listed version in 2011, I don't think that would even be sufficient. I'm not sure that version should have even been listed as was (though I am not saying it should have failed instead). That version also has a completely uncited paragraph in Legacy. Perhaps Salvidrim! can correct me if I am displaying ignorance of the rules working differently here, since he is the original nominator. mftp dan oops 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MFTP Dan: It was only recently that GA required a citation after every paragraph (with some exceptions, like the lead). Articles were not "grandfathered" into this requirement, so GAs promoted before this change might require fixing up to meet this higher standard. If there was one or two minor citation concerns, I would not consider bringing an article to GAR. With this article, I thought the amount of uncited text was too much for the article to be considered GA at that time. If someone is willing to fill in the missing citations, I can re-review. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmare

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

This article has many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is an empty "Legacy" section with an orange banner in it since July 2024. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720, I'll be looking after this; plan is to resolve the immediate issues that have crept in since the original GA nom (which I followed at the time), bring the referencing format current to 2024 fashions ;) — and will ping you for a further look once those relatively easy parts are done. Ceoil (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Byrne

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

This article has unsourced statements, is missing post-2012 information and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put me down as "will maybe work on this". Please delist if I don't come back in a week. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kekal

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

There are several "non-primary source needed" tags from 2019 that need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, yeah, this article needs some cleaning up. I think someone was over-zealous with the tags, but there is a LOT of material that needs outside sourcing. The page also needs to be updated in general. I'm in the process of working on this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work, how is it now?-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6: It looks a lot better. I added some cn tags. Some of the paragraphs are quite long and should be broken up, like the last paragraph of "Early years (formation to 2002)", both paragraphs in "Style", and the first and last paragraph of "Kekal and Christianity". I think the second paragraph of "Influences" should be removed as it is cited to Pintrest. Are there any more recent sources that can be added to the article, especially to replace social media inline citations? Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one missing citation I thought I'd added. It's done, now. I'm going to work on that "Christianity" paragraph, it is indeed excessively long.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done some more work. I'm finding lots of deadlinks, but with Internet Archive having those issues right now I'm having to manually catch them rather than running the bot.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mephedrone

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

The "Pharmacology" section has had an "update needed" banner since 2015 which does not seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the pharmacology section using more recent sources. Still could use more review articles though. Boghog (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosmith

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

At over 12,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed and information spun off, and I think that should happen with this article. There are also some unsourced statements, and sources in the "Further reading" section that could be incorporated into the article or removed, but these are minor compared to the length concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would you like to see it spun off?★Trekker (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StarTrekker: I am not a subject matter expert, but here are some recommendations:
  • The lede can be reduced, especially the third paragraph
  • "History" can be spun off or reduced.
  • "Influence and legacy" can be reduced
  • "Awards and achievements" already has its own article: some of the information could be moved there.
Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StarTrekker, do you intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I would not mind contributing if there is a consensus of what to do. I think moving all awards and similar to the specific article is a good idea. A history article seems like a decent idea Imho. A legacy or influence article I could also see being a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fleance

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

This article has uncited text, including entire paragraphs and statements attributed to people without citations. The lead could also use an update for formatting. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I might be able to help with this. I haven't been involved with the page previously, so far as I can remember. Some immediate thoughts I have are:
    • Is it right that the page should attempt to cover both the historical person and the Shakespearean character? Or are those two separate entities requiring two separate articles? If the latter my worry is that the historical one would be little more than a stub. Is there precedent for this kind of decision?
    • Is there a WP:WEIGHT issue in devoting so much of the article to the character rather than the historical figure? (In this regard I would venture a guess that MUCH more has been said in reliable sources about the fictional Fleance than the historical one.)
    • Is there a WP:WEIGHT issue in devoting so much of the article to Fleance's depiction in films, when he is equally - or moreso - a stage character?
    • I've quite a lot of sources on this so if @Z1720: you can give me an indication of which bits you consider to be unsourced or undersourced, I can start doing some fixing.
  • Anyone have any thoughts on any of the above? AndyJones (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyJones: Some answers:

  • Probably two separate articles, though if the historical figure is not notable, then it can't get its own article.
  • If the article focuses on the Shakespeare character, it doesn't need too much information about the historical figure.
  • I don't think the article needs to have too much information about its various depictions, especially since Macbeth has been staged and depicted several times. Instead, it should focus on what academics have said about the character's role in the play.
  • I have added cn tags per the GAR. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I'd say probably not in a major way, but I will look through my sources again to see if I have anything which helps to address the issues raised here. If I don't repost here by 28th you can safely assume I concluded I had nothing new to say.
I miss Wrad! AndyJones (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Animation Studios

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

This article has an orange "additional citations needed" in the "Production logo" section from 2023 which needs to be resolved. It is over 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be reduced. There are also a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to prune and source. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick update, here are the changes so far.
The article was 11705 words as of October 5, the last edit before I became involved, and now is 11470 words. I'll see what else I can weed, but this is a studio where even the unproductive eras are the sole focus of multiplebooks. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanimum: This article might be a good candidate to WP:SPINOUT sections of its history. This has already started with Disney Renaissance. After spinning out these sections, this article can give an overview of that time period (I recommend 4 paragraphs max per spun-out article) to reduce the word count. If readers are interested in finding out more information, they can go to the relevant article. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston upon Hull

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

I count 28 citation needed tags, some of which span entire paragraphs. True, the article is large, but I still think that's probably too many to ignore. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on this, you can strike about eight of the CN tags off the list of those needing attention. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The joy of all things and Keith D: do you two intend to keep working on this article? Thanks (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen of Hearts: Hopefully will be continuing with this, but time is a bit limited at the moment and will be without internet connection for 12 days at end of month. Keith D (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen of Hearts: Aye, 'appen tha knows! (translation: "Yes I do intend to carry on".) Sorry, will get round to it soon. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1920 Buffalo All-Americans season

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

There is a lot of uncited text, with citation needed tags from 2020. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USS Texas (BB-35)

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

Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 17 year-old GA to dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):

  • 1b. The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.
  • 2b. Some claims are cited to unreliable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71). There's also a valid {{failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
  • 2c. There are at least 18 portions of text that solely cite primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012)
  • 3a. The article lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024.
  • 3b. The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources.

Note: the above is modified from my request for MILHIST A-Class reappraisal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GAR coordinators: Per this discussion with the MILHIST coordinators, can this be placed on hold pending A-Class reappraisal? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wasn't involved in the Coord discussion, I don't think there's any conflict of interest, so granted. Unless I'm just blind, there's no place to amend this on the template itself, but it should be considered on hold pending the A-Class work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a notice at the top of the article talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue on waiting to close this until the A class reassessment is closed either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the A-class reassessment page. If A-Class is retained, this GAR can probably be withdrawn. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How active is Operation Majestic Titan, which would seem/have seemed to be interested in polishing this article up? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed II's Albanian campaign

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

During the discussion on awarding the Good Article distinction on pl:wiki (Propozycje do Dobrych Artykułów/Pierwsza kampania Mehmeda II w Albanii) for the translation of Mehmed II's Albanian campaign article, editors from the Polish version of Wiki noticed a number of irregularities and doubts about the actual use of declared sources.

  • Nolli's book (Noli, Fan Stilian (1947), George Castroiti Scanderbeg (1405–1468)) – does not provide sources for the information provided in the entry.
  • Schmaus (Schmaus, Alois (1969), Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients, vol. 8, Trofenik) is cited as the author of the periodical, but the title of his article in Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas is missing.
  • Franco, Demetrio (1539), Commentary on the cose of Turchi, et del S. Georgio Scanderbeg, principe d' Epyr (the publication from 1539 has an ISBN number? How could the author use the publication from 1539?)

We do not understand why the author, who declares knowledge of Albanian, did not publish the article in the Albanian language version of Wikipedia?

The discussants drew attention to the title of the article: in publications this era of fighting is called an uprising, and the actions of the sultan are called retaliation. We assess that the article Pierwsza kampania Mehmeda II w Albanii cannot be recognized on pl:wiki as GA, and we have grounds to believe that the article Mehmed II's Albanian campaign probably is a hoax.

In this situation, we request that the distinction of GA on en:wiki be revised. Jacek555 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this page, I can personally say:
This article is at most C-class. Setergh (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Setergh's assessment of C class due to referencing and citation problems. I also find the content suspicious. Other articles not by the same user do not mention campaigns involving the Albanians and Ottomans at the same time. Mehmed was concertrating on taking Constantinople during the same time period as the events in the article. The reviewers who looked at this could not find information in the article in some of the cited sources. Further research might show this is a hoax. A successful hoax along these lines would include real historical persons doing things they might have done along the lines of actual verified actions at other times in other contexts. I am not quite prepared to say this is a hoax article but it is certainly questionable. It should be downgraded for a start. Donner60 (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was invited to have a look at the MILHIST talk page. Right off the bat, I am surprised that the go-to resource on Mehmed's reign, Franz Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, or Setton's monumental and indispensable The Papacy and the Levant, were not used. Mehmed's preoccupation in the spring and summer 1452 is known to have been the construction of Rumeli Hisar in preparation for the siege of Constantinople, and the article itself makes clear that he did not lead the campaign; so the title of the article at least incorrect. Schmaus' contribution is, I assume this dedicated volume, so it is slightly mis-cited. I can also detect at least one error of fact: Skanderbeg's primary reason for allying with Alfonso was his fear of 21-year-old Mehmed II is untrue, since Mehmed was considered widely a non-entity at the time, a youth stepping into shoes too big for him to fill; Skanderbeg was motivated by the Ottoman threat, but also by internal rivalries. I had a look at the EI2 article, where the events of 1452 are not mentioned, and the İslâm Ansiklopedisi article on Skanderbeg, where it at least confirms that "The young sultan contented himself with sending forces against Skanderbeg in the first years of his reign and tried to keep him under pressure. It is known that during the siege of Istanbul, a unit under the command of Ibrahim Bey moved against the Albanian-Neapolitan forces, but was unsuccessful." However this only explicitly confirms Battle of Polog. In short, I would like more easily accessible (and of higher scholarly caliber) sources for verifiability, but fundamentally, assuming good faith, and given that the events in Albania prior to Mehmed's active involvement there are not well covered by Western historians (cf. Babinger or Setton), I would assume that the events recounted are factual. As such I don't think this is a hoax, but it does warrant improvements in sourcing, especially as Skanderbeg's life is heavily mythologized. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thorough review. Good information and sound conclusion. Donner60 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be able to get my hands on a copy of Schmaus within the next couple of weeks from the university library, will then definitely revisit the article then. Constantine ✍ 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cplakidas, are you still available to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 unfortunately not, I cannot say when I will be able to go to the university library as my schedule is packed. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, I'm willing to work on this rewrite. Will 1 month for it to be completed be too long? Matarisvan (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forestry in the United Kingdom

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

GA criteria:

3.a) As a lot has changed since 2010 I think the article no longer properly addresses the main aspects of the topic. In particular the topic has become far more political. I mentioned this again on the talk page last month https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forestry_in_the_United_Kingdom#Important_info_is_missing_I_think but there is still very little about politics in the article. There are plenty of sources - for example https://www.forestryjournal.co.uk/news/politics/ and it has been a couple of months now since the new government appointed a minister https://www.charteredforesters.org/uk-government-appoints-new-minister-for-forestry

Also the article does not have enough content on Northern Ireland (possible sources https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/information-and-services/forests/public-forests-northern-ireland https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/forestry-in-northern-ireland-facing-uncertain-future/), and there are some cleanup tags and reference errors which have been there for a while now. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I seem to have unwatched this article by accident. I certainly didn't mean to. I was therefore unaware of the maintenance tags and talk page commentary, and I haven't satisfied the tagger's demands. I would however note that if changes are needed and sources exist, then the edit button is available... Otherwise I'll get to this in due course.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to edit this myself as I am busy with Forests in Turkey. But I don’t think there is any rush. Maybe people who are out walking in the woods now will take this up once winter storms force them inside. I have notified some other editors but if you know any more who might be interested please let them know. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping! I'm coming at this from a botanical rather than commercial forestry angle. The tree list is of uncertain value as it stands at the moment, as a lot of the trees on it (including many of the native species) are not of commercial forestry significance, being little more than shrubs and/or very rare (e.g. the native whitebeams, many of the willows), or only of horticultural interest; but there are also a few species used in forestry that are not included and should be added. I'd recommend changing the order to ! Scientific name !! Common name !! as it makes maintenance easier (the option of sorting to sci name is how found a duplicate in the list just now). The 'Period' is also of limited value, but if wanted, much more precise introduction dates are known for most introduced species; I can add them if need be. I'd also suggest changing the lead photo from Epping Forest (basically, a public park, not a commercial forestry site); perhaps something like File:Timber harvesting in Kielder Forest.JPG which shows more what 'real' forestry is like, and with forestry work in progress - MPF (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPF As there is already an article List of trees of Great Britain and Ireland perhaps we should just delete the list in this article to avoid duplication? If this article needs a list it could maybe excerpt the list article? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced the lead image as suggested, obviously an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly worth considering, though that list does not include several commercially important forestry species that happen not to be widely naturalised in Britain - MPF (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we avoid duplication?—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To make the list easier to maintain if new species entered the UK, for example those better able to tolerate climate change Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Well, this is why we have WP:LST. It's a relatively new feature which we used extensively in articles about the COVID-19 pandemic, so we could update the case numbers once and propagate that information to lots of articles. I would suggest that we convert List of trees of Great Britain and Ireland into one or more sortable wikitables, then merge the lists, and then use the LST feature to selectively transclude the commercial forestry species. That way we only have to maintain one list but we can display a complete set of information everywhere we need to!—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, do you still intend to rework this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I won't be able to do so in a short timescale.—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then in that case (and without prejudice to your reworking the lists one day), I'll just remove the list of tree species now, a link to the other article is enough to be going on with as it enables readers to find the information at one click. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What timescale do you have in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry -- I have no idea when I'll get to it.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy!

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

The article seems to be suffering from a great degree of scope creep. It's bloated considerably in size since the GAN in 2014, and further changes within the show in the 2020s have only bloated the article out further. Last GAR was closed as "kept", but it's only gotten worse since then as more changes have ensued in the show's history (e.g., the tournament spinoffs, Michael Davies taking over, Mayim Bialik being fired, etc.). Also, I think the gameplay description and host changeover sections are way too verbose and detailed. I should also note that Claire McNear's 2020 book has not been integrated into the article and is only listed under "further reading". I do have a copy of the book, but the rest of the article needs a severe trim first. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick skim of the article, and while at first glance I think it seemed quite long for a tv show. But after further thought it does seem to be necessary for how much information of a show of that caliber should maintain. I don't quite know what information I would cut. Eruditess (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's way too much technical cruft about the ins and outs of tournaments, for one. The section on host changes could also be massively tightened up and do without all the quotes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @SethAllen623: This was 10 (!) years ago now, but Seth and I worked together a bit on bringing this and Millionaire (also recently delisted as a GA, unfortunately) up to GA standards. If I recall correctly, the same reviewer took on both articles and admittedly didn't cover as much detail in their reviews as they probably could/should have. I don't know how much time I have to try to save this one at the moment, though I do have the updated 2022 paperback version of McNear's book and would be happy to at least try to incorporate that into this article where appropriate later this week. FWIW, I donated my copy of the original 2020 hardback version to my college's library, but given I currently work at said library...I can almost certainly get access to that as well if necessary. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: Seems to be being worked on currently. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SethAllen623 and Bcschneider53: do you intend to contine working on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Hey, sorry, this completely fell off my radar. It looks like Seth's made a few edits just now, so I'll wait a bit to avoid risking an edit conflict...like I said, I do have the McNear book, but as TPH said from the opening, it's probably best to take care of the rest first. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! I have removed about 10,000 bytes off of the bloat that's come into this article. This has included removing the quotations and various other details from the discussion of the host changeovers, and trimming the discussion of special tournaments in the "Tournaments and Events" section. These were the two major points of contention that you people have said needed to be taken care of. Have I done enough now, or is there more to be removed? --SethAllen623 (talk), October 16, 2024, 06:02 UTC.

Wicked (musical)

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

There are uncited sections, particularily about the production's history during COVID-19 restrictions. The "Movie" section has large blockquotes which should be summarised instead due to copyright concerns. The article also has over 10,000 words of prose, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be spun-out or reduced. BroadwayWorld is used as a citation numerous times, which WP:RS/P states is an unreliable source. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wicked needs a lot of clean-up, and streamlining, but, as I pointed out to Z1720 elsewhere, while WP:RS/P states that BroadwayWorld is not a reliable source "for biographies of living persons", it is a standard source for use in musicals for basic production information like production dates and casts (though Playbill, IBDB, etc. would be preferred). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above and, looking at the article might I suggest to remove from the cast list the "second US tour" and "second UK tour" casts columns? Although I know it's important to know all casts of Wicked, it has now been 20 years of this production, so removing these columns might leave space for productions where Wicked has never been staged, for example? Musicalge3k5 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cast tables should contain only the original production and long-running, major market productions. The Productions section should name the stars and notable players in all the noteworthy productions (subject to WP:DUE). Alternatively, we could use the more efficient cast table method used in Carousel, a featured article. In any case, every person named in the cast table should first be named in the Productions section together with a WP:RS verifying that the person actually played the role. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers and Musicalge3k5: do you intend to continue working on the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to help more, if I can. I am a big Wicked fan, so anything to share with others. :) Is there anything specific I should be working on? Musicalge3k5 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Musicalge: you can go through it and make sure that all the assertions are cited, and that any text that does not belong in an encyclopedia is trimmed. Wicked is not a priority of my own; I am just watching it to make sure that people do not add even more fancruft to this very crufty article. In the productions section, all the major, long-running productions should name the director, choreographer, principal cast, notable designers, opening and closing dates, all with appropriate references, and if there was something special about the production that the reviews mentioned, describe it, citing those reviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Plataea

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

This article has had an orange "relies on primary sources" banner at the top of the article since October 2023. Upon looking at the inline citations, I agree with that assessment. This would require a subject-matter expert to look through the citations to see what should be replaced with a more recent source. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly literature on the Greco-Persian wars is vast -- there's no excuse to be using primary sources here, and the sourcing for the article in general is well below what I'd expect of a GA. The modern sources cited are nearly all either non-scholarly, outdated, generally tangential to the field or from people whose scholarly standing is controversial. Fixing this would need a full rewrite, so I would advise a delist if nobody is willing to do that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Overuse of primary sources; secondary sources used are plainly insufficient. It's been well known that the ancient sources' description of the battle are not consistent and do not lend themselves to recognisable (today) topographic features. This is not a problem anymore, however, because we now have aerial ground penetrating radar. Jones (2020) p 196 The [battle] is particularly difficult to reconstruct using only literature from ancient sources... Modern historians [list of 10 names], many of whom visited the battlefield north of Erythres/Kriekouki, were unable to agree on the events and locations of the Battle of Plataea. There are too many complications due to lost topographical markers and reliance on ancient sources [list of 6] to identify locations from accounts of the battle. See also Konechny (2022) for detailed reconstruction. Ifly6 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I can work on this article and restore it to GA level in ~20 days. I hope that timeline is ok for everyone. Matarisvan (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for volunteering to take this up. I want to ask, however, whether any rewrite is (for lack of a better term) happening. Ifly6 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm working on 2 other GA rewrites so the timeline will be delayed quite a bit, but the rewrite is on. I've done the biblio formatting, I expect to complete the rewrite in 30-40 days instead of the 20 estimated above. I hope that is ok, @Ifly6? Matarisvan (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really matter how quickly it happens to me, just wanted to know that you're in earnest on it. Ifly6 (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matarisvan, just checking in with your rewrite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1225482527"