Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 70

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

← (Page 69)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 71) →

Henry Rollins

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A {{GAR request}} tag was added by DannyMusicEditor, I believe because of poor referencing, reliance on unreliable sources, and significant uncited material, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck

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

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

Result: Speedily delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

80% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Tale of Mr. Tod

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

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

Result: Speedily delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

70% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cicely Mary Barker

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

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

Result: Speedily delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

80% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Baháʼu'lláh

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

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

Result: Numerous unresolved issues; no objection to closing, and no current work to improve the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violates #4 Neutral language. Examples just in the introduction:

"His family was considerably wealthy..."

"...and donating considerable time and money to charities."

"...a governmental attempt to exterminate the movement, Baha'u'llah narrowly escaped dealth..."

"...attracted the ire of Iranian authorities"

There are other parts of the article as well:

"...the execution of the Bab were tumultuous for Babis."

"...seeking to curry favor with the king..."

"...encourage and revive flagging spirits..."

"...imprison both Baba'u'llah and Mirza Yahya in far-flung outposts..."

The entire article reads like it was copied from a bibliography. The "good article" status was given in 2012 and obviously many edits have been made since then that I think makes this not be a "good article" anymore. There is a talk discussion about it too. Unpicked6291 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this seems explicitly non-neutral so long as those statements can be verified. That being said, there is a significant amount of uncited text that should be verified before GA status is kept. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Christmas in the United States (1946–1964)

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

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

Result: Consensus exists to redirect the page, speedily delisting the article for housekeeping. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was fully written by User:ReverendLogos, a sockpuppet of the banned user User:ItsLassieTime. The main source used, It's a Wonderful Christmas: The Best of the Holidays 1940-1965., is a book that I am unable to acquire and google books/amazon/archive all came up empty for giving me any information to confirm or deny the validity of the article. As a result the article as it is is unsalvageable. I suggest a speedy delisting so I can redirect the article to Christmas as this is an unnecessary content fork even without the copyright issues. Wizardman 00:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizardman: If no objections are raised, the article will be delisted in seven days. Noting that if the article is deleted/redirected for copyright reasons per PDEL and longtime violators, such a reassessment is unnecessary as an administrative measure: redirects cannot be GAs. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizardman: Just want to say but I was able to find the book https://www.google.com/books/edition/It_s_a_Wonderful_Christmas/-z8sPQAACAAJ?hl=en here. Though I will say that I am of the opinion that this article doesn't need to exist at all and honestly should either be merged/redirected tp Christmas or to create an entirely new article for Christmas in the United States and merge it there. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; to clarify I wasn't doubting the book existed, but with there being no preview I couldn't verify anything in the article. Wizardman 00:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse

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

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

Result: Speedily delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

80% of authorship was by serial book copyright violator ItsLassieTime (under their sock Susanne2009NYC). I have presumptively reverted to the latest pre-ILT revision, which obviously wipes the majority of the content and puts it well beneath the standards expected at GA. Anyone seeking to rescue it would have to rewrite entirely from scratch, as nothing ILT inserted can be trusted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist barring major improvements to the article, which I suspect will not be forthcoming. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deborah Kerr

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

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

Result: Issues unresolved, no active work. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. The Early Career section has been tagged for needing additional citations for almost 3 years now while the hollywood section looks like it needs some more too. Later films and Television are entirely unsourced. There's a lot of uncited material here that i likely haven't noticed yet because it's pretty bad. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jessica Hardy

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

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

Result: Issues unresolved, no active work; delist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems wrong to immediately nominate this for GAR while it's on OTD but I have a problem with the article. Mainly, the article has not been updated at all. The article just ends at 2015 even though it's 2023 and a quick search shows that there's probably at least something mention post 2015. Also the personal bests table looks uncited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She retired in 2016, so this needs to be added in. Curbon7 (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lassie (1954 TV series)

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

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

Result: Speedily delisted for copyright issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another GAR that's a necessity due to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. After cutting all the content from the article done by all the socks I'm left with less than half the prose, with a lot of significant content long gone. It would take a lot of work to bring it back to GA status. If you're still unconvinced, the GA review was done by a sock of a separate banned user so it's technically invalid anyway. Wizardman 23:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

European Council

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

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

Result: Delisted due to problems with criteria 2 and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. There's some uncited material including

In 2008, having become Finnish Foreign Minister, Stubb was forced out of the Finnish delegation to the emergency council meeting on the Georgian crisis because the President wanted to attend the high-profile summit as well as the Prime Minister (only two people from each country could attend the meetings).[citation needed]
A similar situation arose in Romania between President Traian Băsescu and Prime Minister Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu in 2007–2008 and again in 2012 with Prime Minister Victor Ponta, who both opposed the president.
Eurozone summits section
The role of that President-in-Office was in no sense (other than protocol) equivalent to an office of a head of state, merely a primus inter pares (first among equals) role among other European heads of government. The President-in-Office was primarily responsible for preparing and chairing the Council meetings, and had no executive powers other than the task of representing the Union externally. Now the leader of the Council Presidency country can still act as president when the permanent president is absent.

Considering the size of the article I feel that this is important to address. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thumbelina

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

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

Result: Speedy delisted because of below copyright issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is another GAR that is needed due to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, as pretty much all the important parts of the article were written by not one, not two, but three separate sockpuppets of the user, as well as the main account. While the Adaptations section is well sourced and the plot seems ok, it definitely fails comprehensiveness now and will require delisting. Wizardman 23:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Dying Swan

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

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

Result: Speedy delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another GAR as a result of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. User:Kathyrncelestewright, a sock of said user, wrote pretty much the whole article and I have removed the violations, but honestly this shouldn't have been a GA in the first place as over half the article was just quotations from copyrighted sources, as the banned user couldn't even bother to try writing it in their own words this time. Wizardman 16:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Princess and the Pea

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

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

Result: Speedy delisted because of copyright issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, I had to remove about half the article. While I was able to salvage more than I have in other instances, much of the meat of the article, namely the composition and publication, is gone. While restoring it to GA is a bit more feasible than others that have been nominated, it still needs a large amount of work. Wizardman 15:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

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

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

Result: Many sentences/paragraphs tagged for improvement, while numerous statistics are not cited, failing GA criterion 2b, along with concerns over stability (see recent edit-warring). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a few cn tags, a failed verification tag, and cites many sources flagged up as unrealible (most natable F-16.net). I think the aircrafts on display section is trivia, and removing that may bring the article closer to GA, but some more work is needed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually comment on GA reassessments, but I'll chime in to say that "Aircraft on display" or "Surviving aircraft" are a standard section on aircraft articles, especially for military aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually agree ZLEA, but a section containing 83 aircraft (1.8% of all of these planes built) seems a bit unnecessary. And this is a plane which is still being not only flown, but built. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What type of sourcing can be used for those sections? At the moment, it seems to be primarily sourced to F-16.net, which shows up as red in my source-checking script (generally unreliable). To note here User:Mark83 has indicated at talk that they may work on the article :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have said I may pitch in, but I am not bothered about this section to be honest. I agree it feels a bit like trivia. ZLEA is right that it’s a standard section, but if user(s) have strong feelings about maintaining this section then they need to work on verifability. Failing that, let’s remove it. Mark83 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no opposition makes itself known, I'll remove the sectionin a couple of days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed by buidhe.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Siege of Lal Masjid

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

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

Result: No objection to delisting, numerous issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed near-completely since its listing as a Good Article nearly 15 years ago. It has grown in size significantly, but poor writing has accompanied this expansion. I have only recently attempted to remedy some of the typos and awkward wording littered throughout the article. The article also makes frequent use of long quotes from sources without effort to paraphrase. This is particularly notable in the "Reactions" section; I understand the purpose of the section, but Wikipedia is not a repository for entire paragraphs ripped from editorials. Speaking of editorial, some of the wording in this article would no longer be appropriate under Wikipedia's updated guidelines, such as "Securing Lal Masjid brought an end to nine days of high tension in Islamabad, normally a tranquil city that had been immune to the violence experienced in the tribal areas of Pakistan." Does this sentence have encyclopedic value? Also, the tenses of this article are also odd as most of the editing done to it followed the event itself. In a similar manner, a lot of the figures in this article are outdated, and attempts to update these numbers have led to a few inconsistencies in the article. Yue🌙 08:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue: It appears work has stalled on the article itself before you filed here; are you still planning to work on the article to bring it up to GA standard, or do you think a delisting is the most appropriate route? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Honestly, I could probably remedy the grievances I brought up this coming weekend. If there is a deadline to this reassessment (I am not aware of one), then I believe delisting would be the best route until such work is done. I also welcome others' opinions, especially those who hold opposing views; this reassessment has gotten a lot less attention than I was expecting. Yue🌙 03:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue: There is no hard deadline; GAs may be delisted after a week, but should not be as long as work is ongoing. I just wanted to see if you intended to keep going forward with improvements, no issue at all with keeping this open until you view it to be either complete or unsalvageable. Unfortunately, a large percentage of GARs sit still for seven days and are delisted; an unfortunate situation, but this is better than allowing truly atrocious articles to remain GAs indefinitely, as many were before our recent changes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: It may be evident to you already, but I was unable to find the time to work on the article last weekend. Reading over the article again, I do not think that this article would pass a Good article nomination with contemporary guidelines and expectations, and so it should be delisted, at least for now. To paraphrase a comment made on this article's Featured article candidacy archive: There are glaring prose issues which require a thorough copy edit to remedy. Yue🌙 01:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be worth mentioning that the sourcing is awful; I may be mistaken, but it seems there is not a single scholarly source provided, and nearly all the citations given are reports of the incident published within a year of its occurrence. As a result, a lot of the links are dead, and quality-wise many are opinion pieces. Yue🌙 01:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kentucky Railway Museum

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

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

Result: Seven days have passed with no improvement or objection. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 promotion now has significant amounts of unsourced material, and in general has not been properly maintained. The history section ends in the 1990s, and much of the sourcing is from the early to mid 2000s or earlier. I do not believe steamlocomotive.com is a reliable source, as well. The prose also needs improvement and is no longer up to our standards for GA. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thomas Johnston (engraver)

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

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

Result: Consensus is that the article has been rewritten and improved sufficiently to retain its GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As part of WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2018 I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR to prevent it from being mass-delisted. The subject appears to be notable enough for an article as a Colonial American engraver/organ-builder/first historical print in the the American colonies, etc., etc. but I intend to pick apart the text for copyright issues/too-close paraphrasing & to burrow into all the sources as being reliable and backing up what they are supposed to back up etc. - all to figure out if there is enough meat left on the bones of this article after the Review to retain its GA status. Shearonink (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already gone through all the refs etc on Talk:Thomas Johnston (engraver) under the Working through this article's refs per the individual GAR section as to whether (or not) the cited refs are available online so their claims can be easily verified. Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Went through the lead - simplistic text, instituted various fixes. Also deleted Garraty refs as being offline and inaccessible. The former Garraty statements/refs are now backed up by Dunlap/1918 & WIlliams/1915. Shearonink (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside...I had great hopes when I started this GAR but the refs are such a mess...for instance the Hitchings & Reps refs are the same thing and Reps shouldn't even be credited! Plus the "Hitchings" cites are to a Google Books with no preview and the Reps are to the actual content... I'll fix those and then am taking a break and reconsidering whether or not I want to continue. The issue for me is that Johnston is notable & I think deserves a GA but definitely not the DC version I started to review. Shearonink (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the errant/false claims re: "Mather portrait". See Page 6 of Murdock's The Portraits of Increase Mather: With Some Notes on Thomas Johnson, an English Mezzotinter where he specifically states this Thomas Johnston didn't do the portrait. Shearonink (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed issues with the Library of Congress publication cite (didn't have the pages in the URL, URL was to an incomplete cite, etc). Added ref for list of Johnston's engravings.Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink, one thing to be aware of is that DC often used content from one source, but stuck another citation on it, so you can't be sure anything he wrote isn't copyvio just because it's not a copyvio of the citation attached to the text. I suggest installing WP:Who Wrote That? and being sure you obliterate all traces of DC if you want to save the listing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear...yes, I know. I have worked my way through all the refs, deleted much, fixed some other things...the problem is that he wrote so much in this article. Obliterate it all? *sigh*. Shearonink (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or rewrite in your own words to be sure it didn't come from some other offline source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, he wrote 82.9% of the page... I feel somewhat responsible since I was the initial GA reviewer. I've basically decided anyway to pull the article completely apart and am going over *everything* with a fine-toothed editorial comb. Is it written in WP-stone that all his text should/must be excised or completely re-written? Much of it seems to be bland facts that would be difficult to completely re-craft - I mean how many different ways can you say "The sky is blue" or "George Washington was the first President of the United States", etc.. At this point in the process, so far as I can tell, this article doesn't seem to be as riddled with overwhelming copyvios like many of his other GAs. (One note is that some sources were published earlier than the 1927 copyright cut-off, but, even so, - yes I know we'd still need attribution - I haven't come across a ton of cut&pastes into this article... But maybe I'm wrong on all that. Shearonink (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trust your judgment ... if you see wording that sounds like it could have come from elsewhere, rewrite it. Based on the dozens of his articles I've been through, my own experience is that I don't trust a single word he wrote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted redundant and unneeded link to Green's "Blodget's Plan..." in External links section. The book is already used as a reference. An oddity is the "See also" section, linking to multiple articles about American Colonial organ builders/engravers/printers...I think that these 3 designations might be worthwhile Categories to be enacted. Shearonink (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That junk should be built into a horizontal template; it's not an appropriate use of See also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that is it junk of a type but I am keeping them there for the moment since I have posted a Possible new categories query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories since these American Colonial Cats don't seem to exist (so far as I can tell) and I think they'd be useful. Shearonink (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable ... if you need a model, see Template:Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia - Could you take a look at the Johnston template I have dummied up in my Sandbox and let me know if it's good to go? Or not. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on all the technical aspects of template editing, but to the best of my knowledge, yes, that's the idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to look over my progress, I'd appreciate it. I've torn apart and put back together almost all of the text, created a template of associated articles, replaced the See also section with that Template, deleted references, adjusted captions, etc. I just don't know if it's enough...there are only so many ways to say "the sky is blue". I am waiting on a printed source to see if I can add information on who Johnston was apprenticed to since that information is presently missing. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a look with Who Wrote That? of whatever remnants remain of DC content ... keeping in mind the sorts of sloppy research and writing found in other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article: His first known engraving is his 1729 Plan of Boston which had a dedication to Massachusetts Governor William Burnet.[1]
Source: As Burnet was governor of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay in 1727–29, it would appear that this plate must bear about the same date, and it would thus be the earliest known production of Johnston. [1]

This is typical of DC's writing; specifically, his quest for "first facts" and overstating those facts. He translates a qualified statement in the source to a statement of fact in Wikivoice. Unless there is another source calling this a Johnston first, the text should more carefully handle this content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Johnston also worked as a japanner, a coats of arms painter, and a publisher of books.
Source: Boston house painter and decorator, japanner, engraver, painter of coats of arms, church singer, publisher of singing-books and pioneer New England builder of organs, Johnston was also ...

Here we see remnants of DC's too-close-paraphrasing, where he re-arranged and altered a few words. It's not just words; it's structure. This is an example of why it can be hard to fix DC content. He lifted structure from one article, and then later attached other citations to content. I've rewritten (see below). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With these adjustments, I've reworked the bit above to remove vestiges of too-close paraphrasing, while also addressing another aspect of DC writing that was frequently promoted up the GA pole without adequate prose scruting; that is, his paragraphs made no sense, but reflected haphazard chunking in of unrelated and irrelevant factoids as if to meet the DYK word limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next, from this source, we see another common element in DC content. This source names him as Johnson, not Johnston. Yet we don't mention that. Because of other sloppiness in DC content, one could wonder if he even has the right person (he didn't always). This sort of thing should be worked out somewhere in the text and by doing full research on other sources. Was he referred to as Johnson by others, or was this source just off ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah, ha this source also gives us Johnson and yet the article never mentions that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have just added a referenced Note re: the Johnson/Johnston variants with this edit. Shearonink (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His furniture manufacture included rendering raised and embossed images into clocks and furniture.

This is cited to Dunlap but I don't find it in Dunlap. This is a DC classic, whereby text is taken from one source but cited to another, and the wording of this sentence is suggestive of copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that text is mine. Because rendering embossed images actually is "japanning"...there were only so many ways to repeat the japanning term without feeling like a broken record so explanatory text didn't seem awry in this case... I can recraft that text if it seems needful. Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted that text to hopefully make it clearer. Shearonink (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped there, after looking at only a few paragraphs in one section. This is enough to show why I believe that blowing up any DC content and starting over is the fastest route to a proper article, and that work remains to prevent delisting. We can't just rephrase to avoid too-close paraphrasing; everything DC wrote is suspect, thorough research is needed on anything claimed as fact, and his content needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia *sigh* This all makes me incredibly sad... From the beginning of this GAR I had hoped that this GA as a GA could be rescued. I know you're right, but I'm going to come back to this later today. Thinking ahead...to "De-GA" this article in its present state, I just need to remove all its present content & stub-ify it into a couple sentences.

Something like:

Thomas Johnston (1708-1767)[sources for dates] was an engraver known for creating [famous engraving],[source] He was also the first known manufacturer of pipe organs in Colonial America.[source] The artist John Greenwood worked in his shop.[source]

Can I retain the craftspeople Template since I created it? Would all that be ok?

Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably more salvageable than that :) There is no hurry. Yes, I suggest keeping the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my problem going forward is that DC wrote about 69.4% of the article's present text. Since all of his contributions are suspect (and, yes, rightly so), if I delete all of it this rewrite of the lead and early paragraphs is an example what would be left... Some of the present GA's wording is utterly "The sky is blue" banal to me... so can I just write whatever out in common-sense language and that would be ok? I don't know how I can avoid all of DC's words/text...I just want to do the right thing by the subject and do everything according to "according to Hoyle" and the parameters of this mass-GAR process. Since DC is such a hot-button issue I'd rather not have someone come along later and nullify my non-GA version because I maybe used some words that DC also had used. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that 69% includes stuff like citations ... Who Wrote That shows a good deal of what is there now is yours. You just have to comb through everything the way I did in the examples above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have continued to chip away. DC's contributions now down to 53%, mine are at 38.4%. If anyone want to look in on this GAR's progress and read over the present version - including the amazing SandyGeorgia - and maybe give some feedback, that would be helpful. I need to take a break for the rest of today. Shearonink (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just ran WWT again...My contributions are at 44.4%, DC's at 48%. His contributions to the article text are minimal at present, I think his percentage is mostly contained to references and so on. Shearonink (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Been taking a look. Not sure what to do with "initial known print of a historical event in the colonies", it doesn't make sense to me, and I don't really like working from snippet views. I can't quite figure out the edit history at the moment. My suggestion would have been to take every source and turn it into a series of bullet points, and then putting all those together yourself. You seem to have done a lot of rewriting, so perhaps you've managed this in another fashion. Is there specific feedback you're looking for? CMD (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CMD - I just C/E'ed that phrase, found a museum description that I think will suffice.

As to the article itself...I'm just trying to save it as a GA and doing everything I can towards that end. I have already done what you suggested but in my own fashion. I threw out all the offline sources and then have gone through each online source - checking what it actually states and seeing if the article is written accordingly. I think in its present iteration that (maybe?) all of the problematic DC content - outright copyvios, close paraphrasing, leaping to conclusions unsupported by the then-cited reference's text, etc. - has been taken care of but I don't know at this point. I have to say...doing all this research I sure know more about Thomas Johnston than lol I ever wanted to know.

There is one thing. I have been trying to find a CC-BY-SA/"Free" photo of his memorial tablet that is one of the few inside Boston's Old North Church but the only photo I have found so far is on BillionGraves and that is behind a registration/paywall - https://billiongraves.com/grave/THOMAS-JOHNSTON/16870280.

I guess that's about it. Thanks for your edits. I keep on trying to get other things done in Real Life but Thomas Johnston keeps drawing me back. Shearonink (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia CMD - The reference book I was waiting for (about Johnston's possible apprenticeship) just came in. I have adjusted the article text accordingly with its information and I think the re-writing/recrafting/deleting of text/deleting of inaccessible sources on this article is now done. Not sure what the next step in this particular mass-GA process is, but I think this article in its present state should retain its GA status. Some clean-up might possibly remain but the last Who Wrote This? is telling me that DC's edits are down to 38.8% of this article (and doesn't that include the references and the Bibliography?). Taking a break - Shearonink (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ton of work there! If you have personally checked and verified every source listed and every citation for copyvio and too-close paraphrasing, you could mark the article as now clean at the CCI page. As to whether it meets GA standards, I have to leave that to others; I have never participated at GA, and don't understand the standards. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Thank you. I do think I've gone over everything in this article as much as anyone possibly could. I now know more about Thomas Johnston than I ever wanted to lol. I apologize but my brain is toast today...can you please take pity on me and post the CCI link here? Thankseverso, Shearonink (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ping, I note that the items I spot checked did not show any copyright violation or source misattribution. Taking a look at the other criteria, nothing stands out immensely. The most obvious source to raise interest is the youtube one, however this points to a primary source and seems appropriately used. Not an area of personal en.wiki familiarity, but writing and breadth seem alright. No complaints from me. CMD (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CMD - appreciate your thoughts on this very much. Shearonink (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE
Thomas Johnston (engraver) is one of the many WP:DCGAR articles. I am finished with its cleanup and am going to leave this GAR open for the next week, until Tuesday/March 7th. If there aren't any according-to-policy objections/statements, I will close the GAR at that time. Barring any unforeseen issues, I intend for the article to retain its present GA status. Shearonink (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink see my note at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Automatic scorer/1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy - Re your note at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Automatic scorer/1 - Yes, I have looked into/read/examined all cited sources in this article. I can find no present "too close paraphrasing" in this article. I am unable to find any other of DC's problematic editing habits - misrepresenting sources' information, misattribution of sources, and so on - in this article in its present form. Anyone is welcome to go over the content to see if I am mistaken. The progenitor of this mess was wily in his misuse of sources and information. I must say, I do think that even though it is possible that I may have missed something I think it is highly improbable. Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the need to clean up citations as long as we're at it (re-read my comment there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe this GAR (and all DCGARs) should be closed by an independent person; in one week, we will have four GAR Coords at least, and they should make the call. A week deadline is not reasonable or necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just now saw this. A week isn't reasonable? I guess it'll just wait until maybe someone independent can get to it or whatever happens (having seen your recent post at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ramsdell Theatre/1). Somehow I remained unaware that I might not be allowed to close this GAR but it is what it is.. Though seeing how grueling all this has been on the 2 GARs I've undertaken? I doubt there will be very many reassessments up for closing. At all. Shearonink (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated I've checked everything and not that I think this next is completely necessary but since it seems to be perhaps necessary, here goes...
Below. When I state the Reference. When I state the a/b/c instances. That will unequivocally mean that ALL references and ALL the information they back up, have been checked, personally, by me.
And that will have to do.
Though, of course, if anyone wants to check my scholarship? Have at it.

CITATIONS

1-Heraldic Journal - both A, B - checked.
2-Dunlap 1918 - A,B,C - checked.
3-cite map - checked.
4-Hitchings 1985 - checked.
5-Staff/Home Page - checked.
6-Bolton 1923 - checked.
7-Williams 1915 - A,B - checked.
8-Japanned Furniture/News Journal - checked.
9-Hitchings 1973 - checked.
10-Boston Folks' Coats of Arms/Boston Daily Globe/1915 - checked.
11-Owen/1985 - checked.
12-Owen/1979 - checked.
13-Ogasapian/2007 - checked.
14-OHS Database - A,B - checked.
15-Babcock/1947 - checked.
16-Dudas/2021 - checked.
17-Ogasapian/2007 - A,B - checked.
18-Owen/1985 - checked.
19-Hitchings/1973 - checked.
20-Hitchings/1973 - checked.
21-Kane/1998 - checked. A personal note: This source is offline and unavailable online but I have consulted a copy personally. It is a huge book with over 1200 pages. If anyone has a problem with this offline source they are free to consult a copy in a reference library like the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian.
22-Kane/1998 - checked.

That's all I have time for now. Will continue as soon as I can get to finishing this all up, hopefully within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear; the problem is that DC's work is not often verifiable (and copyvio is hard to track down), because author names are wrong and book titles are wrong. I recognize that clean citations aren't part of WP:WIAGA, but in the case of DC's work, the citations are so bad that the content becomes unverifiable, and we should get it cleaned up. As an example, in the first three sources listed, two of the authors were wrong, and all three book titles were wrong. [2] That's a sample just to clean up those listed in sources using sfns, without even looking in the other citations in ref tags. What I'm pointing out in the other DC GARs is that leaving out author names and correct publishers often obscured non-reliable sources, so they should all be checked. Since three out of three that I checked were wrong, it seems this should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing, the fourth source is written as:

Exhibition Catalogs (1908). Exhibition Catalogs, 1886–1909: 1908–1909. Exhibition Catalogs.

meaning the author, title and publisher oddly are all the same (Exhibition Catalogs). That can't be a valid source. DC apparently did this because he didn't know how to sfn when there was no author; you can see how to do that in the diff I give above, where I fixed Beers, which similarly was not the author, rather the publisher. If you click on the link supplied for this "Exhibition Catalog", you will find that the correct citation would be:

Exhibition Catalogs, 1886–1909: 1908–1909. Grolier Club. 1908.

Yes, the citation page there actually states there is no publisher, because the Grolier Club published it. [3] No need to go looking for an author or a publisher by the name of "Exhibition Catalogs".

And so on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is very clear. So, you are stating that the sources, thought what they state is verifiable at the links provided, that the way the citations are stated are incorrect. . Ok, Got it. Shearonink (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... in the case of those I checked here, there is no effect on reliability, but in all of his other work there is ... which is why we should make sure we get it right (that is, we aren't hiding something with incorrect citations). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another good one:

New-York Historical Society, Library (1969). New-York Historical Society. New York Historical Society.

The author, title, and publisher are all New York Historical Society, as in the Exhibition Catalogs. Oddly, the real title of the work is never even listed! The actual citation should look more like:

Treasures of Americana from the Library of the New-York Historical Society: A Short Title List of Rare and Important Books, Broadsides, Maps and Manuscripts on Exhibition at the Society, January 24-August 29, 1969. (1969). New York Historical Society.

That sort of stuff is throughout his work, and in many cases, there was no link, so copyvio checking became impossible. It is often hard to figure out exactly what work is being cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-sensical citation:

The Society (1918). Colonial Society of Massachusetts. The Society SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finished citation cleanup; here's the cumulative diff. It baffles my mind how DC got so many GAs through when the sources were scarcely verifiable. Pride in authorship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still copyedit needs, samples only:

On the left an above view of marching soldiers, on the right the view of the soldiers' camp and of the battle itself.
Johnston engraved Blodgett's sketch onto a copper plate with Boston printer Richard Draper printing it,[27] with the print then being sold by Blodgett in December 1755.
Note the source claiming it was first says: Engraved and printed in Boston by Thomas Johnston, Blodget’s Prospective Plan found a market in England where Thomas Jefferys, a skilled engraver and cartographic publisher, issued the map with a somewhat altered design. so it's even harder to understand what the sentence about printing (above) means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite agree that copyedits are needed on those sentences, on that information.

"On the left...(etc)" What isn't understood about that sentence? It describes the scene as it appears in the print (which conflates ALL the action over the entire course of the Battle into one panoramic scene where everything is happening everywhere all at once).

Re: the "it was first" source. What isn't to be understood about that sentence? There are TWO prints in the literature, the first one - Johnston's 1755 American print done in Boston, the other one/the 2nd of the scene...the Jeffreys 1756 print done in London. It seems that Blodgett took Johnston's copper plate to London, had it reworked by Jeffreys and that version was subseqently published in London (a mere six weeks later I believe). The two prints are very different, that is why I made it clear which is which in the article.

This>>> https://bostonraremaps.com/inventory/rare-english-edition-of-the-first-american-battle-plan/ is the Jeffreys print.

This->>>File:1890 Facsimile of the 1755 Thomas Johnston engraving of the Battle of Lake George,.jpg is an 1890 reprint of the 1755 Johnston original.

Re this Obituary edit. Per the PLS CHECK: That is the original publication as quoted by Green. It seemed appropriate to name the original source. I still think that is appropriate for verifiability and it seems inappropriate to delete that information. Perhaps it could have been rendered more elegantly but it was not incorrect.

Re this "dashes" edit. Per MOS:RANGE page & date ranges are supposed to use the shorter "en dash". All the changes in this edit are to the longer "em dash"...

That's all for now. Shearonink (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia - Are there GAR Coordinators now? As the Reviewer (and "article rejuvenator" lol) I want to close this review with the article retaining its GA designation but am unsure as to the procedure especially since Thomas Johnston (engraver) was one of the DC bunch... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this and would like to get it closed this weekend. There's definitely hope for keeping this GA, but I would like to hear Sandy's thoughts. CMD's endorsement does help quite a bit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for waiting for me, but I'm swamped. It is now marked off at the CCI, so that part is addressed, and the citations are clean, but other than that, I don't really understand the GA standards, but I think a copyedit is needed. Some samples:

Grammatically, this seems to me like an awful lot of tense switching or something:

While he advertised his businesses as being organ making, engraving, and furniture merchant, he also worked as a japanner, painted coats of arms, and published books.

This seems quite repetitive:

Maybe it seems repetitive but it is not. All those businesses and crafts are separate skills. All those crafts and skills appear in the literature about Johnston.

He was an engraver of skill, and a heraldic painter. The paintings and engravings he sold in his store included views of Boston and heraldic works.

Why not something like: He was an engraver of skill and a heraldic painter whose works included views of Boston. (What is an "engraver of skill"?)

Re: engraver of skill - Johnston was well-known throughout New England, advertised in the newspapers during his working life and made coats of arms for prominent citizens especially for what we would think of as mourning or funeral cards. He is probably one of the most well-documented craftsmen of his era. I tried to get a CC-By-SA photo of his memorial plaque that appears inside the sanctuary of Boston's Old North Church but I was unsuccessful.

Why the hyphen:

This Johnston pipe-organ was in regular use until the 1820s.

Because I have always seen the word hyphenated. I can't find anything that says the hyphen is wrong but I'll go ahead and remove it.

Something off in the punctuation here:

Patricia E. Kane, writing in Colonial Massachusetts Silversmiths and Jewelers, says that though "the identity of his master is not known" also theorizes that Johnston may have been trained by the craftsman William Burgis.

Fixed.

I stopped there because swamped, but maybe a run through to pick up any ce needs before closing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Thanks for your input. Of course, any WP article - even the vaunted Featured ones - could usually do with some copyedits. Your proposals above are fine, I've replied to all of them, adjusted the text, etc but in my opinion copy edits such as these are somewhat beyond the scope of the six GA criteria. Is this article now good enough. I think so but someone other than myself will have to close it as retaining or as removing the GA imprimatur. Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the copyright problems have been resolved, I think this is of sufficient quality to retain its circle. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I'll close this as a keep now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Electricity

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

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

Result: Kept as GA after work by Femke and XOR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's some uncited information being

Faraday's disc was inefficient and of no use as a practical generator, but it showed the possibility of generating electric power using magnetism, a possibility that would be taken up by those that followed on from his work.
The Electrochemistry section
The Electronics section
Thus, the work of many researchers enabled the use of electronics to convert signals into high frequency oscillating currents, and via suitably shaped conductors, electricity permits the transmission and reception of these signals via radio waves over very long distances.

And that's it. Should be relatively easy to fix unless other problems are noticed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven general references listed in this article. WP:V accepts general references as a valid means of verifying an aticle except for certain specific categories of information. The GA criteria do not impose any additional constraints. Despite the attitude of many reviewers that inline cites are always wanted, this has never been a requirement. Thus, lack of inline citations does not equate to uncited and is not a valid reason, in itself, for failing a GA. The OP states that this "should be relatively easy to fix." If the OP is not challenging the material, one has to wonder why they have not just attempted to fix it themselves rather than bring it to review. I note that most of this material was not in the article at the time of promotion, so worst case, it could just be removed again to bring it back to GA condition. The bullet point that was in the article is on the Faraday disc, which is not only an extremely well known fact, but as the OP said, is very easily cited [4][5][6]. SpinningSpark 13:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but general references should at least be shown in the section it's sourcing in my opinion. The entirety of the Electrochemistry and Electronics section look unsourced. Where is the general reference for them? It's not in the section at all so i have to assume. Plus, when i say "should be relatively easy to fix." I say that because I mention that someone with enough knowledge can fix this. I can't because I'm not knowledgeable with energy related topics nor at finding sources for them. That's why i've opened this review, someone can help save the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GENREF, which are indeed perfectly acceptable, are almost always listed at the end of an article. When reviewing GAs, especially at GAR which can be demoralising to people, it's really important not to impose your own standards. Inline cites are better, but not required for a GA. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to tackle the generation section, which needs a bit of an update. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...general references should at least be shown in the section it's sourcing in my opinion". GA should be judged on the criteria, not on your opinion, which is ridiculous. If the reference was shown in the section, it would be an inline ref, not a general ref by definition. The question is not whwere is the general ref for those sections, but what part of them is it required to have an inline cite according to WP:V. SpinningSpark 18:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I admit my fault. But regardless, you can't just say that there's a general reference that verifies the claims and not say what. I can't determine if there's a general reference that cites the electrochemistry and electronic sections if a general reference isn't pointed out. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"you can't just say that there's a general reference that verifies the claims and not say what". Yes, you can. You'll need to assume good faith on the person adding it. The onus is on the GAR nominator to show that the general references are unlikely to cover the material at hand. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of disagree on that a bit, I personally am not finding what references would at least generally support the two uncited sections. I know I need to assume good faith but I'm not seeing what general references he's mentioning. There may be those references but I don't what they are. Plus, he himself admits that "I note that most of this material was not in the article at the time of promotion, so worst case, it could just be removed again to bring it back to GA condition." so the idea of those specific areas not containing general references since they weren't there from the original GA isn't completely far-fetched either. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes has a chapter on electrolysis, a chapter on semiconductors, and a chapter on electronic systems. Those cover at least the majority of the sections you identified as problematic. SpinningSpark 18:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with the way that general references are used in this article is that as a reader I cannot verify what source each piece of article content comes from. The article doesn't make it sufficiently clear. I think general references can work quite well in short articles but longer ones need some way of being able to match content with the source. Additionally, a check with WhoWroteIt reveals that content has been added by editors who didn't add sources nor did they say in the edit summary which source was used. It is possible that existing article references would support the added content, but is this really reasonable to assume, given the frequency with which well meaning editors add unsourced content to articles? And there are other issues such as needs update tags. (t · c) buidhe 18:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I placed the tags as a to-do list for me. Will work on this in next two weeks —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1: why did you replace a high-quality source I just added with a think tank source that did not verify all the information? It only talks about climate change as environmental concern. These news articles are not ideal sources, as statements like "Demand increase is being met by renewable sources" will be untrue in a few years time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke Ah sorry did not notice you had just added that source. However I have cited Ember before in other articles and it seems to be high quality and reliable. I think "Demand increase is being met by renewable sources" will remain true for decades to come. As for your point about not verifying all the info I will go back and check that if you and others are happy with Ember generally Chidgk1 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I see no reason to think Ember is unreliable, it is a campaign organisation and should therefore be used with caution. Of course, we're writing a GA here, not an FA, so it's not an immediately problem.

The sentence "Demand increase is being met by renewables" implied that renewables are not replacing existing demand. This is likely going to be false soon. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the source you cited for storage does not contain any information about pumped hydro as a long-term storage, nor a mention of capacitors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if you cite a 150-page report, please provide a page number.. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was having a slight technical problem searching or maybe I got the different reports mixed up while I was looking for the page - now using a much shorter cite which covers batteries and condensers. Will find another cite to add later this evening to cover the rest - if I forget fell free to tag/ping me Chidgk1 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: very sadly, Spinningspark has just passed away. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. Sad to see such a good editor pass away.

I'll work on this next weekend again. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately , real life is too busy I am going to have to let this go. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke: Just to make sure, you are calling for a delist? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put in some work on the referencing. I think the page looks fairly decent at this point, but I don't know how other people feel it falls with regard to the GA criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not having done a deep dive in terms of source-text integrity, I think the article is will be at GA level after the work on referencing in done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the {{citation needed}} tags have been addressed now. XOR'easter (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

152 mm howitzer M1943 (D-1)

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

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

Result: Delisted per general consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2008. I can't exactly tell if the many paragraphs with no citations are actually uncited or if they have general references (aside from the better source needed and citation needed tag). I will say, however, that the sources cited do not label any page numbers what so ever which makes it quite impossible to verify. Also, I'm not sure if this article is broad enough at all. GA cleanup lists states "Unsourced passages need footnotes ^{[citation needed]} (July 2016), ... (October 2022)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The many uncited paragraphs alone would cause me to quick fail it if I was the reviewer--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Lots to fix, and no editor has yet volunteered to do this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Curtis Joseph

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

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

Result: Significant issues, especially concerning GA criteria 2 and 3 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2008. Lots of things in the article look unsourced like

Joseph broke into the NHL in 1990, playing for the St. Louis Blues. In the off-season following the 1990–91 NHL season, the Blues signed Brendan Shanahan from the New Jersey Devils. Shanahan was a restricted free agent, and thus the Devils were entitled to compensation. The teams could not agree on what the compensation was; the Blues offered Curtis Joseph, Rod Brind'Amour, and two draft picks, while the Devils wanted Scott Stevens. Joseph seemed to be the answer the Devils were looking for in goal, but the case went to arbitration, and a judge ruled that Stevens was to be awarded to the Devils in September 1991. Joseph remained with the Blues until 1995. The 1992–93 NHL season was his most successful season, as he played a key role in the upset of the Chicago Blackhawks, the reigning Clarence Campbell Conference regular season champions; the Blues swept them in four games in the first round of the playoffs. The Blues then faced the Toronto Maple Leafs in the second round, and though the Leafs prevailed, the series went to seven games thanks to Joseph's play. Because of his efforts, he was nominated as a finalist for the Vezina Trophy that season, finishing third in voting behind winner Ed Belfour and Tom Barrasso. After a disappointing first-round exit in the 1995 playoffs, St. Louis Blues coach and general manager Mike Keenan declined to re-sign Joseph and traded his rights to the Edmonton Oilers.
On March 1, 2008, Joseph moved past Terry Sawchuk for fourth place in all-time NHL wins with 448 in a 3–1 win over his former team, the Phoenix Coyotes. On April 13, 2008, Joseph replaced Miikka Kiprusoff less than four minutes into the first period of Game #3 of the Flames' first round series of the 2008 playoffs with the San Jose Sharks. Joseph backstopped the Flames to a come-from-behind 4–3 win after initially falling behind 3–0. This win made him the first goaltender to win a post-season game as a member of five different teams: St.Louis, Edmonton, Toronto, Detroit and Calgary.
His autobiography, Cujo: The Untold Story of My Life On and Off the Ice, was released in 2018.

and many more. Also, the article looks like it needs updating since it seems to end at 2017. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

2008 Summer Olympics

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

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

Result: Kept - I have fixed the issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article that's reported to have "Potentially dated statements (2008), ... (December 2018), Unsourced passages need footnotes ^{[citation needed]} (July 2021)" on the good article cleanup listing page. Some uncited material looks to be

The 2008 Beijing Olympics caused traditional Hutong neighborhoods to be cleared to construct modern Olympic stadiums. In an effort to ensure success for the Games, the government invested billions in building new infrastructure, although clearance to tiny, outdated neighborhoods in Beijing called hutongs resulted (Petrun). Jim Yardley, a New York Times reporter interviewed Pan Jinyu, a 64-year-old local resident: "They [the government] don't want foreigners to see this scarred old face." Feng Shuqin and her husband, Zheng Zhanlin, had lived in their house for 50 years, and the family had owned the property before the Communists took control in 1949. The government, trying to clear the area, offered them to move with a compensatory sum of US$175,000, but the family insisted the land was worth US$1.4 million (Yardley). Michael Meyer, an American who lives in the hutongs, reported that 500,000 residents were relocated from their homes before the Olympics began (Meyer).
the Uniforms and Officials section
Look of the games sections

among others along with the legacy section reportedly needing updates. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Tale of Peter Rabbit

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

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

Result: Consensus to close review as keep. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue as the others from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime where a sock wrote about 2/3 of the article including all the important stuff, it was passed without a real look at anything, and will require a lot of work to return to GA status. Wizardman 01:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended and cited the Publication history (moving the refs out of the lead), and am adding a Reception section now. The Plot section is probably acceptable as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the work done so far and the comments here as well as at the talk page I'm leaning towards withdrawing the GAR, though I'll try and read through the full article first before doing so to be on the safe side. It helps when multiple people who I trust more than many on the site are giving it a clean bill of health. Wizardman 00:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you. I'm happy to do more if there's anything that people want. I've asked VictoriaEarle if she'd like to join in with any of the text she checked and reworked way back when. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman: VictoriaEarle says she's busy just now but hopes to get back to it someday. I think we have the article covering "the main points" as required for GA so unless there's more that you feel immediately needs doing, we might close this GAR now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through it, I'm ok with having this closed as keep, so I'll let the GAR coordinators do their thing on it. Wizardman 16:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Puss in Boots

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

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

Result: Speedy delist due to copyright issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is another GAR as the result of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. In this one almost the entire article was written by User:Kathryncelestewright, a sock of ILT. While I saved what I could the article after removing that content is nowhere close to a GA. I also checked to see if others had verified the sources after the fact and couldn't find anyone. Wizardman 23:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Urban heat island

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

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

Result: Fails GA criterion 3 and 4, as outlined below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It became a good article many years ago and is an important subject which could do with checking Chidgk1 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More citations are needed and almost all the examples section is about the US. So formally I am saying that I am not sure it now meets number 3 in the GA criteria. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this process. I also think it probably needs to be delisted and then re-assessed (or the other way around). I have also written about it here. Basically, the current article is very different to the version that was assessed in 2009. I think it would fail this criterion: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". (Although perhaps the recent culling and condensing activities that I performed solved some of that problem). It's a very important topic that will get more into the news and limelight as climate change will amplify the urban heat island effect more and more (at least for those cities that currently have a pronounced urban heat island effect already). EMsmile (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with this article is coverage. A major cause of the effect is not cities per se but the large concentrations of cars (particularly ICEs) and car infrastructure (parking lots, roads, and other paved areas). The article barely mentions this. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing tool does not work on Safari on my ipad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool#Not_appearing_on_my_ipad) perhaps someone else would like to close this Chidgk1 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spit (album)

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

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

Result: Seems perfectly fine to me. Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although most of this article is good (i.e. the reception, composition, etc), I have several issues.

1. The page has suffered from an increasing amount of bloat since the original GA review in 2017; sometimes feels like sections have been copy and pasted around. And poor writing, no straight narrative (or chronology; you understand what I'm getting at); i.e.

"Kittie was formed in 1996 and got signed by NG Records after the band approached Jake Weiner, the record label's second-in-command. After seeing Kittie play live, Weiner signed the group to NG during the summer of 1999. NG was then acquired by Artemis Records toward the end of 1999 and Kittie recorded Spit at EMAC Studios in London, Ontario during the summer of 1999."

...among other really confusing repeats of stuff to do with NG's acquisition and whatnot, and influences. just hard to read

2. having done some extra research, page has several inaccuracies with dates or lack thereof (resolved those) which have created additional chronological difficulties. More sources are needed. Sources are still being found.

3. page lacks any details regarding things like "the legacy/reappraisal" of the album as one of the best of the nu metal genre; it, and some of its songs, have received accolades, with the most recent being a spot on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Metal Songs of All Time list. (ask what citations, i'll give you them) The lack of acknowledgement makes the page feel unfinished to me (and yes, I will do something! I'm not asking for someone else to find them, so don't ask)

Notify: @Tbhotch:, 2017 GA Reviewer, @Statik N:, biggest contributor Chchcheckit (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this doesn't get any traction, contact me as a last resort prior to closing and I will attempt to fix it. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to close this now, since I've fixed everything I've said here. I mean, it could be reassessed to see if its still aight, but idk. I don't think this has traction Chchcheckit (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i guess that's the new criteria; does this page with its new contents still stand as GA or are there things I need to fix Chchcheckit (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Mansion of Happiness

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

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

Result: Speedy delist due to copyright violations, which have left article incomplete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another GA from the banned user via Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime. The good news is that there wasn't that much content I had to remove because it was almost completely rewritten in 2013-2014. The bad news is that the new content is... not very good. There's a lot of citation needed tags and unsourced statements, and it seems to veer into original research at times, with the misconceptions section feeling rather unnecessary even before my cuts. Wizardman 22:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tyrant (Resident Evil)

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Evil)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted with significant problems. Leaving it to Zxcvbnm and GlatorNator to decide whether it should go to AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been neglected for decades. Most of it written for Mr. X only (especially at reception sec) and the reception section is full of listicles only with short development/concept creation section with no additional information whatsoever. GlatorNator (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - I reviewed this over a decade ago and am perfectly fine seeing this delisted. GamerPro64 16:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could the article possibly be merged from the franchise article? Most of the sources are coming from X and not the tyrant species. GlatorNator (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Appears to be a lot of WP:SYNTH involved here. Nemesis and Mr. X are more notable as individual characters than the "Tyrant" is as a whole, and most of the sources talk about the characters individually. I'm not even sure if anything from here can be merged, it might need to just be deleted wholesale for failing WP:GNG. I should add that it doesn't technically fail the WP:GA criteria; an article can be non-notable and still pass, but WP:IAR because it would almost certainly fail a Good Article check in the modern day. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if you feel that the article should be deleted then maybe an AFD should be opened. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that is the right move, possibly after this GAR is closed, whatever happens. I think GlatorNator's real issue is with whether this article passes WP:GNG. (Mistake is easy to make, I recently made a similar error myself). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. But, do you think Mr. X should have its own article and can be notable? GlatorNator (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

William Rath

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

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

Result: Kept per general consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As part of WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2020, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR in order to keep its status as a GA. During the original review I was involved in looking at some of DC's sources and shaping the focus of the article to give a more chronological treatment. Now prior to this DCGAR process, I have gone through the article again. Regarding copyvio issues, there was nothing egregious but there were a few borderline too-close paraphrasings, which I have now reworded. Regarding text-source correspondence, I've gone back and looked at all of DC's sources. There were some issues that got missed in the original review, but I have corrected them. So at this point, I believe the article corresponds to the GA criteria and its status should be kept.

P.S. The 'Fountain of Youth mural' image is up for deletion at Commons; during the original review, I tried to get DC to retake the photo to be truly de minimis, but alas he didn't quite understand what was needed. So I fear that image is doomed, which is a shame but should not affect the GA status. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WTF, to XOR'easter's and EEng's great frustration, DC's haphazard citation style (which I have taken to ignoring as it's so awful) has made copyvio checking even more difficult. As long as we're here, it may be worthwhile to get that sorted. I questioned you elsewhere about Cabot, which you had checked, but what about this mess:

Ludington Daily News 1997, p. 11.
Ludington's Carferries: The Rise, Decline & Rebirth of a Great Lakes Fleet. Ludington Daily News. 1997. p. 11. ASIN B000FKPTF6.

Were you able to access that, and can anything done to make the citation style more consistent? I realize that may not be part of WIAGA, but what a mess throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oops !! Well, the F is exactly below the R on the keyboard ... one of my better typos :) Sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a great typo ;-) I did also verify the Ludington Carferries content. I have fixed up the cites for inappropriate page numbers in the bibliography and for its 'harv' name being easy to confuse with the newspaper cites. I have also tried to further normalize some of the other cites. Let me know if there is anything else that you see in this regard. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced editor, you can be trusted to get that; no need for me to recheck. By the way, see WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I thought the Find-a-grave entry helped illustrate the time and place of the subject, so I left it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, for the record, I was stuck with the WTF typo above when Wikipedia went down at 14:00. [7]. Else I would have corrected it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citations were a mess (I believe I've cleaned them up now), and the writing still reeks of DYK word padding; could still use some tightening. Why is this DUE (that is, what secondary sources mention this)?

His estate was the subject of two lawsuits.[20][21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked further at these two lawsuits. The first, Ludington State Bank v. Estate of Rath, does have secondary source coverage. But it took place in the 1930s, after Rath's widow died, and became interesting only when a normal probate case involving William Rath's bequeathings upon his wife's death got intertwined with Michigan's new emergency banking act (a forerunner of the national one at the start of the New Deal). It ended up going to the Michigan Supreme Court for a decision. But it really has nothing to do with William Rath in a biographical case. The second, Cartier et al v. Hengstler (or the other order, the final name was a countersuit), has to do with allegations of fraud against Cartier and Rath by someone who felt cut out of a real estate arrangement. It has very little secondary coverage and ended up being dismissed on appeal on grounds of statute of limitations and laches. So while this one does have something to do with Rath biographically, it isn't significant enough to include. So I am removing both of these from the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WTR, the bigger issue is that it's just so hard to understand, particularly after reading through so many sources during the copyvio check, how bits were chosen for inclusion in articles. There are due weight issues and even POV everywhere (it's only in reading the sources for this article did I discover pov at James Ludington). The most random bits of unencyclopedic trivia make it into articles; in that vein, I just couldn't see why those lawsuits were added ... with no context, such insertions render a very odd flow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done all I can for now; can you find a way to lower the number of paras beginning with Rath? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have done this. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EEng do you have a moment to glance over this short article to see if any other absurdities stand out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed silly and misinterpreted stuff. E Eng 06:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your reductions/removals I agree with; some I think make the article a little less interesting but will not argue; but some I think removed important biographical points. Those I have attempted to restore, but with completely rewritten text that tries to explain things better. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for articles being interesting, but not by stuffing them with pablum like saying someone's success in the lumber business eventually made him a lumber baron, where lumber baron means someone really successful in the lumber business, and anyway redirects to business magnate, which is just another way of saying he was successful, which is where we started. E Eng 13:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that a paraphrasing check is still needed, because although it was cited to a different source (Powers), this wording was taken directly from this source. This is a frequent feature of DC's work (text taken from one source but cited to another). It is insufficient to check individual sources relative to the text they cite; everything has to be evaluated versus the entire body of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Wasted Time R, SandyGeorgia, and EEng: and @GAR coordinators: where does this stand? Can the GAR be closed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to close this as keep without either Doug's content being almost entirely excised or indication that extensive checks (and I mean every single source, with Coldwell it's that bad) for copying/close paraphrasing have been completed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem (seen in every DC article I've looked at). You can't just check whether individual bits of content are copyvio, because DC frequently took content from one source while citing it to another. You can never be sure from whence came the copyvio; I frequently find it later while checking another source, and that is why his content so often fails verification (he retrofit citations to content taken from different sources). Content has to be written anew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have looked through every piece of text in this article and every source used by this article (fortunately in this case there aren't that many). I have made many changes to the article, including rewriting text, correcting or refining source-text improvement, improving citations, and so on. Two other editors during this post-DC phase have also been active in rewriting or removing material and in improving citations. I believe that all the content is correctly sourced at this point and that there are no copyvio's or close paraphrasings in the current article.

I will also note that what I have done is in accordance with the instructions given by WP:DCGAR FAQ #2 and #3 to the original GA reviewers: "If you believe the GA status might be retained ... you need to be willing to open an independent GAR ... and able to verify all content cited to online and offline sources ... Re-evaluate the content" per the problem areas listed in FAQ #1. That's what I've done, and I believe the current article is free of all of those listed problem areas. If someone points out an issue that remains, I will fix it. But nowhere at WP:DCGAR does it say that an article has to completely replaced with a new article or that content has to be written anew.

If writing a completely new article had been the stated requirement at the start, I would not have signed up for this GAR. So from my perspective it is unfair to suddenly make that the requirement, and if all my efforts disappear under the PDEL/CP hammer, I am going to be one disgruntled Wikipedian. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings, I have worked with Wasted Time R for over 15 years, and if WTR says the copyvio is removed, I believe he can be trusted. I'm OK with this article, although I don't pretend to understand the GA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a closer look later tonight when I get home. If another coord wishes to close before I do so I won't object. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at it more closely, I am generally satisfied with the rewording of Doug's former content and I retract my previous statement. I apologize for being overzealous; the computer I was using did not have who wrote that installed and I should have waited until I got home to weigh in, but I didn't want to ignore a ping either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My eternal problem; Who Wrote That won't work on iPad, and it's essential with DC work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

My Hands

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

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

Result: Delisted. CMD (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following AfD. CMD (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Albany, New York

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

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

Result: Tags resolved by yours truly. Article kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a bit out of date, and can use a lick of paint meet the GA standards

Quite a few 2005-2010 stats (higher education)
- I'm starting to work on these, especially in the economy, education, and demographics section. Could take a little time though, so please bear with me. Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
one failed verification tag
- Looks like two things: 1) a typo where the page reference said 24 when it was supposed to say 124, but the link in the ref points to the right page. I updated the ref and confirmed the source. Source says ...the legislature was migratory for many years—Albany, Poughkeepsie, Kingston, and New York having about equal division of the honors. And 2) someone added Hurley, which isn't mentioned in the ref. I looked it up and it sounds like it acted as temporary capital of the colony in 1777 after the burning of Kingston led the legislature to flee, but the phrasing of the sentence is "statehood till 1797" (not arbitrarily, that's the point of the paragraph) and New York didn't become a state until 1788. Likely a proud Hurley or Ulster County resident added this tidbit to ensure the list is "complete", but it's not really meant to be complete over the history of the state and colony, just the state. So I removed Hurley. Can we remove the failed ver tag? Matt Wade 17:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a GA issue, but a lot of WP:SANDWICHING
Undue emphasis on crime
Uncited: "There is a sizable Islamic community in Albany.."
- I updated that section with some more current news articles about the Muslim population. Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Femke (alt) (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments:

The two panoramic skyline images should be stacked.
- I think I intended the historical one to be at the end of 1800 to 1942 section (it matches the time frame better), which is meant to add to the prose by showing the dense neighborhoods, many of which would later be demolished for the Empire State Plaza and other urban renewal projects (covered as major aspects of the next section). The other was the introductory photo to an H1 section called Cityscape, which has since been H2'ed. So the intent was for the photos to be relevant in the distinct sections they're in, not to be stacked to show a one-on-the-other difference in time. Based on that rationale, do you still see the need to stack them? They don't take up that much vertical space themselves. Unless there's a new WP: out there that requires this (which could very well be the case!). Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are three maps in the infobox. Is the fourth map in the geography section needed?
- I agree that the current map in the Geography section is redundant to the ones in the infobox. My original graphic was a topographic map to show the area's physical geography (right). I'd like to bring it back or see if someone can source an upgraded one. IIRC, I had reached out to the author of that image because they were known for their excellent cartographic submissions for articles. The date on the image upload to Commons is around when I was going full-in on this article, which makes my leaky brain feel more confident on the source. The down side was that the image is pixelated somewhat. A higher-quality replacement would be good. But either way, I think this image should go back because it adds to the prose that's there. Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the two photos in the "festivals" section. Neither shows much of the city, and are close-ups of people. I looked for a wider image of the pride parade online, but no luck. As for the Tulip Festival, may I suggest the image posted here replace it (there are several others on the Commons).
- Big picture: I can't remember when these photos were added, but it was after the GA/FA reviews of Sep 2010. My thoughts had always been that a festival isn't a festival without people and culture. And photos included in a GA/FA need to be as good if not better than the surrounding prose. That may not be a universal opinion, but it's something I took away from my Featured Pictures days. The detail, then, in my mind, meant that the human element was the priority. And no better photos show off humanity than candid, detailed shots of people doing things. I think our views on what's expected in these instances are different and you're looking for justification that these photos happened in Albany at all because they could be anywhere. I think that comes down to a difference in philosophy given the sometimes limited ability to get great photos for our articles? Like, I'd love a drone shot of an exciting parade float coming down Lark Street with identifiable buildings in the background, but still with the people on the float being prioritized in the shot. But I don't see anything like that online that could be used (to your point) and without quality composition, lighting, colors on a wide shot, the detailed human shot is my preference. Some other thoughts on each photo, below. Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Tulip Fest photo: I took the tulip fest photo and while I admit I wish there were more tulips in said photo, I was going for the candid photo of a person enjoying the sights of the festival. If you're strong on the concept of needing evidence we're in the place it says, I'd suggest this photo of the King Fountain (unique to Albany) or this photo showing the Agency building in the background (unique to Albany). The photo you suggested is, yes, a photo of lots of tulips, but the composition, color, and overall quality isn't that which I'd expect in a GA. I would oppose the use of that photo. Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Pride photo: Personally I think this is a great photo and shows the diversity of the population with candid views of individuals showing various emotions, surrounded by color and in front of a typical historic townhouse in Center Square. Generally you don't get this level of artistry on Wikis due to photos like this usually being taken by professionals or news media, who aren't willing to part with their copyright. (I didn't take this photo.) Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Other photos: In re-reading the article, the photo of the fireworks at the Plaza in the Nightlife and entertainment section is out of place. Not sure why I put it there originally. That's not really "nightlife", plus the event is referenced explicitly in the Festivals section. We could always move that there and replace one of the two photos mentioned above (then get something appropriate for the Nightlife section). Matt Wade 21:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the education section, is this sentence necessary: "Although considered by the state to be one of the lowest-achieving high schools in New York, Albany High was listed as the nation's 976th best high school in a 2010 Newsweek/Washington Post report." Being 976th isn't really notable, and the data is 13 years old.
Would this photo be of any use?
- I don't see much use for this level of zoom on the Plaza buildings. The GA/FA review version of the article had this photo showing construction of the Plaza, which was a major historic event of the 20th century (a literal out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new turning point). I'm not sure why it was removed and I felt it's a very valuable addition since it was something from that time period yet available from the copyright perspective. We don't want to over-represent the Plaza, so when we do show it, we need to make sure it's relevant and important to the context, yes, but the article as a whole, as well. Matt Wade 21:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia, thanks for working on the article! I agree that the two skyline images would bettter be stacked, and the fourth map can be deleted. No opinion on festivals. That education sentence is not clear and outdated, so can be removed. The museums section already has a picture of a buildingin the same style, so the Flickr photo isn't needed really. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As the main author back then and the GA nominator, I appreciate getting the heads up on the review. I'm going to take a read through and toss in some responses and other comments. You'll notice I don't edit much anymore (though I do use regularly), but I'm definitely interested in sprucing this up to keep the status. I'll be sure to respond to specific comments (especially if there is past context on the "why") and add my own. There are definitely some improvements I could see being applied already. Matt Wade 17:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proposed removal of 1793 fire paragraph: This paragraph in the British Occupation to 1800 section seems unnecessarily detailed. If the aim is to point out that slavery was in place in New York in the 1790s, I'm fine saying that a major fire impacted a portion of the city, with enslaved people being the suspects. Otherwise, I suggest its complete removal. On November 17, 1793, a large fire broke out, destroying 26 homes on Broadway, Maiden Lane, James Street, and State Street. The fire originated at a stable belonging to Leonard Gansevoort and was suspected to be arson set by enslaved people. Three were arrested and charged with arson: Pompey, a man enslaved by Matthew Visscher; Dinah, a 14-year-old girl enslaved by Volkert P. Douw; and Bet, a 12-year-old girl enslaved by Philip S. Van Rensselaer. On January 6, 1794, the three were tried and sentenced to death. For reasons unknown, Governor George Clinton issued a temporary stay of execution, but Dinah and Bet were executed by hanging on March 14, and Pompey on April 11, 1794.
Proposed removal of Lincoln funeral stop: I propose removing the sentence about and photo of Lincoln's casket visiting Albany following his assassination in the 1800-1942 section. Such a detail is not relevant to the general progression of culture and history in Albany and is more a piece of trivia. If anything, I think the photo has to go. That section talks a lot about banking and railroads, but has no photos of either. I could likely find a photo of one of those topics to expand upon the prose.
Thoughts on neighborhood section removal? The GA/FA review version of the article had a reasonably detailed (one can argue too detailed) section on neighborhoods of the city. The current Neighborhoods section is so bad that it might as well not exist. I feel this added a lot of value and insights into the culture of the city in a way that was not covered elsewhere. Would you all be agreeable to bringing back this section? There is a dedicated article on the topic, which further supports inclusion if the article is notable enough to exist.

Matt Wade 17:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MattWade, Femke, and Magnolia677:, where does this stand? Do y'all think this meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With this essentially stalled for a month, and nobody outright calling for a delist, I'd like to close this as a keep, but I see three citation needed tags and two tags indicating verification issues. If those aren't addressed soon, I'd be inclined to close as delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: for your attention please. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC) yes I know TAOT is here already [reply]
what TOAT said. If we can cite those bits I'll be happy enough to retain. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least we know the ping template works! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Automatic scorer

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

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

Result: In the absence of anybody saying no (apart from Vami who dropped a line and naffed off) I think it's a keep? If someone objects to this, don't blame me. The coords have been pinged. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As part of WP:DCGAR and as the original GA reviewer in 2020, I am placing this article nominated by Doug Coldwell up for GAR in order to keep its status as a GA. During the original review I was involved questioning some of DC's claims, finding new sources, and shaping the focus of the article. Now prior to this DCGAR process, I have gone through the article again. Regarding copyvio issues, there was nothing egregious but there were a few borderline too-close paraphrasings, which I have now reworded. Regarding text-source correspondence, again there was nothing really bad but I have fixed it up in a couple of places. In sum, I believe the article corresponds to the GA criteria and its status should be kept. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WTR, there are no offline sources here, so we don't have to worry about that.

Have you personally examined every one of the newspaper clippings, since Earwig can't detect copyvio or too-close paraphrasing from them?

On the oft-expressed frustration about DC's haphazard citation style (me, EEng and XOR'easter), might you correct article titles, etc, while you're in there? For example, a better title for this newspaper clipping might note the nature of the source: 777-Help Wanted, Male Salaried Jobs, Technician, Service Engineer. That would make it easier for people to question whether, for example, that classified ad should be used to support "AMF and Brunswick each had their set of Customer Service Engineers in a territorial area that repaired the computers."

I have found cases where the citation style obscures a non-RS, eg, throughout the Cartier articles, leaving out that sources were written by a Cartier, and the misrepresentation throughout the Ludington articles that the Willis Fletcher Johnson Memoirs were published by Ludington's family. So additional scrutiny on making sure the citations are written correctly is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did examine every source, and I considered all or most of the points being raised here and I came to different conclusions from others here. Re the article titles point, it is now moot since XOR'easter has taken out the classified ads. Which I don't quite agree with, but am not going to argue. If there are any other cites that you think the formatting of should be improved, let me know. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one more article that could be a good, small article, on topic with good sources, turned into a sludgepile by DC with his ridiculous sources. I remember seeing and fighting about this particular article before -- maybe at DYK? -- including the moronic use of a classified job ad. It looks like somehow nothing ever got fixed. How can we go on like this, article after article? Everything he created should just be TNTed, with a few exceptions where for some reason we can be sure that, through some miracle, the article's not a timebomb just waiting to make us all look like fools sooner or later. E Eng 18:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having been pinged here, I took a look and immediately noticed problems, so I think this needs further scrutiny. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at one sample:

California was considered a good prospect for making early sales since there bowlers were obliged to pay for human scorekeepers during league competitions.
From https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55273065/
Another indication that DC just did not know how to use sources correctly, and WTR, you need to read every single source. This is some guy in New Jersey entering a maybe sorta kinda speculative statement in his editorial column. It doesn't belong in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The California paid-human-scorers angle was real and it gets discussed in other sources too, for example this 1970 story that was already used as a cite. Now that story says that California would be less like to use the automatic scorer, not more, so I need to do some more research on this angle before putting anything back in. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you will get it sorted ... all of this was just a reminder of how carefully you have to scrutinize all-things-DC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, a likely reason we end up with this kind of rubbish in all DC articles is word count is padded up to meet DYK expansion. Newspapers.com was not a good thing in DC's hands, and his research methods were flawed. I noticed another citation where this same guy was the author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the next sample from the same author (which by the way, is the same article under a different name):

The automatic scorer was first field tested at Village Lanes bowling center, Chicago in 1967.
From https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55746317/ and |work= The Record |page= 56 |location= https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55203954/ Read those two sources carefully to discover DC's (hint: he was quite a fan of cooking up "firsts" for his DYK hooks, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: On this last point, I have to respectfully disagree. I think the two sources together state that Village Lanes in 1967 was Brunswick's first field test of the automatic scorer. And I've found this story from 1970, three years later by a different author in a different paper, which says that Brunswick "installed the first test models in Village Lanes in Chicago in 1967." So unless you object further, I plan to restore this to the article with the 1970 cite added. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you find support for the "first"; this is a classic DC issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'm fine with restoring it if you simply omit the word first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got 'first' from one of the 1967 sources because it said the field test, singular. And the 1970 source confirms that. But I get that you are burned on DC and firsts, so how about if I say 'initial field test'? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need to add an adjective ... it works just to say it was field tested there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have added this back in, with no adjective. And I realize that in my haste to type responses last night, I gave the wrong link for the clip of the 1970 story! No wonder you were still puzzled. Arrrgh. This is the right one. Reminder to self, always double-check posts on Talk pages ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another DC classic (that is, because he struggled to paraphrase, meaning was frequently distorted):

Automatic electronic scoring was first conceived by Robert Reynolds, who had expertise in modern electronics and their use in calculations.
From https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55210290/democrat-and-chronicle/ which actually says that:
Robert Reynolds, a West Coast electronics calculator expert. Somehow, DC gets from calculators to expert in modern electronics and their use in calculations. Every Single Source Needs Scrutiny. I really want to stop at three, but it's hard to avert one's eyes from these trainwrecks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can blame me for this one, in this DCGAR edit, I thought that DC's wording was too close to the source and so I rearranged/reworded it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than try to figure out a better paraphrase that isn't too close, I've now just quoted the source. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's about where I usually end up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary, having looked now at scores of DC articles, it will be hard to convince me that any article that is still 80% DC content can be GA-worthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink, for example, is trying to save similarly save Thomas Johnston (engraver) at WP:GAR, and has had to completely rewrite (reducing DC content to a third). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in my capacity as a (newly-elected) coord, I have to agree with Sandy. It's down to 64.8% Coldwell content now, but that's still entirely too high. Coldwell content must be scrutinized extremely closely and in most cases requires total rewriting. Not just for copyvio, but for failed verification, original research, and poor writing in general. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion here. I have scrutinized the DC text for copyvio, text-source correspondence, any DC-introduced notions, and so forth. I do not think the article has to be completely rewritten and I do not think the percentage of DC content is, by itself, a suitable metric for this GAR.

Note that this is not the 'normal' DC composition, both due to the subject being more contemporary/accessible and in particular due to my heavy involvement in it during the initial GA review. A number of the sources that are in the article are sources that I found at the time of that review and that I verified at the time that he was accurately using when he incorporated them into the article text. Many of the points that the article makes were influenced by my review, and if you look at that review you can see that we went back and forth on several points and almost lost patience with one another. Now as part of this GAR, three different editors – myself, XOR'easter, and SandyGeorgia – have had at the article to identify and fix outstanding DC-related problems.

I put a lot of work into the original GA review, and I have put a lot of additional work now into this GAR. So if possible I would like this to be judged not on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis but rather on the more normal basis of 'does this article meet the GA requirements'. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is much to be said about this article compared to other DC content because of your involvement at the GAN level. Some of the GAN reviews I've seen were little more than a word tweak here or there. Nonetheless, it's good progress that the article is now at 64% DC content (from 80 the last time I checked in :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to close this since I've commented on it, but I just reviewed the Coldwell content using Who Wrote That and I remain concerned. I can see you've done a lot to improve the article, but there are a few paragraphs almost entirely unchanged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be cases where I looked at the DC text and didn't see any problems with copyvio, erroneous claims, mistaken attributions, etc. I'm not going to rewrite the text just for the sake of rewriting it. The point of what I am doing is to try to preserve a little bit of what DC did, not completely replace it.

Because in human terms, this is the worst calamity I've seen in my 18 years as a Wikipedia contributor. Imagine that you are retired and you decide take on a full-time volunteer position with an organization that builds structures. You get really into it and build lots and lots of structures. The organization seems to like what you are doing; it highlights hundreds of your structures on their web page, and then gives a lot of them awards as good structures. Then after more than a decade of doing this, the organization suddenly says that you've been building these structures all wrong. It revokes the good structure awards and even worse, it tears most of the structures down. How do you think you would feel? Wasted Time R (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a great metaphor. It's a fundamental policy of Wikipedia that plagiarism is not acceptable. Every contributor should be aware of this, let alone someone who was here for 15 years. It wasn't some massive surprise that people finally wised up to the massive issues with his content. I could go on and on about the multiple failures of oversight and excessive deference to established contributors that led to this disaster, plus the lust for shiny icons on his userpage that pushed Doug to shit out massive quantities of shoddy articles, but this isn't the place to do so. I'm not actively opposing, but I cannot actively support keeping this GAN either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it feels awful for DC, but he's 100% responsible for what he did -- 15 years of holding buildings together with chewing gum, using library paste where cement was required, and then professing that he thought that was how buildings are built. (The reviewers who failed to do their jobs are also 100% responsible, for a total of 200% -- there's that much blame to go around.) E Eng 21:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately delist and send to WP:CP for deletion and/or replacement with a new, untainted article. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 18:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: I believe your stance is not in accordance with the instructions given by WP:DCGAR FAQ #2 and #3 to the original GA reviewers: "If you believe the GA status might be retained ... you need to be willing to open an independent GAR ... and able to verify all content cited to online and offline sources ... Re-evaluate the content" per the problem areas listed in FAQ #1. That's what I've done, and I believe the current article is free of all of those listed problem areas. If someone points out an issue that remains, I will fix it. But nowhere at WP:DCGAR does it say that an article has to completely replaced with a new article. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vami, I don't think that assessment is in line with the article status. I am not yet ready to declare a Keep (mostly because I have never understood what makes a GA), but if any copyvio remains, it would help to know where. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasted Time R and SandyGeorgia: and @GAR coordinators: , sorry to ping everyone again, but some sort of consensus here would be nice. Also, could one of the coords close the Albany GAR while we're all here? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought the article should be delisted, I'd say so; I don't enter a Keep because the GA standards make no sense to me and I don't understand them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albany is stalled because it has some remaining citation needed tags. I'd fix them myself but I really don't have time. I'd hate to close as delist because it's close to being a keep, but I cannot in good conscience close as keep something with active citation needed tags. Given my comments above, I don't think I should be the one to close this GAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Economy of Ohio

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

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

Result: Delisted on issues with criteria 2 & 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2008. There looks to be some uncited statements and sections. Along with that there may possibly be some areas that need updating. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist for the reasons stated in the nomination. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Snakes on a Plane

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

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

Result: Issues with criterion 2: Unreliable sources, lack of referencing, etc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be poorly sourced with large chunks having no in line citation. First paragraph of Home media for example. Some sources are dead such as source [32].

Needs some love and attention. Lankyant (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

2011 Super Outbreak

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

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

Result: Delisting per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has suffered over the last decade plus from WP:HALFLIFE and a lack of updates. Never fully fleshed out to begin with, the article's aftermath section was never properly expanded even after a notice was put up about it. Over the years there have been many journal articles published about the event, of which only one has been incorporated. There is an immense amount of work required to get this article up to par. At present there is no need for a thorough review of the article until published journals (primarily from the AMS) are incorporated and the aftermath section is written. If that is done I am open to continuing with a further review to ensure the article is up to GA standards. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a really good idea. There are some other weather articles that could use that as well. ChessEric 00:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChessEric, if you know of any off the top of your head, please feel free to nominate them at GAR. There's a script at the top of the GAR page which makes the whole process much easier. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. ChessEric 01:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused on how to do it though. Could you show me? ChessEric 01:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I think the February 2009 North American storm complex article needs a GAR. How do I request one? ChessEric 01:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you install the User:SD0001/GAR-helper script, there should be an option for "GAR" in the menu where you normally find the "Move" button, ChessEric. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn’t you just do it instead of wasting time here lol. United States Man (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@United States Man: I'm focused on other articles and don't want to spend the time researching and writing this one. I'm happy to guide and help others who are able to put forth the effort on this one though. I've brought it up multiple times over the years and it's just time for this process to begin. If an article isn't up to standards it shouldn't be displayed as such. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclonebiskit, do you mind providing links to the journal articles you refer to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Of course, links are below. These are the main journals that are easy to find through the American Meteorological Society. There are many other journal articles that are not primarily focused on the outbreak but have information pertaining to it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aayirathil Oruvan (2010 film)

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

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

Result: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary too long, contravening WP:WAF. The cast section also needs sourcing, while there are instances of WP:WTW throughout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the Awards section should be renamed Accolades and is completely unreferenced. Also sources in the lead. Lankyant (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

John A. Hilger

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

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

Result: Delisted per unfixed close paraphrasing (see RoySmith's comment below). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive copyvios. Earwig reports substantial exact matches from http://www.veterantributes.org/ and https://www.tshaonline.org/. This was noted on the article talk page last May, and it looks like somebody did some "cleanup" which consisted of minor edits to change exact matches into close paraphrases, so the actual extent of the problem is far worse than a naive reading of the Earwig report would lead you to believe.

Talk:John A. Hilger/GA1 has no discussion of the copyvio issue, which leads me to wonder if it was examined at all. Either the review did not include a scan for copyvio problems, or it did and the level of problem found was considered acceptable. It is unclear which alternative is more disturbing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definite close paraphrasing issues: Hilger enrolled at the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas in September 1926 pulled pretty much straight from the source as well as an air assault on an enemy stronghold near Sinuiju, North Korea, (both the copyrighted TSHA source), and concerns with the other source as well (although some of what Earwig flags is just really long proper names that can't be rephrased as it's the name of an organization). Looks like a expedited delist to me. Hog Farm _Talk 00:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to put my hand up as the GA reviewer, I was so focused on assessing other obvious issues that I identified, including source reliability, that I overlooked the copyright problem. That said, as HogFarm has noted, a lot of the overlap is in unit names/job titles and there is limited ability to alleviate this since copyright is around the expression of information, rather than the information itself. Zawed (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have eliminated much. The rest is long titles and military jargon which cannot be removed. Bruxton (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly going to be a lot of Earwig hits from things like "Operational Training Unit Bomb Group"; that's the name of a unit and clearly shouldn't be changed. But I understand that and that's not the problem. @Hog Farm gave one example above. Here's some other examples from the revision that passed the GA review:

"In Chungking on April 30, Madame Chiang Kai-shek presented medals and posed for pictures with Doolittle, Hilger, and other crew members."
"On April 30, in Chungking, Hilger, Doolittle and other crew members were decorated by Madame Chiang Kai-shek."

Earwig doesn't say anything about that, but it's clearly a sentence that was copied and then the word order shuffled around a bit to make it not show up in an automated scan.

"Running low on fuel due to the early launch of the raid, the sixteen bombers failed to reach any of the designated safety zones in China. Although one aircraft and its crew landed in the Soviet Union and was taken prisoner, the crews in the fifteen other B-25s were forced to bail out of their planes before they crashed. In bailing out of his aircraft, Hilger was jolted from the opening of his parachute and suffered some sprains and minor injuries. Crew fourteen survived the ordeal. Of the eighty airmen that made up the Doolittle Raiders, the majority were rescued by friendly Chinese."
". Running low on fuel due to the early launch of the raid, the B-25s failed to reach any of the designated safety zones in China. Hilger and his crew bailed out over the city of Shangrao in Jiangxi Province, China. While bailing out of his aircraft, Hilger was jolted from the opening of his parachute and suffered some sprains and minor injuries. He and his crew linked up after the bailout and were helped through Japanese lines by Chinese guerrillas and civilians"

Earwig flagged bits and pieces of that, but between the bits Earwig flagged, there's more which is clearly copied and shuffled around a bit.

"In retirement, Hilger accepted a position with the Atomic Energy Commission and lived for a time in Las Vegas, Nevada. In early 1982 he returned to Texas to live at the Air Force Village in San Antonio. On February 3, 1982, Brig. Gen. John Allen Hilger died at the age of seventy-three at Lackland Air Force Base. In accordance with his wishes, Hilger was cremated and his ashes scattered off the coast of Newport Beach, California, in the Pacific Ocean."
"After his retirement from the military, Hilger served with the United States Atomic Energy Commission and lived for a time in Las Vegas, Nevada. In early 1982, after his full retirement, he settled at the Air Force Village in San Antonio, Texas. Hilger died on February 3, 1982, at the age of 73. In accordance to his wishes, his body was cremated and ashes scattered in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Newport Beach, California."

Again, bits and pieces noted by Earwig, but in between those bits and pieces are more text that's just the original source text warmed over and rearranged into two paragraphs instead of the original one. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to make sure that the article did not suffer from copyright issues by paraphrasing the lines and information without from the source website. I paraphrased to make sure all the information was included especially all his military positions in order to pass GA-article status. I will try to reedit the mentioned paragraphs and any required editing so that it won't encounter any copyvio issues. Toadboy123 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadboy123 before you do that, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Substantial similarity. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will read it and hopefully it will contribute to my understanding regarding close paraphrasing. Toadboy123 (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regarding, "I paraphrased to make sure all the information was included especially all his military positions in order to pass GA-article status.", I should point out that "including all the information" is not a GA criteria. Wikipedia:Good article criteria says:

Broad in its coverage:
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

If you're trying to include every assignment, every promotion, every posting, every available facet of his private life, that's going beyond the "main aspects", and may well be treading on "unnecessary detail". This is specifically called out in the explanatory note to WP:GACR: The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Great Raid of 1840

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

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

Result: Delisting per strong consensus on significant problems in the article. CMD (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we can consider this adequately sourced. A 90 year old source titled "Savage Resistance to the Advancing White Frontier" clearly isn't going to be a decent source on this topic, TexasIndians.com looks questionable, and stuff like He was saved because of the Comanche reverence for the mad, a reverence shared by most Native American cultures is poorly supported (I'm not seeing that in the source in that footnote, for instance). This needs substantive work throughout. Hog Farm _Talk 20:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problems start at the lede, which serves as mostly a background introduction to the topic and not a summary of the article body as it should. The major claim of the article, that this "was the largest raid ever mounted by Native Americans on white cities in what is now the United States" is sourced a 1933 book without page numbers. Some areas are missing citations, and, as Hog's analysis above points out, the text seems to dip heavily into unsupported editorialism. Statements like But greed saved the Comanches in turn and While safe in the water, the refugees witnessed the destruction and looting of their town, unable to do a thing except curse them aren't really appropriate. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead issue is sufficient to downgrade it in my opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only positive thing I could say about this article is that it knows the Texas History Portal exists. This should be delisted ASAP. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 20:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor referencing. Not even B Class. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yip, agree with all of the above, this is a long way from present GA standards. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist ASAP. Aside from the referencing, the wording is appalling. Also no conversions of imperial units to metric which should be bare minimum. Llammakey (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: - given the situation here and the strong consensus, can this be closed earlier than the normal 7 days? Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a strong consensus that the article doesn't meet one criteria of the GAN criteria, then we can delist. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objections on my part. Having 7 contributors in good standing all agree on a delist with no opposition is a pretty strong consensus to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zarina Diyas

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

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

Result: Kept as broadness issues have been fixed, fulfilling criterion 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a GA from 2021 interestingly enough. Main problem i've noticed is broadness, specifically a lack of updates. The sections on 2021 and 2022 are entirely empty. So unless those get filled in then this will fail broadness. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a couple of things and fixed some. If possible put the pronunciation clutter in her life section. It's not all that relevant to the lead. Also you should not have to reference anything in the lead since everything in the lead should already be referenced in prose. You have her ranking linked in the lead but nothing about it in the prose section. Remember the lead is simply a tiny synopsis of everything in the main body. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intrested anymore in this, so don't count on me. JamesAndersoon (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help out with trying to fix this article. I've put something in the 2021 and 2022 sections. I don't think that citations in the lead, or it containing information not in the body are fatal. With bold emphasis added by me: "the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents" (MOS:LEAD); "the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body" (MOS:LEADCITE). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest that it must be done, only that it is usually handled that way. We try not to link in the lead and we try to make sure that whatever is in the lead should be in the main body. Since this is going for GA I thought now would be the time to make it as good as possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

2010 Asian Games

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

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

Result: Withdrawn: No copy edit template now. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a copy edit template, which means that there are a lot of grammar mistakes in this article. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The copy edit template was removed from the article later on April 4; there had been work by editors leading up to that point. The person who loves reading, do you have specific issues with the article as it stands now? When requesting reassessment, it helps to check the article yourself and identify specific issues rather than relying only on a possibly outdated template. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

San Marino national football team

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

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

Result: Citations missing, especially for statistics, which fails 2b of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2010. Has been tagged for "This article or section appears to be slanted towards recent events. (May 2022) This article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2022)" for almost a year. GA cleanup reports "Unsourced passages need footnotes (May 2022), ... (May 2022), Unsourced passages need footnotes ^{[citation needed]} (May 2022), Link rot cleanup (June 2022)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page generally needs more citations overall. If needed, I can help retrieve adequate sources in Italian. Oltrepier (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so, there are three CN tags that need addressing and a few uncited paragraphs in the section above. The latest fixtures and competitive records need citing. I also believe the "all time record" section is CRUFT and needs removing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski I agree about the competitive records and the paragraphs. The fixtures should already have citations, though, and the "List of matches not lost" could still be relevant, given San Marino's competitive history... Oltrepier (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are quite a way away from actually picking this up. I have posted a link on WT:FOOTY. If no one picks this up, then we'd be pretty placed to close and delist. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should List of matches not lost by San Marino not be moved to San Marino national football team results rather than being on the main page? It could be linked from the Reputation section as well. Felixsv7 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Felixsv7 You're probably right: I didn't notice it at first, but that section makes the article a bit bloated... Oltrepier (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Reubens

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

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

Result: Delisted on citation issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main concern is sourcing and copy editing. Lots and lots of choppy prose (one-sentence paragraphs everywhere!) and a few random unsourced sections. Filmography table should probably be split, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

William Bradford (printer, born 1663)

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

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

Result: Delisted; no improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:DCGAR was listed as an intent to GAR on 9 February, but the GAR has not been initiated, so I'm opening it to get the ball rolling.

The initial GAN reviewer, Wil540 art has not edited the article since 15 February, after they started a review of inconsequential edits, but failed to look at the foundational edit of most significance. That edit introduced almost all of the current text and sources. Several of those are not available online, so content based on them can be WP:PDEL'd. Further, from sources that can be checked, the customary very close paraphrasing issues:

Selby (2018) – sample only:
- Article: Bradford's grandson, William became a well-known printer during the American Revolution for the Continental Congress.
  - Source: Bradford's grandson, William Bradford, became a noted printer for the Continental Congress during the American Revolution.

and

- In 1688, he printed Temple of Wisdom, the first full-sized book released in the middle colonies.[1][4]

and failed verification (sample) are found:

Selby 2018 does not support all of
- "His trainer was Andrew Sowel (some sources spell Sowle or Sorole), the foremost Quaker printer in London, at the sign of the Crooked Billet in Holloway Lane at Shoreditch. Bradford started working for Sowel about 1680 and had mastered the trade and was free from his apprenticeship December 3, 1684. He married the master's eldest daughter, Elizabeth, on April 28, 1685. Sowel arranged for the two to join William Penn in his new colony in North America with a letter of recommendation from George Fox, founder of the Quakers, to become the colonial printer."
and other sources cited (Johns 1992) offer more nuance.

Many sources cited are not available online, so I have WP:PDEL'd the content from those sources that was written by DC (leaving content written by others), but a revert to the last version before the DC expansion may be preferable, unless someone has access to the sources to reconstruct content. I have not completed checking of all the remaining sources for source-to-text integrity or copyvio issues, but note that the major DC expansion was not indicated as checked in the chart on the talk page. I have only completed the presumptive deletion of content written by DC and cited to offline sources: everything else needs to be checked, as the checking initiated on the talk page did not look at the major expansion.

The DCGAR AN provided for a time period for GA reviewers to indicate they intended to attempt a GA save so the articles would not be delisted and before content would be presumptively deleted; it did not envision leaving content from a known copyright violator with an open CCI in mainspace for months beyond the initial 9 February notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

University Mall (Little Rock, Arkansas)

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

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

Result: Uncontroversial delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags which have been there since August 2022. Steelkamp (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is in extremely poor shape, and I've been meaning to get it to GAR for a while myself but keep forgetting.

1. Some of the [citation needed] tags were in violation of WP:LEADCITE, but I did find a decent amount of uncited content elsewhere in the article.
2. Only nine sources is extremely pathetic for a supposedly GA-class article. Compare Merle Hay Mall, which was promoted to GA in 2008 but has held up pretty well. Also compare Tri-City Pavilions or Swifton Center, which are both also GA-class mall articles and considerably more thorough in sourcing than this one is.
3. Tone issues such as " when the Main Street Mall succumbed to the effects of Little Rock's dying downtown", "tenants voiced concerns", "felt that it was a good buy", etc.
4. Most importantly, seven of the nine sources are dead links. For this alone, I think it's a good idea to WP:IAR and speedy delist. Pinging @Lee Vilenski:, @Iazyges:, @Chipmunkdavis:, and @Trainsandotherthings: for their thoughts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My word, this even went to FAC! Erm, yeah, we'd need the citations needed fixed. It's not so much of an issue that there is only a few sources, but everything in the article needs to be suitably attributed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, something being a deadlink doesn't make the citation any less reliable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a pretty glaring maintenance issue that severely compromises the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a good article in its current state, obviously. Yes the deadlinks need fixing but this isn't really a speedy delist, either. We do need the citation needed tags resolved as well. If no improvements are made, this would likely be delisted in a week or two. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Astronomy

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

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, pretty good but there's uncited statements and problems here being

Theoretical Astronomy is a mess of section with possible uncited statements in there.
Topics also studied by theoretical astrophysicists include Solar System formation and evolution; stellar dynamics and evolution; galaxy formation and evolution; magnetohydrodynamics; large-scale structure of matter in the universe; origin of cosmic rays; general relativity and physical cosmology, including string cosmology and astroparticle physics. (Not so sure about this one)
The discipline is an overlap of astronomy and chemistry. The word "astrochemistry" may be applied to both the Solar System and the interstellar medium. The study of the abundance of elements and isotope ratios in Solar System objects, such as meteorites, is also called cosmochemistry, while the study of interstellar atoms and molecules and their interaction with radiation is sometimes called molecular astrophysics. The formation, atomic and chemical composition, evolution and fate of molecular gas clouds is of special interest, because it is from these clouds that solar systems form. Studies in this field contribute to the understanding of the formation of the Solar System, Earth's origin and geology, abiogenesis, and the origin of climate and oceans.
The entire Interdisciplinary studies section.

and that seems to be it. There may be more problems but I haven't identified them yet. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the review was opened properly on March 14th, to avoid overloading editors, rather than on February 15th, as indicated by the signature date. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks now like everything still tagged as uncited is big-picture stuff about the nature of the scientific process and things like that. If it can't be sourced, it can probably be cut or rewritten into something that can be. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter, looks like a few {{cn}} tags are still remaining, but that's about it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question now arises of whether we should just cut the still-uncited text; it's rather vague. XOR'easter (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These edits address the remaining {{citation needed}} tags in a way that I'm happy with. XOR'easter (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battle of Gettysburg

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

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

Result: I think this is now definitely GA standard, as all issues have been fixed, and the criteria have been met. Massive plaudits go to Donner60, Hog Farm and TwoScars for their work on the article, for which they have received barnstars. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Work is ongoing, and might take some time.

First stage

Article requires a bit of work to retain GA status:

There are quite a few cn tags
Doesn't always use summary style. For instance, it uses a quote of almost 400 words
It uses some unreliable sources like history.com. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do and will bump working on this to the top of my pile of wiki-work. This won't be a quick fix, though, so I request that I allowed a few weeks on this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no problem. Thanks for your willingness to tackle an important topic :). Femke (alt) (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: @TwoScars: Pinging those already commenting. I have 50 books on Gettysburg and the Gettysburg campaign as well as overviews of the war such as Eicher and McPherson. I have bought these books mostly used over a considerable period of time. I was actually surprised at the number when I counted them - although I knew I had way more than I have on any other Civil War topic. So with these sources I should be able to help. I was pleased that an effort on another article could be done without much rewriting and in small chunks. My immediate limitations are mostly due to health and physical condition, which are improving but still need work. I have a second eye surgery on Monday, shoulder rehab, etc. (And real life!) As a result, I am embarrassingly behind on work on a few other articles that I promised to improve. I hope my pace will pick up after another month or two. Hog Farm is right about the size and scope of the article affecting how fast this can be done. He and Two Scars note the possible need to review numerous sources. I intend to make at least some progress, hopefully, without too much delay. I think many readers may rely on this article without necessarily reading other Gettysburg articles so I think it is important to have a good one. Donner60 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More specific list of problems

Mainly for the benefit of me and anyone who wants to help me out

Need to check for dubious text like "Most were loaded, some had more than one bullet in them. It is not known why." - From what I've read, this is generally attributed to misfires or people forgetting that they'd already loaded their guns in the heat of battle. I don't remember where I've seen this, and will need to hunt for a source on that
There's currently 7 CN tags, and a few bits of other text that should be sourced as well
Cleanup of pop culture/coinage & postage stuff (IMO should largely be nuked)
Unreliable sources:
- brotherswar.com
- hmdb
- americaslegacylink
- Could probably do better than Camp Chase Gazette
- HistoryNet is mixed - the article by Petruzzi is reliable via its author, but some of the others probably ought to be replaced
- thoughtco.com
- history.com
- civilwarmed blogspot

If we start running into source-text integrity issues, then I'll have to bow out of this. Of the sources listed in the 'references' section, I only have Bearss, Busey & Martin, Catton, Eicher, Foote, Glatthaar, McPherson, all three by Pfanz, Sears, Tagg, and Wert. I also lack the energy to do a top-to-bottom rewrite here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions for the Battle of Gettysburg:

Intro should be only 3 paragraphs—it is too long right now.
Does it really need to have citations in the Intro and InfoBox?
Drop the three War Department maps—they do not help. Hal's maps look good. They should have a book or atlas listed in the map's Summary in Wikimedia so one can have more confidence that they are correct.
Background has one giant paragraph in Military situation section, and way too many paragraphs in the Initial movements to battle section. Needs less text or more section dividers.
Perhaps the background should have a sentence mentioning the Battle of Hanover. It delayed Stuart from linking with Lee.
Don't need the picture of commanders in the Opposing forces section, or have only Meade and Lee. Maybe some of them could be inserted in the narrative. Do Orders of Battle ever have images?
- I've removed the galleries, a more reasonable number of images can be added back if thought necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The giant quote from Longstreet is too much.
Maybe it is me, but I have never liked the "Commemoration in U.S. postage and coinage" and the "In popular culture" sections in any article about a battle. Maybe they could be moved to Gettysburg Battlefield, somewhere else, or dropped.
- I've removed the postage/coinage as irrelevant with a link back to this discussion. (This section got nixed at the Featured Article Review for Sherman, I'm not sure why that information is getting added everywhere). I'd recommend rolling the popular culture section into something else - the reunions can be briefly mentioned in a sentence or two, and the film/The Killer Angels is probably worth discussing briefly, especially if we can find a source discussing the film's effect on the popular portrayal of the battle. Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is too long (yes, I have the same problem when writing articles), especially since there are plenty of other articles (Battle of Gettysburg, first day etc.) that go into more detail.

This is what I see without recently having read any good books on the battle. The only books I have that cover the topic are Eicher and McPherson, and those books try to cover the entire war. Also have Shaaara's Civil War Battlefields book that has about 33 pages for Gettysburg. TwoScars (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also "tons" of duplicate Wikilinks, although it may be better to fix these last. TwoScars (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made numerous edits to article on February 17, 18, 19. Citations have been provided at all citation needed and the templated unreferenced section. I have made some corrections, further explanation through two substantive footnotes and summarized Longstreet quote except for last key sentences. I will be delayed in helping improve the article for much or all of the next few weeks due to eye surgery and another health issue. But I will continue working on it along with TwoScars and Hog Farm and anyone else who wishes to help as time permits. Donner60 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have deleted three unreadable old map photos and Hancock photo, and moved and reformatted a few other photos, tightens up text, full reasons and explanation in the edit summaries just now on Feb. 27. Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am putting in here because it was a little earlier: that I made some additional edits and additions to the Pickett's Charge subsection in particular, and split the text footnote under Lee's Plan into two. I also deleted the sentence on the draft riots affecting the pursuit for the reasons I put in an earlier section on the talk page. The changes on that date are summarized in the edit summaries that I posted. Donner60 (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what might be the first time in my editing career, I'm going to invoke WP:BLUE on something. I'm working on fixing one of the better source needed tags, and the source I'm using, Wert's "Gettysburg: Day Three" doesn't use the name "Pickett's Charge" directly at the point I'm using it for. I think " in what is known to history as "Pickett's Charge"" is something so obvious that it doesn't need to be cited, but will hunt down a ref if there's a belief that one is needed for the name Pickett's Charge. Hog Farm _Talk 03:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I think that better source needed tag was just put there by me a day or two ago. The cite for the entire paragraph, or most of it, is from HistoryNet, which has the attackers at 15,000 if not other wrong or suspect statements or omissions. I have the better sources. I even thought more than one might be needed. My eyes were starting to blur and I think it was late and I was tired so I put it off for a few days. Some modern historians, in particular, now often call it the Pickett/Pettigrew/Trimble charge. Pickett was supposed to be in charge of the whole operation once it started. Pettigrew and Trimble were also division commanders, filling in for wounded permanent ones. I wonder whether he thought he was or tried to co-ordinate the attack. I did not make a note but I think I saw one or more sources talk about it. I wonder whether it is worth a footnote to point out the naming credit now often given to Pettigrew and Trimble. Instances can be easily found. I don't disagree that "Pickett's Charge" is well referenced enough not to repeat it in another sentence. It makes me wonder whether that is the point Wert was driving at, that Pickett's charge is the usual name but it could be that a different name might also be proper. Or not. Donner60 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60 and TwoScars: My exam is this afternoon, so once I get back from the exam (with a Braum's milkshake if things go badly) I'll pull together all of my Gettysburg sources to have a better starting point (they're scattered across four bookshelves). The more I think about it, a sentence or two discussing the naming of Pickett's Charge vs Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Charge is warranted either as a footnote or in the main text, and I'll sort through all my books sometime this evening. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that there is already a Wikipedia page called Pickett's Charge, and it starts with "Pickett's Charge (July 3, 1863), also known as the Pickett–Pettigrew–Trimble Charge, was an infantry assault ordered by Confederate General Robert E. Lee against...." TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As info, I only know personally one person who passed the entire CPA exam on the first try. TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am too late to say good luck, which you likely don't need. So I'll say I hope it went well. I can't say much about the exam or passage rate but from what little I have heard, the exam consists of three parts, each of which has to be passed individually. And it is a rare person who can pass all three parts the first time. I think I heard that if a person passes one part, that person at least does not need to pass that part again. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's four parts (AUD, BEC, REG, and FAR), and you have an 18-month window to pass them all in. Took my two tries to pass REG, but I got BEC and FAR on the first attempt. Hopefully AUD went well today. Hog Farm _Talk 03:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good. You seem to be well on your way. Donner60 (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60 and Hog Farm: As info, I did some editing on the cavalry section. It appears that it may have been copied from this web site, unless the web site copied from Wikipedia after the article was written—resulting in a circular source. I ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector on the whole article, and had some hits ranging from 99.4% to 13.0%. I have not used this software much, and some web sites may simply be copying Wikipedia (so of course they will have some similarities), but I thought it would be good for everyone to be aware of this potential problem. We all know there have probably been bits and pieces added over the years since the original version.TwoScars (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a moderate amount of copyright experience and will take a deeper look after work to see if this is a copyvio or circular copy situation. Hog Farm _Talk 23:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely copied us - compare the older internet archive copy of that page (October 2017) to our article as of December 2016. Of the copyvio check links, the 99.4 copied us, the 42.5 appears to have copied our reference section, the 32.9% is just shared proper names and common phrases, etc. Hog Farm _Talk 03:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The battlefields.org one concerned me a little more, but our content is from Hlj in 2006, while their content I can't find from before 2019, so I think that's them copying us too, which surprises me as I thought that was sometimes a decent source. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before the change of name, the American Battlefield Trust was the Civil War Trust. The web site may well have had a different name. I contribute to the Trust and have been on events with them. They always have first rate historians including the Kricks, Chris Mackowski, Kristopher White, Park Rangers such as the chief ranger at Richmond and others that I can't call to mind off the top of my head. They had Ed Bearss giving tours at an earlier time. Gary Adelman is an in house historian. He was one of the commentators in the Grant miniseries recently rerun on the History Channel. I have found the Trust's on-line material to be good but I have only cited it in the preservation section of the Gettysburg article and would look for sources among historians first. If the Trust copied Wikipedia, it was probably much earlier and may actually have come from the historians or perhaps at least been vetted later by one. The Trust also could have had something similar up even before Hlj wrote his text if the Civil War Trust web site went back that far. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the American Battlefield Trust is a good source now, better than the National Park Service, and have used it before. No matter what the original source for the cavalry section was (Hlj, a web site, or another party), I have altered it a little and added a little. I plan to alter the first and second (especially) paragraphs of the Confederate retreat section, to mention Fight at Monterey Pass and Battle of Williamsport (currently labeled as rear guard action at Falling Waters). TwoScars (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: @TwoScars: It has occurred to me that I saw on Hlj's personal web site photos of his attendance at Civil War Trust events, including one in which he had a photo of him with a small group including Ed Bearss. So Hlj, who may have already been known for his map making, was directly involved with the Trust at an earlier time. Perhaps he even contributed to the write-up that coincides with his text. Donner60 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the cavalry section and in pointing out possible copyright vios. As I have time, I plan to see if some other sections need tweaking or additional sources. I don't especially like the Culp's Hill on the second day subsection. I thought it was somewhat random and did not give a clear picture of what happened. Of course, we don't want to make it too long. I will have even less time than recently over at least the next ten days. I have been trying to spare my eyes but as I noted before, one gets bored staring into space. I have mainly been online in small spurts. My right eye seems quite good after 6 1/2 weeks but the left eye still needs some healing after 2 1/2 weeks. Donner60 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60, Hog Farm, and TwoScars:, thanks for all of your work on this very important article. Are you planning to continue, or, if not, do you think it meets the the GA criteria? This isn't an ultimatum, btw, just asking for a progress update. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I think it has been improved substantially (mostly by Donner60). Most of the articles I write are too long—yet it appears to me that this article is already too long, but I don't want to be the one who cuts text without the consent of others. That does not mean that it has not been restored to GA. I'll go along with whatever Hog Farm and Donner60 believe should be done or not done. We already agreed that this is a long-term project. TwoScars (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, a prose size of around 9500 words is about what I would expect from an article with this much scholarship about it. If anything, I'm most concerned about the notes, which are quite possibly too detailed (criterion 3b). That said, take as much time as you need: we won't have to start seriously thinking about closing this until late May. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29; @Hog Farm; @TwoScars I usually put only a few brief footnotes, or none at all, into articles. In this case, there is much disagreement among historians about various details of the battle. I think this needs to be noted. A potential problem in this article is that someone can grab on to a particular source and give a detail, often a number, that is inaccurate to the extent that it is not even in the range of possibilities. It has already happened a few times.

Pickett's charge is an example. Leaving out relatively contemporary estimates that are even higher: 15,000 men in the charge according to a comment by Lee and those that cite this? No, as explained. 13,000 according to Longstreet. (His response to Lee is sometimes cited to support 15,000; it doesn't.) Closer but he was just estimating the number of men he had left. And others in a lower range. As Carol Reardon wrote: nobody really knows the number.

I can look at what I can do to cut them down. But I see errors creeping in (good faith, but still errors) if there is not some explanation about differences among even reliable historians. I noted above that I think the Culp's Hill second day subsection could be clearer. Also, I think some of the later sections on the effects and contemporary and historical assessments might be trimmed.

This was a huge and complex battle. I agree that articles can get too long. I think this is one that may need to be on the long side to give a fair summary of who and what were involved, what happened and its importance. But that does not mean some thoughtful changes can reduce the size and keep most of the substance. I know I sometimes can go on at length, e.g. this note. Consensus, of course, should be the bottom line.

A quick addition since I didn't exactly answer the question. I think that it might well be GA already, but I would like to make some more edits along the line I mentioned. I also think a few references can still be replaced with better ones. With tax returns coming due and some other time constraints over the next few weeks, I am not sure whether I can finish what I have in mind until later next month. Donner60 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Is there anywhere that it would be helpful for me to look over and compare all of the Gettysburg sources I have to see if there's consensus on a point? I passed all my CPA exams and have already paper filed my own taxes, so I've got some extra time for now. Hog Farm _Talk 23:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great news on the exam. Congratulations! Are you are asking about any fact or statement about which historians actually disagree but the text is definite and does not suggest that there is disagreement? Or perhaps put a little differently, that a statement is not as definite as the text appears and needs further research? Or are you thinking about trying to get a consensus on a point where some similarity is found in most sources, perhaps disregarding outliers? Or am I missing the point altogether? Donner60 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I misread your previous comment (not enough sugar in the sweet tea, I guess). Is there anything I can work on or review with the article to make myself useful? Hog Farm _Talk 03:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'll start with a few of the points that I have thought could be improved. I haven't made a comprehensive list. Also, I have looked at the items that have caught my attention rather generally, not in enough detail to see whether my initial thoughts should lead to much change. Maybe give them a look to see what you think or to improve them if you think along the same lines. The second day at Culp's Hill might be made clearer and more complete even if it takes a few extra sentences. I think the sections on the effect on the Union and Confederacy come completely from McPherson and may need a better and more complete focus, not necessarily expansion. I also think the sections on historical assessment and Lee v. Meade could be better and perhaps shorter. As an aside, I think Lee v. Meade isn't a very good subsection title because other top commanders are also considered. I have been approaching this piecemeal as I consider whether references should be changed or otherwise appear not to support a point and haven't quite finished that review. I mentioned above why I have added long text footnotes. You might want to look at them to see whether you think any could be pared down because they may not be viewed favorably by all, or I might have just been too verbose with some of them. Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes are long, but I agree that it is necessary to list additional sources—including those that disagree with the narrative. This should prevent people from making changes to the article because they found a source that differs—or at least one could be justified in reverting those types of edits because the change was already covered in the footnotes. (A few years back, we had problems with West Virginia-related Civil War articles that were getting numbers changed here and there by someone who was using really bad sources.) For the article, I think the First day of battle is a lot of paragraphs under a single subsection. Maybe the eleven paragraphs could be divided into a few more subsections. I also think the lead could be made a little more compact. TwoScars (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29; @Hog Farm; @TwoScars Although I should be working on real life things, I began to think that there was something not quite right about the explanations of the historians' inconsistencies in numbers of units and men included in Pickett's Charge and the casualty counts. I I am going to review the references again because those units took many casualties despite the fact that the main charge was over before they started and Wilcox, in particular, pulled back promptly. I'll try to get the revisions done quickly, maybe even tonight if I can get through a review the sources on these points. Donner60 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29; @Hog Farm; @Donner60 - Anything for me to do? I just finished Battle of Charleston (1862) and Novelty Glass Company. TwoScars (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to give this a re-review either this afternoon or more likely tomorrow afternoon. Hog Farm _Talk 15:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be two unreliable sources remaining-a blog and a YouTube link. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29; @Hog Farm; @TwoScars I replaced footnote 151 with a citation to an article by doctors in the HHS National Library of Medicine (actually cited by the blog) and added a citation to Murray. I rearranged and slightly added to the text about the reunions. I added Reardon and another citation. I kept the You Tube link only as a citation to the rare film clip of the 1913 reunion which is what is shown in the You Tube presentation. Both of the film clip links could simply go to external links as well. In fact, the 1938 reunion clip was already in the article, cited from an NPS link, and is already in the external links referenced directly. Donner60 (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts of mine:

We include Imboden, Robertson, and Grumble Jones in the Confederate cavalry orbat. Is it worthwhile to footnote or mention that these commands were not actually present for the fighting at Gettysburg?
" "The Battle of Gettysburg and the American Civil War – The First Shot Marker". Archived from the original on April 16, 2005." - I don't believe this is RS, and propose deleting the sentence it supports because I don't think we need to mention Jones's 1886 marker in an article covering the entire battle
"Two of Longstreet's divisions were on the road: Brigadier General George Pickett, had begun the 22-mile (35 km) march from Chambersburg, while Brigadier General Evander M. Law " - I don't like the phrasing on this. Law was just a brigade commander, and if my memory of reading Pfanz's Day Two work a few months back is holding up correctly, was a trailing brigade, but the current phrasing implies Law and commanding an entire trailing division
"Lee did not issue orders for the attack until 11:00 a.m." - I don't think we should be citing the timing here to Longstreet's memoirs. I believe Pfanz among others discusses the timing of this in detail, although I don't think I'll have time to really dig into sourcing on this for a couple days
"Colonel Andrew L. Harris of the Union 2nd Brigade, 1st Division, came under a withering attack, " - I think maybe we ought to also include what corps this was (XI)
"Much has been made over the years of General Longstreet's objections to General Lee's plan" - again, I would personally rather see us cite the consensus of modern historians than just Longstreet's memoirs, which at least in places were not all that objective, here
"The Union Fishhook Historical Marker". www.hmdb.org. Retrieved December 17, 2022." - this is not a reliable source

@Donner60 and TwoScars: - I think that's my primary concerns. Would personally trim the Grant vs. Lee section, but I think we're fairly close to GA status at this time. Hog Farm _Talk 01:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to mention the Confederate cavalry units that were with Lee's invading force but not present for the fighting if including them in the overall force. A sentence or phrase about why they were absent e.g. screening Lee's force or protecting the route back and/or foraging or whatever would be useful as explanation.
I agree that it is enough to state that Lt. Jones probably fired the first shot but the sentence about the marker and the picture of it should be removed as superfluous.
Major General Lafayette McClaws's division of Longstreet's First Corps did not come up to the battlefield until the morning of July 2. Although Law's brigade of Hood's Division was on picket duty at New Guilford and also did not come up until the afternoon of July 2, the "two divisions" in the sentence almost certainly was meant to refer to "McLaw's" Division with Laws brigade of Hood's division also mentioned. Law took temporary command of Hood's division after he was wounded but that occurred on July 2 after they arrived and entered the battle in the afternoon of July 2.
If I recall correctly, historians don't entirely agree on the time that Lee's attack orders were issued and some may even state it was likely a time later than 11:00 a.m. Sources besides Longstreet should be available for this and could be cited.
The XI Corps may be implied from the previous sentence but I see no problem in adding "XI Corps" to give a clear full reference to Harris's division in particular since the attack on the XI Corps and the corps's failure to hold its position again is often made.
Remove "Much has been made..." sentence. The rest of the paragraph is about Longstreet's response, which is appropriate. It seems to be widely accepted and some reference to historians that accept or refer to that account could be included. What has been made about Longstreet's objection is itself perhaps more properly part of the historical assessment.
I removed the hmdb citation. I had added a footnote citing Sears and Eicher as more reliable sources for the shape of the Union defensive position and intended to remove the hmdb citation. I overlooked removing it so I went ahead and took it out.
I think revising and trimming the later sections about the assessment, especially "Lee v Meade", would be appropriate but I don't think it should be necessary to do it right away to retain GA status. It could wait for a while until one of us has a little more time to work on it. It could take a little time to write a better, and presumably shorter, version. Donner60 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's pretty much my thoughts on Grant vs. Lee - we can deal with that later. I've gone ahead and removed the sentence about Jones and the 1886 marker. Hog Farm _Talk 12:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the XI Corps attribution, removed the non-RS detail about the Jones marker and the image of the Jones marker, and have slung together a multi-source footnote to support the 11 am start time. Will try to dig up a source for Robertson, Jones, and Imboden not being involved in the battle soon. Hog Farm _Talk 02:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there's still a few things that would be nice to do - clarify which cavalry units were not present, maybe clarify the Law's division item, work on the Lee vs. Meade section, and tweak the Longstreet's objections paragraph, but I think it's close enough to the GA standard to close now, with the understanding that further work will occur as needed. FWIW, I recently noticed that Battle of Atlanta is in very bad shape, Pickett's Charge needs work, Siege of Vicksburg is in poor shape, but User:Hog Farm/Siege of Vicksburg is a tentative rewrite for half of that, and I'm not particularly happy with the shape that Pat Cleburne's article is in, and my very first GA at Battle of Wilson's Creek is almost pathetic in places, looking back at it. Hog Farm _Talk 15:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm; @TwoScars And this misleading sentence needs to be changed: "Meanwhile, the town of Gettysburg, with its population of just 2,400, found itself tasked with taking care of 14,000 wounded Union troops and an additional 8,000 Confederate prisoners." The cited essay published in the New York Times in 2013 doesn't even support this as written since it mentions the doctors that Lettermann left behind. I actually have two books that deal with the subject of the wounded after the Battle of Gettysburg and a biography of Lettermann. Letterman left 106 doctors behind to care for the wounded. This was a very inadequate number but he had to decide how many to take with him in view of the possibility of another battle down the road in Maryland. He left only 30 ambulances and the railroad had been torn up - although it was fixed within about a month by Herman Haupt's men. The lack of transportation meant that the wounded had to be left in the area for the time being and not moved to hospitals in larger cities. They were spread out for at least 8 miles in any direction so they all weren't at Gettysburg. Many relatives and volunteers soon showed up to help but unfathomably the officer left in charge sent a message to Harrisburg to be published in newspapers that even doctors ought not come to help because of overcrowding and transportation problems. Some may have come anyway but it became a scandal. The numbers of wounded are round numbers. Sources differ, of course, but the Confederate number of 8,000 appears to be more than 1,000 too many. Unfortunately, I think this lone sentence is too misleading to leave in place over the long run. Yes, the local population was greatly overburdened and perhaps the sentence gives some indication of the problem of caring for so many wounded after the battle. But no, they were not left to care for the wounded by themselves. I would prefer not to write 8 or 10 sentences and/or a lengthy footnote in the article to explain all this so I will try to find a way to cut it to 2 or 3 sentences and 1 or 2 different citations, which is the reason I haven't just changed it or deleted the phrase about the townspeople being left to care for the wounded already. I thought it best to explain this additional problem now because I might get to it even tonight but it might be several days and the revision should be shorter than this note. Donner60 (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dumped

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

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

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 23:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huge citation issues, including reliance on non-independent references, unreliable sources, and long plot. Fails GA criterion 1a and 2. Also originally nominated by a sockpuppeteer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, it's very far from a GA. Artem.G (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - No sign of anyone attempting to fix the issues. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lowell mill girls

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

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

Result: Delisted - lack of inline citations for material likely to be challenged. (GA criterion 2b) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for GAR on behalf of The ed17 who put a notice for this back in march. There's citation needed tags that need to be dealt with for this to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Acting white

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

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

Result: Significant unsourced material, including quotes and material likely to be challenged (GA criterion 2). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2009. The other languages and Fordham and Ogbu sections are unsourced and need citations. Might have other problem as seen on the talk page. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Acrisure Stadium

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

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

Result: Uncited material, including statistics and material likely to be challenged. (GA criterion 2) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2008. There are uncited areas like the entirety of the field design section and the last two paragraphs of the seating expansion. Also, the prose is very choppy in a lot a places with multiple 1-2 sentence paragraphs. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska

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

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

Result: Large amount of uncited material of all types. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. The problem is the many uncited areas in the article. This includes a refimprove tag and many citation needed tags. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ahimsa in Jainism

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

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

Result: Delisted article which has deteriorated steadily since promotion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2013. The Important constituents section is unsourced while there are many citation needed tags throughout the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dolphinarium

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

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

Result: Uncited material including statistics (GA criterion 2) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2009. Some uncited material with labeled citation needed tags that need to be dealt with. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Feeder (band)

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

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

Result: Uncited material including statistics and information regarding living people (GA criterion 2) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Significant citation issues in the history section, members, and sales and legacy section while the awards section is unsourced. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Angolan Civil War

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

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

Result: Consensus to delist. Hog Farm _Talk 18:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There's some uncited sections and a refimprove tag for roots of the the conflict section that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - "Ethnic divisions" and "Portuguese colonialism" subsections lack any references, and perhaps a few dozen other sentences lack full referencing. Prose like The Angolan Civil War was notable due to ... needs to be reworked, while statements like demining operations expected to finish by 2014 betray the outdatedness of the article. The Aftermath and "In popular culture" sections are not cohesive, and the latter might be worth axing entirely as a collection of trivia. The citation style is mixed and some books lack page number cites. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Executive summary: this is an incoherent article. I have not compared it yet with the original promotion that might be a point from which to start anew. the Roots of the conflict section is not supported by what follows - ie it is suggested that root of the conflict is ethnic (tribal) but the body of the article suggests that it is more socio-political (city communist v rural non-communist). There are clearly compounding events in neighbouring "countries" but the article does not present this context (eg the Namibia-South Africa-Angola dynamic). The article describes three main divisions to the conflict. Arguably, each phase should be dealt with as: issues, conflict, resolution and analysis (or similar). However, the article structure does not follow this but is decadic. This is the top level article for the conflict. It should deal with events at the top level in detail. It doesn't. At places, it reports "support" by other nations without describing the nature of such support. At other places, it reports minutiae (events) without establishing context - eg, how is fleeing 60 km relevant to the greater scheme of things? The article is visually/spatially inadequate. Many places are mentioned but their spatial significance is not established. Then, we have an infobox from hell. It tries to capture too much and fails to capture anything. I could perhaps be a bit more specific but much less brief. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Astaroth (Soulcalibur)

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

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

Result: Delisted. CMD (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-forma GAR to delist following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astaroth (Soulcalibur). CMD (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Condom

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

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

Result: Delisted. (t · c) buidhe 20:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material (criterion 2), and an abundance of WP:WTW (criterion 1b). Also, quality of prose is poor (lots of one-line paragraphs), and the history section is pretty much reliant on one source (possibly violating criterion 4). I should note that I think the medicine WikiProject perfectly capable of overcoming these issues, should they wish to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Louise Nevelson

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

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

Result: A general consensus to keep has developed over three weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article on a prominent 20th-century American female sculptor, which was reviewed and listed as GA on 10 October 2011:

is poorly organized ("Early personal life", in itself a very long section, is immediately followed by "Artistic career" which is separate from "Style and works") with often confusing chronological progression ("1930s" followed by "First exhibitions and the 1940s" followed by "Mid-career") MOS:LAYOUT
uses convoluted prose and might be difficult to navigate even for a reader familiar with the history of 20th-century Western art WP:TECHNICAL
relies too heavily on direct quotes (her papers, a primary document, are cited 18 times throughout the article, the second-most used source), which raises WP:OR concerns
has an inconsistent citation style and references section MOS:NOTES
does not include enough images to properly illustrate the artist's career (prior to today, when I included 4 additional images of sculptures, there were only 5 images total and only 2 of those showed her works) MOS:IMAGES
regarding secondary literature, this article relies excessively on a single source: Rapaport, Brooke Kamin. The Sculpture of Louise Nevelson: Constructing a Legend. New York: Jewish Museum of New York (2007). ISBN 0-300-12172-5
there are plenty of other sources, as evidenced even by the Further reading section with more WP:RS that could help ensure correct WP:OOS as well as WP:SUMMARY
finally, the article was originally reviewed by a user who has since been blocked by ArbCom for abusing multiple accounts (this is only secondary to reasons provided above, as the user's contributions were overall significant, though it should be mentioned given they are no longer part of the community for repeated rules violations)

I believe this article in its current form meets B-level at most and needs to be reassessed. Ppt91 ^talk 18:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add that this article obviously has merit and greatly contributes to WP:VISUALARTS male-centered bias, which makes improving such articles even more pressing and important. Ppt91 ^talk 19:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Organisation is perfectly fine, and is reminiscent of other FA or GA biographies of people in the arts (Edward Elgar, Vincent van Gogh etc.) I really cannot see how the chronology is confusing; there's a section on the 1930s, then on the 1940s, then between the 1950s and 1969, and from 1969 until her death. Seems perfectly logical. I do not see any complicated prose, and citation styles/headings not to your liking are not a sufficient reason to delist, alongside any lack of images.

Regarding sources: citing personal papers is not in any way WP:OR. If you feel that any of said citations violate WP:ABOUTSELF, please feel free to note which ones. Similarly, if you feel that some of the sources in further reading contain information not already included, please specify which ones—we cannot delist an article because other books may contain extra information. As to the review by Eric Corbett, although he was long before my time, I know he was renowned for his content expertise, and I'm fairly certain he was blocked for conduct, not content, issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

support* User:AirshipJungleman29's commnents. I am the original author of the GA article, so I am a bit bias. I actually based the layout on some of the most prominent quality artist articles on WP.

Also unable to have many images - she has no public domain work and all but the photograph released by her niece and a pre-1923 photo qualify, so that is irrelevant.

And correct on Eric, he was not blocked for his quality work. I would not worry about that. We'd have to get rid of content if blocked users was an issue all the time (saying this as an admin).

And anyone who knows what it was like going through GA reviews back then....what a freaking ringer that was. A total nightmare. Missvain (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I appreciate your response, though it does seem to come off more like a rebuttal from an AfD discussion than an attempt to constructively address or fix the issues I raised. I have not once argued that this GA should be immediately delisted and my intention was to provide clear reasoning behind reassessment with the hopes of starting a dialogue and improving the article (per :::::The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.) There is a great deal of value in this article, but I am also quite certain that if it were to be nominated for GA now, it would have to undergo heavy editing to pass.

The example of van Gogh you gave is a good one to illustrate my point about organization. It includes the artist's biography entirely under "Life" with separate subsections to describe his artistic and personal development (I like "Life and work" better, but it's just a matter of preference). In the case of Nevelson, however, there is a long separate section on "Early life" (without dating) which precedes "Artistic career". Similarly, I think that if the first two subsections of "Artistic career" have date ranges ("1930s" and "First exhibitions and the 1940s") then the following two should also have date ranges to make it easier to navigate ("Mid-career" and "Later career and life"). And images, while not crucial, are still very important and there were only 2 reproductions of works in the entire article when I first read it; perhaps there was a dearth of images years ago, but now many images are available on Wikimedia Commons (I added a few works to the article myself). This kind of stuff is why reassessing is important.

As for citing personal papers is not in any way WP:OR, in general, sure, but primary materials should also not be used so heavily as to constitute the second most cited source. Regarding other books may contain extra information, I am not quite what you mean because I was referring to the article's scope and encyclopedic quality, rather than adding extraneous stuff. For a major American artist like Nevelson, where a lot of secondary literature is available, balancing the bibliography to reflect important art historical research will improve its scope (Harriet F. Senie, for example, who wrote extensively on Nevelson's public art, is not mentioned once; given that public sculpture was crucial to Nevelson's career writ large, that's far from extra information). And while there are some excellent sources in this article, including journal articles, there are also some that hardly meet WP:RS (theartstory.org, artcyclopedia.com, artnet.com, philart.net) and the citation style is inconsistent. Moreover, prose could definitely be improved for language precision and clarity.

I've begun editing the article earlier today, but the extent of edits felt like it warranted others to join in and help through GAR. (I even created Louise Nevelson Plaza from scratch so as not to sit idly.) Fortunately or not, this happens to be my field, so perhaps I am more receptive to certain issues, but I think that a lot of 20th-century art coverage on WP:VISUALARTS needs serious work and that can only be achieved by working together. The fact that MoMA now uses en-wiki articles for numerous artists descriptions (Nevelson has her own museum entry on the website, but that's not the norm) goes to show how important this content is.

Of course, you are welcome to disagree with my reservations, as long as you think that benefits the quality of the article. I would love to do some good teamwork here, but I am not really looking to win an argument. Ppt91 ^talk 03:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I have not once argued that this GA should be immediately delisted" yes you did, you nominated it here, with numerous points addressing the GA criteria. Per WP:GAR: 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. If you wish to change the section headings to include date ranges, there is nothing stopping you from doing so: I have just done so myself, and the article's organisation remains the same. Do you feel that the lack of sources such as Senie significantly compromises the article's broadness (criterion 3 of WP:GACR): Broad in its coverage; addresses the main aspects of the topic (significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles, allowing for shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.) ?

As you have done some work on it, this GAR will be kept open for two weeks from your (or anyone else's) last improvement to the article, or your last post here; I'm not a subject expert, so I cannot contribute beyond superficial issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. And no, I had no intentions of delisting it immediately. Frankly, I am often loath to use these "official" channels for improving articles because they can easily lead to charged exchanges and miscommunication. It feels like there is no in-between route for productive teamwork improvement; if I post at peer review or start a talk page thread, it might go unnoticed for weeks if it's picked up at all; if I go through the reassessment route, then it can easily turn into an extended back-and-forth regarding the article's merit (which I have not questioned once).

In any case, thank you for taking the time to edit the section titles. I do think Senie's scholarship is central here and will try to include it in the near future. Another author who has done a tremendous amount of work on Nevelson recently is Julia Bryan-Wilson. In addition to articles ("Keeping House with Louise Nevelson", Oxford Art Journal, 2017), she has just released a multi-volume book reassessing the artist's oeuvre https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300236705/louise-nevelsons-sculpture/. As soon as I can get my hands on a copy, I'll also add it.

My RL schedule is unfortunately pretty packed in the coming weeks, so I am not sure when I will have the time to put in all the work. If anyone else would like to jump in the meantime, especially with the Oxford Art Journal content or Senie's scholarship (which I rely on extensively in the Louise Nevelson Plaza article), that would be great. Thanks again and I am glad to see the article improve already. That has been my goal all along. Ppt91 ^talk 17:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping you again at the start of May, if you haven't been able to improve the article at all by then. Thanks ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a well-organized, well-written, and properly-cited article. Having a biography article centred on a 'Life and career' chapter seems perfectly fine, specially when supplemented by a detailed 'Style and works' chapter. I've formatted Rapaport 2007 and linked it, certainly an improvement, but not mandatory for GA status. I don't see the usage of Rapaport as excessive: there are many other good sources in use in the article, and it's a reasonable choice as a foundation. The images issue has been fixed. The use of primary materials seems entirely apposite, and does not present any sort of 'original research' issue: that would occur only if an editor drew personal conclusions from quotations. The reference section easily meets the GA criteria. As others have commented already, the prose seems absolutely fine, I don't find anything "convoluted" about it. I've added Bryan-Wilson 2023; it seems it's actually yet to appear on the shelves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mount Kenya

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

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

Result: No improvements. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2009 promotion with sourcing issues (reliance on unreliable/out of date sources, significant unsourced material, lacking page numbers) and weird layout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flag of Indiana

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

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

Result: Reliance on primary sources means criterion 2 is not satisfied. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Has been tagged for needing additional citations for verification and an over reliance on primary sources. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fort Pasir Panjang

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

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

Result: General consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Has been tagged for needing additional citations since September 2022. Especially since sections like the first paragraph of defenses and aftermath have no sources cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Poor structure that relies on the (too short) lede for the first section to make much sense, thirteen instances of missing citations, no infobox for no obvious reason, and mediocre sourcing/referencing at best. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – not only is the source poor, as mentioned, but the quality of the writing is also well below what I would expect for a GA. The first sentence of the body is as good an example as any: "Labrador was named after Labrador Bay which it overlooks the deep and calm water off its shores." What? This would need a complete rewrite with sources. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist sadly, needs some restructuring and re-sourcing, which is a significant body of work. CMD (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battle of Baia

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

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

Result: Clear consensus to delist based on missing citations and poor quality of sources. It has also been alleged that the article is biased, which would be a fail on the neutrality criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With multiple CN tags and most of the sourcing before from the 1400s, I don't see how this meets the sourcing requirement of the modern GA standards. Primary author was indeffed in '07 for "Racism, hatespeech" so I don't think we're going to get any help from that front. Hog Farm _Talk 21:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Poor and ancient sources plus missing citations do not a GA make. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: The article is quite biased. It does not present the Hungarian viewpoint only the Romanian one. Many times it also rewritten "decisive Moldavian victory", which is nonsense, because it is not "a decisive victory" when the Hungarian army move back home after the battle, morover the king was wounded, the Moldavian army did not pursuit the Hungarian one, and when Matthias was in Transylvania he got begging letter from Stephen according to contemporary sources, and Stephen became his vassal. At least 6 contemporary Hungarian sources (what I know) from the court of King Matthias claim that the battle was Hungarian victory and the attacker Moldavians were killed and fleed (I presented quotes from original sources in the talk page above). Hungarian historiopraphy claim many things depend on historians: it was Hungarian victory, Stephen's propaganda boosted with "victory of Moldavians", it was a draw, etc, none of them presented in the article. It is also biased that the article use image from a Hungarian chronicle which say it was Hungarian victory, which means using image from the book is ok but using the content is not ok, strange. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reckless (Bryan Adams album)

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

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

Result: Delisted. 7 days have expired, no active work to improve the article to GA standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An old 2011 GA that is in drastic need of improving, from unreliable sources, poor prose, inconsistent sources, etc. It might be salvageable. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Red Auerbach

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

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

Result: Delisted. 7 days have expired, no active work to improve the article to GA standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. There's some uncited material and the legacy section is a mess. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out this edit among other unreferenced additions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tree That Owns Itself

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

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

Result: Delisted. 7 days have expired, no active work to improve the article to GA standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. Main problem is the lack of citations in many areas that have tagged with citation needed tags. Also has some page needed and full citation needed tags. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With much sadness for such an interesting article, delist. This would need major work to maintain GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aquaporin

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

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

Result: Kept; issues resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2017 interestingly enough. there's refimprove tags for NPA motif and ar/R selectivity filter sections, there's also some uncited areas and some other tags like who?, original research, and clarification needed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've looked over the paper and there's actually very little wrong with it. It is richly cited, and the basic facts are covered (I see) by many of the research papers cited, some of which are review articles summarizing much earlier research. The tags were mostly very minor (fixed now); there were a couple of uncited chunks which I've removed. I've also stripped out an unnecessary image and expanded one or two citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've also reached out to a few academics on the topic who might be able to provide some feedback and ideas for general improvement (either directly here, or via emailing me). I realise external comments aren't standard for the GAR process, but I thought I'd see if it could be a useful addition to the editors who frequent WP:MolBio. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Onion dome

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

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

Result: Delisted. No active work to improve, unanimous agreement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An older GA that contains significant uncited text, including material such as " It has been posited that onion domes first appeared in Russia" and material attributed to specific writers that certainly need direct citations. Hog Farm _Talk 14:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, it's very far from GA, with a dozen of maintenance templates. Artem.G (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist the article is filled with maintenance tags, poorly formatted with a very confusing and arbitrary structure, missing content in several sections. It likely needs to be completely rewritten and is not salvageable in its current state. Ppt91 ^talk 21:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gene Robinson

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

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

Result: Delist. A week has expired with no work or interest in fixing it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Has been tagged for needing additional citations and for possibly using unreliable sources. Also, the article might need some updates. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Newport News, Virginia

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

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

Result: Delist. A week has expired with no work or interest in fixing it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. There's quite of unsourced material including the neighborhoods section having no sources while the article also needs quite a lot of updates. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pennsylvania Railroad 4876

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

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

Result: Delist. Seven days have passed with no fixes or interest expressed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 GA, with a drive-by pass for a review. Two citation needed tags for large portions of paragraphs lacking citations, and an additional paragraph also lacking sourcing. I've identified two more recent news articles that discuss the locomotive in detail which are not cited and should be considered [8] [9]. Overall, I think this article is salvageable, but it does need some work. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peggy Rockman Napaljarri

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

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

Result: Delist. Seven days have passed with no fixes or interest expressed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 13 years since this article was listed as GA. It does not meet criterion 6 in particular. It also may not be current, and does not reflect her career since 2010. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

David L. Cook

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

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

Result: No improvements made, fails criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad sourcing from both a GA and BLP perspective. Neither of the sources in the death rumors section actually mentions rumors of Cook's death, there's uncited material, and large chunks of the article related to Cook's business dealings are sourced to primary sources from those organizations. Needs substantial work. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist unless someone steps forward to fix it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battle of Lade

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

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

Result: Speedy delist due to overwhelming consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massive citation issues (reliability of sources, lack of inline citations, reliance on one source). Fails criterion 2 any day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The article is a paraphrase of Herodotus. T8612 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Concurred with T8612. Ifly6 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy reliance on single primary source. The initial History section lacks any citation. Can't see it still meets modern GA standard . Monstrelet (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the sourcing questions – both the overreliance on direct citations to Herodotus, and some uncited claims which really need referencing – the lead is surely far too short to meet criterion 1b. By far the main editor, MinisterForBadTimes, hasn't edited wikipedia in nearly a decade, so unless someone else picks this up for rescuing I suspect it'll need delisting. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Large chunks of unsourced content and a commendable effort to be entirely made up of one primary source. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - not close to the modern standards for GA. Hog Farm _Talk 18:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I-35W Mississippi River bridge

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

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

Result: No significant improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was flagged by @Real4jyy: for reassessment on April 20, and from a quick readthrough GAR is definitely needed. This is a 2007 promotion [10] that was not thoroughly reviewed at the time. There are a copious amount of maintenance tags in this article: citations needed, failed verification, non-primary source needed, etc. I see some unsourced sentences that haven't been directly tagged as well. Significant work would be needed to save this GA. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist , unless someone volunteers to work on the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Southworth Library (Dartmouth, Massachusetts)

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

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

Result: No improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Below points are taken from the note [11] I left on the reviewer's talk page (they have not been active since March) before I went ahead with reassessment. Their overall reviewing style is very concerning and the editor has virtually no experience in content creating (less than 500 edits overall, 68 edits in mainspace, and no single article created) yet they took on multiple GARs, all of which were hastily performed. One of them was recently delisted. They have not responded and this article is in clear need of reassessment:

passed while leaving "(b) (citations to reliable sources)" box "Undetermined"; leaving that box unchecked is unacceptable, especially without any more feedback
relies largely on one article from Dartmouth Week Today, a local newspaper that seems like a helpful reference but I have serious reservations about using it as a primary a source on which to base an entire article; that is something the reviewer should have raised during the review but they let it pass without even resolving it
gaps in content, especially regarding the building's history during the 20th century
very short MOS:LEAD which does not sufficiently summarize the content
the structure of the article should be improved per MOS:LAYOUT; reviewer offered no guidance regarding formatting ("Public Usage" section is a list of sentences while "At the Dartmouth Cultural Center" just sounds awkward)
at least one important source link is not working (Footnote 4, an MA thesis with a wealth of information and sources on the subject)
at least one WP:REFBOMB was left unaddressed; multiple other MoS issues (m-dashes, insufficient links etc.) Ppt91 ^talk 21:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joseph Dart

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

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

Result: With no remaining objections, I find a consensus that this article has been improved sufficiently to retain its GA status. Thanks to all who participated. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:DCGAR, I am submitting this article for a reassessment so that it can be further scrutinised to avoid the automatic delisting. I originally did the GA review and have made a number of changes recently to reassess citations and explicitly verify that the prose is accurate, correct and not violating copyright (this remains ongoing). I have already replaced some unobtainable book citations, either with those I could verify or alternate online sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:46, February 16, 2023 (UTC)

Bungle please ping me when you have finished your cleanup effort, and I will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I will (and thanks for signing for me, I wasn't aware the script did not do this automatically!) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bungle I see you progess has stalled; update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I have been making some notes on other bits (as I am not one for bit-edits), but also got distracted by an IP editor asking me on my talk page to develop numerous articles! That said, I wasn't aware we were on a specific time limit? You're more than welcome to check over the bits I have already scrutinised though, this doesn't necessarily have to wait until I have assessed the final sentence. If you identify any significant concerns on the earlier parts of the article, that may give pause to the whole thing, but if not, i'm happy to push on still. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No concern; just checking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no deadline on this - I'm just checking through open GARs, there's no copyvio I found, so take your time. In terms of text, it seems fine, even if it could be cleaned up a little, It'll be on the verification of the sourcing that is currently there. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and get the remainder of the prose done over the next few days (that being, individual verification) so at least then it can be considered as to whether it can remain under the current designation. I am mindful as to the reason these GARs were raised and that we aren't needing to look at a WP:TNT situation or otherwise a total blitz - it's essentially just ensuring the expressed concerns relating to articles by DC in general don't exist.

From what I have done so far, nothing alarming is standing out to me and much of what I couldn't verify with the offered sources I could from elsewhere (and the few things I couldn't were of relatively insignificant value anyway). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about failed verification, and source-to-text integrity with DC content; copyvio of all sources has to be evaluated. Do you have access to Mingus? If not, all of that content needs to be WP:PDEL'd. The first source I checked (Smith p. 215) is closely paraphrased. While it may be public domain, we still have to get it right. Misrepresentation of source: "An example given by one report is of the schooner John B Skinner,". ... one report, unless I am reading the source wrong, is Dart's report, so that is misleading. This is not grammatical: He was the first person to make the application of elevating grain out of transporting ships using mechanical power and has since become the system for unloading freighters throughout the world. And it doesn't seem supported by the source. And, sourcing a statement about since throughout the world to 1879 is just wrong. So far, from what I'm seeing, this is a delist with the same problems as the others, and I haven't even started on copyvio checking other than the first Smith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: You are of course very welcome to offer feedback during and after I have made various amendments. Whether it results in the status being retained or not, it'll still (hopefully) be improved further than beforehand (so either way, the process is beneficial). Mingus source is available as free page previews in google books, which I have been able to view without any special access. I don't think there are serious concerns over close paraphrase of PD sources, and where this is verbatim or close, we can note this appropriately (I think that's a fairly standard process). Of course there are some parts I haven't looked at again yet, and others I plan to take another look at (as you rightly point out, the note on the schooner sentence being attributed to the subject themself is reasonable and should be stated as such). Kindly reserve making an absolute judgement until I have at least made an effort to look at every element, but please don't refrain from helpful suggestions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; ping me when you're ready for a new look. I peeked today because your March 10 post poked my watchlist. It sounded like you were down to prose fine tuning, so I thought it time to check, and wanted to note there is much more than prose fine-tuning still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am too far out on this now. I have pretty much gone through all the prose and verified the statements, while in large parts, I have entirely rewritten paragraphs and sections. All sources, even those so called "offline", I have been able to access freely and of the 4 book sources, one is PD-old and the other 3 have free pageviews via google books relevant to the pages cited. Others I have removed and replaced with open alternatives. I have worked on trying to re-paraphrase parts too, though many of the sources, particularly from newspapers already predate 1928 and thus would not have copyright restrictions attached (none the less, prose has not been copied verbatim). Earwig checker is pretty much clear, it's only flag being related to the direct quotation of the subject's own reflection, which is quoted and cited accordingly.

I think I can still do another read-over and possibly reword and reconsider a handful of parts here and there, but nothing substantial. I did have some concerns that the article was perhaps disproportionally representing the concept for which an article already exists, so I have tried to bring some focus back to the subject. Authorship stands at over 50% myself and 43.7% DC, although this should not be referred to as an indicator, particularly as I think this includes infobox, ref, cats etc for the latter. WWT shows in large parts my own amendments. Hence at this time i'd welcome feedback or expressions on anything that stands out as being particularly problematic, assuming it's not catastrophic. I am broadly hopeful that the article will largely be judged on the merits associated with one being judged "good", without excessive emphasis on its original primary contributor (understanding that the degree of scrutiny expected will no doubt be higher than a typical GAR). At the very least, I hope I have done enough to secure the article's safety from pre-emptive copyvio concern deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and Lee Vilenski: Does this now need to posted somewhere so others are aware it should be reassessed? Who ultimately, given the circumstances, will take a lead on that and indeed the ultimate decision? Have these processes already been agreed upon? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way GAR works is that if you are satisfied that the issues brought up that started the GAR are now resolved and that the article still meets the GA criteria, you can close and retain the article at any time. We do now have co-ordinators for this process, of which I am one, so if you are unsure, I can take another look through and see if there is anything additional that requires a look.

Realistically, we are looking to be convinced that plagerism (both direct copying from source and close paraphrasing) and that the info being cited is actually based on info in the cited claims (IE Verficiation). Traditionally the GA process has been quite loose on looking these pieces up, but with the claims about DC in tow, we need to make sure that this article meets both of those items before retaining. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the quick response. I think given the backdrop of the circumstances resulting in the need to open a GAR in the first place, it would be inappropriate for me to self-close without someone uninvolved also concurring with that outcome. Therefore I think it's best someone takes a look over to make that decision. The vast majority of citations here are all in public domain, so while I have made efforts to remove and not reintroduce any close paraphrasing, if anything of this concern is raised relating to a PD source, it shouldn't be a major concern to address or acknowledge in some way. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

~~Delist and send to WP:CP.~~

Struck, no longer in WP:CP territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How has the content cited to Baxter been checked (that is a dead link)? The world's largest grain shipping port is begging for verification.
That can be found in Mingus, page 15, but there are appearances that Mingus may have taken content from Wikipedia.

And looking back in the article's history we find that exact wording comes from ... ta da ... a non-reliable source. That's a copy-paste and, worse, a claim whose veracity needs to be verified as it has spread via Wikipedia to other publications based on a very poor source.
Content from Mingus (2021), appears too closely paraphrased and mimics structure, but looking back in the article history, one finds that content originally came from Malloy (2011)) (DC frequently changed citations without altering the text). Who had this content first? DC added text mimicing Mingus in 2021, which was when Mingus was published. Regardless, Wikipedia might move further away from Mingus wording, ~~perhaps by re-using Malloy.~~
It appears that Malloy might be a hobbyist blog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to review further, but this is bad enough. This article has the usual source-to-text integrity problems found in DC work, copy-paste from non-reliable sources, and that's after looking at only two passages of text from two sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I'll need to analyse your concerns when I have a little more time over the next few days, though i'd note that the baxter source was available up until very recently (certainly within the period of this being edited), while the mingus source is published with an actual publishing company, so under typical circumstances is not expected to be unreliable. The reliance on the sources you point out is minimal at best and much of the content has archive newspapers, or a pre-1927 book in one case. I'll have to look deeper into your concerns but I am not thinking this alone is catastrophic to the point of not being salvageable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be catastrophic (yet), but it's an indication that the usual DC content and issues persist, and that everything else has to be checked thoroughly, with the usual application of WP:PDEL (I did not go further after finding these two). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: To address this head on may be best I think, especially as I don't think it takes into account the bigger picture.

Firstly, the baxter source seems to be online and accessible again (in full, as before) which directly verifies the claim you observe. This book was published in 1980, so while it's totally reasonable for a later book to publish the same fact/statistic, I don't think there is a concern around circular referencing (if that's what you were getting at, but I am unsure, so sorry if that was misinterpreted).
Secondly, I don't concur with a concern around close paraphrasing, as I have made efforts to rephrase many elements of this article, even where I didn't necessarily think it was an issue in its former state. There are only so many different ways you can phrase the same thing while ensuring integrity of the original source material, otherwise you risk introducing original elements from personal interpretation. Earwig is not detecting concerns on this article from that perspective and there is very little block text untouched from DC's original contributions. Other elements were added during the last GA review.
Thirdly, you express concerns around the Malloy source. The reliance of prose on this source, as I previously noted, is very minimal and most of that text is inconsequential as to whether it's included or not. That said, I do actually accept that [if we consider what represents] a reliable source, I can't say absolutely that I would vouch for it unquestionably. Perhaps the prose that would benefit from an additional, or replacement citation is the 2nd sentence in the Legacy section, and I am happy to revisit that and either replace citations or reconsider the structure of this prose. If that specifically is a concern, then I accept it can be looked at again.

I do observe from another GAR that you openly express your lack of experience when it comes to GA reviews. I actually don't have an issue with this, if you're at least coming in to the discussion with an open mind and not with a mindset that anything DC touched is unrecoverable. A typical GA may have many suggestions for improvements, or expressions of concern that could benefit from being addressed to satisfy a reviewer's criteria for assigning GA, but a quick fail, as it seems you suggested above, is reserved only for the most catastrophic of articles, or those where significant rewriting remains necessary. My focus on wikipedia is, and always has been, content creation and I am looking at this article not strictly as a DC salvage, but as an interesting subject who's achievements and legacy are deserving of a quality article. If you're happy to collaborate in achieving that goal, then that's great. I'd certainly take on board suggestions for further improvement, as very few articles could ever be considered finished. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not helping my frame of mind that you persist in mentioning Earwig, which does not detect DC isues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting it should be used exclusively to detect copyvio related concerns, but even in a scenario where prose was direct-copied from one source and cited to another, earwig would still be capable of returning the source it came from (admittedly, it's not a perfect solution, but can at least offer an easier interface for assessing concerns around paraphrasing). I really don't have an issue if you express concerns or elements that need further improvement or reassessment, as long as it's fair and proportionate. As I have previously noted, a considerable proportion of source material is historic and so we shouldn't really be in a situation where copyvio is an alarming concern, or at least not to the point of needing to WP:TNT (which is why I took this on, unlike other articles). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in: I've done a single random spot check. Our text says, ~~"They lived on Swan, South Division and Erie Streets successively, when each was in it's heyday."~~ "They had successive residences on Swan Street, South Division Street and Erie Street during their heydey" [edit: struck c/p error]. The source's text says, "They lived on Swan, South Division and Erie Streets successively, when each was in it's heyday." Also, the source is a blog. How is it RS? Victoria (tk) 17:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Not only that, this article is plagiarizing a non-RS:

Article: Within fifteen years of construction, Buffalo had become the world's largest grain shipping port with ten elevators, surpassing cities such as London in England and Rotterdam in Holland.[11]
Buffalohistory: Less than fifteen years after Joseph Dart's invention of the grain elevator, Buffalo had become the world's largest grain port, surpassing Odessa, Russia; London, England; and Rotterdam, Holland.

I think our work here is done; it just doesn't seem like Bungle is addressing the issues as they are raised, and the walls of text are tiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: That isn't the article's text. However, I already noted above that much prose attributed to this source is inconsequential. We can remove the line entirely if necessary, but it's not verbatim, despite your claim.

@SandyGeorgia: That statistic is from the 1980 baxter source, page 2. I feel you are willing this article to fail, which is the complete opposite of what we, as volunteer contributors, should be striving to achieve. I have acknowledged that various parts can be revisited and even accept your concerns on the Malloy source in point 3. May I suggest, with respect, that perhaps just take a step back and return with a different mindset. I am disappointed you discount my response to you as a "wall of text". I am simply trying to acknowledge everything you expressed. I think, best pause here for a bit, reconvene in a few days perhaps. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, made a copy/paste error, fixed in in this edit. Victoria (tk) 19:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've said a couple of times that you can ping me when the article is ready for a new review. And yet it still uses non-RS; and to the best of my knowledge, RS are required on all Wikipedia articles. Feel free to ping me again to re-evaluate when the article is clean of copyvio and uses RS. (I can't help but notice that in all the time one spends attempting to clean a DC article, an editor could write five new GAs, but it's your time to spend :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just ask that we don't lose sight of why we're here, and I accept this article is not free of fault (despite continued efforts). I will, whether you agree or not, consider your views (I thought my bullet-pointed response, where I even express intentions to make further amendments, was the best way to demonstrate that, but clearly not). So, while I was surprised to see that you didn't think I was acknowledging your opinion, I still hope the ultimate aim of building an encyclopedia remains the collective objective (FWIW, yes, I can hear you, and I see the efforts you have gone to, and continue to do, with the whole WP:DCGAR situation, I just opted to put my efforts into trying to address a tiny part of it). Aside, I think I badly worded part of point 3, and can see how it sounds unlike what I meant, so i'll fix that now! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five days after my last entry here, I have removed the non-RS because, more importantly, WP:ELNO. Also, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I was going to note this citation as part of a wider analysis, when I updated the GAR. You may observe I appended a better citation to the end of the sentence, however the source in question shows the stone marker and thus, the only thing this was verifying is that - there shouldn't be the usual WP:RS concerns as that citation wasn't being used to cite prose. I think sometimes, we can use common sense when deciding if a citation is useful or a concern or not. I hadn't actually updated the GAR yet to flag this (it can be removed, as it adds very little), however like always, ongoing feedback is welcome. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you noticed my edit summary and comment above? Per WP:ELNO, we should never link to a website that hosts copyright violations. This overrules any other logic, regardless of what it was citing. You also shouldn't write the citation to a different source when you're actually citing buffaloah.com. If you have the actual original citation, (re SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), that's another matter ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, WP:ELNEVER is the correct link (my apologies for the confusion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who originally added it, so admittedly, I wasn't actually aware of the latter part of your statement (different source) or the copyvio nature of the source? This is largely academic though as it's insignificant to the wider article and you saved me having to flag it as a query, your view of which I am not opposing (I was just offering you my train of thought). This is why I found a better citation for where he is buried, as I wasn't fully convinced the buffalonoah source was great (so I guess we somewhat agree on that). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But if you can find the LaChiusa (original) source, you could use it ... anyway, sounds like it is resolved now.

I have not checked for close paraphrasing or need to attribute on any of the public domain sources; has someone done that, and what remains to be done here ? (I admit to being confused by your work pace :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am dipping in and out of this, as exclusively focussing on this article would be a little exhausting, given the extent of how much is being scrutinised. As for your other question, I am not aware anyone has expressed that they have cross-checked anything else specifically, although I don't know who else is watching/following this either. Besides the directly quoted material, which is minimal, nothing else is verbatim, though I am mindful that the definition of what is considered "close paraphrase" can differ. We don't want to use Template:PD-old-text excessively, but I need to consider if it's necessary on any. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it sounds like you are slowly chipping away at checking that aspect ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps, in order to get the SandyGeorgia GAR seal of approval (which I think, without intentionally bigging you up too much, carries weight), it may benefit from an additional prose assessment against the (mostly PD sources) to determine if it's the best paraphrasing choice, or if PD attribution is required on any. I don't think we have any clear issues around WP:V at least. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who else is watching (hopefully someone who knows GA standards), but my interest is in seeing this move along so it can be off my To-Do list :)

To that end, I picked two sources (only) to spotcheck: citations 8 and 9 in this version, as they were each cited several times.

With 8, it is entirely possible that I am just having too much difficulty trying to decipher the newspaper.com clipping, but I could not see where the source verified most of the text, and I did remove some info that was borderline trivia. I thought it was perhaps the wrong citation?

With 9:

source: In the year 1861, Mr. Ovingtoin withdrew, and the business has since been conducted under the firm name of Dart & Bro.
article: Ovington withdrew in 1861, after which the business was known as Dart & Bro.
source: Up to within a week the deceased had enjoyed very good health and had retained in a marked' degree the Vigor and the power of his mental faculties. He spent the greater part of the past year in visiting friends and relatives in the East ...
article: Up to a week prior to his death, he had been described as being in "very good health" and had spent most of the year visiting friends in the east of the country.

Not so dreadful I would tag it for copyright issues, but less than optimal-- a pd-old-text would solve it, but it seems like more review is needed. I'm not the one to review for prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is, unless it's verbatim or practically so, then if it's a public domain source, additionally specified PD-attribution is usually deemed unnecessary? I guess this is very much a point of view issue as to whether it's too closely paraphrased. You could say "Ovington pulled out.." and "Within the week prior.." but it's all fairly trivial stuff.

As for the verification, well, the matter surrounding the Buffalo History Museum et al seems fairly clear to me on the citation offered (2nd column, quarter way down), however I concur that the aspect of being financed is not conveyed in that article, yet, through what feels like a thorough biographical research on this individual, I was sure I had read something that concurred with that, so i'll try and find it.

I don't know if you ever partake in FAC discussions, but if not, I think you'd do very well, for sure, in picking out imperfections and source-to-prose integrity. I mean, this article could be FAC quality if it gets through GAR(!) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time deciphering where the tongue-in-cheek part starts ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have another run-through of this at the weekend, as I can't easily put my eyes on an article supporting Dart financing construction. What I can see is this implied numerous times, but my concern is that citations implying this and the article stating it as so is into WP:OR territory. The amendment to the prose is reasonable enough to moot that. This is afterall a GAR and that means there is no absolutely expectation of featured-quality prose. I will none the less reassess over the weekend, but I think the article should, soon, be judged against the typical GA criteria and the core concerns raised through WP:DCGAR. I reaffirm my hope this can retain a GA allocation, and even if not, is considerably improved. I extend acknowledgement to SandyGeoriga for continued perseverance and identifying matters of concern. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: What are your thoughts on the article's status at this point? Courtesy ping to @SandyGeorgia: as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: I am still meaning to give it another cursory look over, but besides removing a tag SG added that I responded to above, I am at the stage where I think that we need to decide if the GAR can be closed as retain or delist. Unless there are serious issues remaining that can't easily/quickly be resolved, then I wouldn't expect a delist, given the extent of improvements that have been made, but I obviously cannot make that call given my involvement. As with almost any article, there will be prose, grammar, phrasing etc that can always be improved upon, though we should be mindful this is not a WP:FAC. I'd like to put my focus onto other things now so i'd hope a decision is made one way or another. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. From a quick glance, the article appears to be in much better shape. I see one failed verification tag. I am generally satisfied the sources are of sufficient quality and I don't see any uncited text. If we can't resolve the failed verification tag, we could just comment out the sentence and then I'd personally be comfortable closing as a keep, unless Sandy has any objections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is what I referred to in my last comment and I also responded to the matter further up, but I was hoping SandyGeorgia would acknowledge this and opt to revert if in agreement that the source material supported that particular claim. The GAR has been open for a considerable period now and I think it's in everyone's interests to wrap it up at the earliest opportunity. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an exhausting review, with some unnecessary back and forth (I still don't know where the tongue-in-cheek stops and starts). Bungle, back and forth references to earlier whatever are very hard to follow. What is the statement in question, and then please requote here precisely how it is supported by the source. That is how you can resolve this. Whether in a GA, FA or any other kind of review, or even in routine editing, when a source is questioned, the way to resolve it is to say the article says X, and the source says Y.

Trainsandotherthings to answer your question, it would concern me if this GAR were to be closed without any independent GA reviewer looking in here at all of the issues of concern in DC GAs, specifically:

Is the prose adequate for GA level ?
Are all claims supported by sources ?
Have all copyright issues been addressed, and is PD attribution needed anywhere? (Bungle seems to think not, so an experienced eye on attribution might be needed.)

It's troubling that no GA reviewer has looked in here, I am not a GA person, I seem to be the only editor opining on the review, and I don't pretend to understand the GA standards (because based on experience and what I've seen of all DC content, they are the equivalent of no standard at all, so I don't know if this article's prose passes or not, but I do know that another person needs to evaluate for copyright issues before the GA is kept). EEng might you have a glance here, as no one else is ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I just took a look at the failed verification tag. It's on He helped establish the Buffalo Water Works and was a founding member of the Buffalo Seminary, as well as a member of the Buffalo Historical Society.[failed verification][8] So fn 8 is to this Buffalo Sunday Times piece. To me, the first full paragraph in the second column of that piece supports all three of these points. Note that "projector" has a meaning of "one that plans a project" and that the Buffalo Seminary was originally called the Buffalo Female Academy. So what is unverified? Wasted Time R (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, WTR. As you can see from my edit summary, I had a very hard time reading that source.

Article: He helped establish the Buffalo Water Works and was a founding member of the Buffalo Seminary, as well as a member of the Buffalo Historical Society.
Source: he was one of the projectors of the Buffalo Water Works ... a founder of the Buffalo Female Academy

Your explanation covers it all. I hope that someone is going to engage to do an actual GA review and verify that copyvio has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started to take a look too, and I'm afraid I immediately found a problem I pointed out before (over at Dart's Elevator, perhaps?), to wit the claim that his was the first mechanized elevator needs a better source. There's no way that the Buffalo Morning Express in 1879 can possibly have known that no power elevator had already been built in Finland or something. A claim like that needs a modern, scholarly source with the wherewithal to make such a determination. Typical DC misuse of sources. I'm afraid I stopped looking at that point -- I've got bigger fish to fry over at Talk:Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant. E Eng 04:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While not irrelevant, I'm concerned that questioning the integrity of reliable sources used shifts from what is expected of a GA. While we can rephrase to say "believed to be among the first.." or "at the time was believed to be.." but is it outside of the GA scope to verify the validity of what a newspaper at the time published? I don't mind rephrasing this, but like SandyGeorgia above said, it's been quite an exhausting reassessment and if we're going to start to scrutinise the integrity of what the historic source material published, that may be outside of the GAR scope and I don't know if anyone has the energy for that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if what you're saying represents the standard that been applied to these reviews, then a lot of effort's been wasted. Verifiability is the bedrock of WP, and that requires validating that sources are reliable. And no source is 100% always reliable for everything, or 100% never reliable for anything, rather the reliability of each source must be judged in light of the assertion for which its being used in a particular case. In this case, as I've already said, there's no way that a local newspaper in 1879 can conceivably know what it purports to know; it's local boosterism. If the statement's true, then there will be modern comprehensive sources on the history of worldwide commerce saying so. Without that best the article can say is "The Buffalo Morning Express claimed at the time that ..." And I'm afraid the Buffalo News from 1980 is hardly any better -- again, how is a local newspaper able to exclude the possibility of a prior mechanized elevator everywhere in the world in 1879? I'm serious about this. This is exactly the kind of source misuse that DC indulged in to get us all into this mess. E Eng 12:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That standard has not been applied to any other DC work and it is these kinds of statements that have made this review so exhausting ... we have work from an editor that has been shown to be deficient in so many ways being defended on this GAR, and that has resulted in confusion to me about just what the purpose and standards at GA are ... I would understand if we were talking about B-class, maybe ... and we are well beyond the point of this not being worth the effort expended. I don't know who else might be asked to look at this article, but again, if this is the level of what is accepted as GA, I don't know what GA is about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone is quite exhausted with this and if we're now going to pick over and scrutinise the integrity and reliability of historic sources, I just don't think it's worth that effort. I think my point was that I do not know whether the GA standard requires this level of source scrutiny to the point of assuming doubt first... I typically don't witness it. The claim in question can be considered if googling "first powered grain elevator in the world" and while books also seem to concur, I have not the energy or inclination for this backwards-and-forwards approach.

Unless there is someone willing to take a look over this as an article, and not the odd statement, then it seems to me there isn't an appetite to keep the listing as-is, which is a shame. It's at least vastly improved and I do want to extend acknowledgement to SandyGeorgia for their time too. I think this needs to be wrapped one way or another. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For EEng, I don't believe the other three that passed GAR have similar issues, and outside of WP:DCGAR we have still James Hood Wright at GAR (all reviewers acknowledge the familiar issues and Mackensen is at work), and Ramsdell Theatre passed GAR, with its "famous first" verified in James Earl Jones's own words. That is, all (five) that have been salvaged have been or will be mostly rewritten, and the ridiculous "famous firsts" dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth you do real reviews; might you look at the concerns here ? I realize you are quite busy with That Other Big Deal That DOES Matter, but hopefully this won't take too much of your time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the page here ... and it looks like the disupte is whether or not the use of the local Buffalo newspaper's reporting is enough to establish that Dart's elevator was the first powered elevator ever? If that's the dispute, then I would say that a local newspaper's statement isn't enough to make such a statement. Especially not a 1879 newspaper article - newspapers in that time period need careful evaluation before being used as sources - which is what historians do. This is why we rely on secondary sources for statements - the historians are trained to evaluate primary sources and figure out whether or not their statements are backed up .... so such a statement in Wikipedia would need a secondary source (which the 1980s newspaper account is not) to state that Dart's elevator was the first powered elevator ever. (And yes, Trains, I know I still need to get back to the GA review... but the weather needs to behave around here... I'm fighting a balky sump pump in the middle of spring snowmelt when we got 17" of snow and 1" of rain ... thank goodness I have a supplmentary pump!) Ealdgyth (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are more contemporary sources regarding Dart's Elevator. For example, page 111 of William Cronon's acclaimed Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (1991), which says that it was the first steam-powered grain elevator in America and is one of the most unsung inventions in American agricultural history. It doesn't explicitly address the rest of the world, and the two footnotes on that paragraph are also America-focused. I don't know if any scholar has done the deep dive into agricultural transport and storage technology in 19th century Finland that EEng is looking for :- ) Wasted Time R (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of wording and better sourcing is one of the ways the other articles have mitigated the DC "first facts" effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed the kind of sourcing I had in mind. I'm changing the article to simply state what we have an RS for: first in America.

A well-deserved shout-out to SandyG for staying with this depressing task for so long. I don't know why we're spending so much time trying to salvage a few isolated glints of GA brass buried in a mountain of DC slag and dogshit. We should have summarily delisted, and in many cases deleted, all these articles long ago. E Eng 20:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Moss/Eisenstadt book, p234 states, "In 1842 Joseph Dart and Robert Dunbar introduced the world's first steam-powered elevator for unloading and storing grain", but if that isn't considered reliable enough for that statement, then stick with country-specific. I'm quite exhausted with this now so hope we can conclude this soon. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While publication by Syracuse U helpful, I wouldn't accept a nonspecialist tertiary source for a statement about 19th-c industrial developments worldwide. E Eng 20:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has any third party yet looked at the old PD sources to make sure we are OK on PD-attribution? I find most of them near impossible to read ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 I am removing the collapses here as today's editing of this article has seen the very non-reliable sources discussed in the collapsed content being re-introduced. @GAR coordinators: I will put a separate note on that editor's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I feel the @GAR coordinators: coords should make the decision here—we're coming up to three months open, and discussion here and improvement on the article appears to have stalled—so a collective decision from on high would be ideal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by 7&6's changes to the article, which we need to evaluate. Notwithstanding those changes I was leaning towards a keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes introduced two self-publisher book sources; I've removed them and any text that they uniquely supported. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So at this point, between what I have removed and SandyGeorgia removed earlier, I believe the only things left of what 7&6=thirteen added are some links to publishers and a couple of minor wording changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, with those changes reverted I'm ready to close this as a keep, barring any objections. I'll leave this open for 24 hours, and if there are no objections I will close as keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Katyusha rocket launcher

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

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

Result: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 2008 nominee with large amounts of unsourced content including uncited statistics.

Concerns have been raised since the day after the GA review in August 2008. The nominator is still active, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No way this article is GA in its current state. Schierbecker (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and quite frankly this never should have been promoted. There were citation needed tags in the article in September 2008. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Delist and absolutely should never have been promoted. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei

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

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large amounts of uncited text, including for quotes and statistics, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Hood Wright

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

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

Result: It has been over three weeks since this was last meaningfully improved, and I can see no evidence that anyone is working on it in a sandbox. Therefore, considering WP:DCGAR, delisting should be a formality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:DCGAR, although the nominator at GAN was not DC, rather Cleveland Todd, who is also blocked. I have two hours in to this article, have found one of all the usual (copy-paste, too close paraphrasing, content not supported by sources, "first" trivia, etc), and have no will to continue. I may have gotten all copyvio, but have not checked all the PD sources for paraphrasing. I doubt the article is still broad in its coverage, and I don't know what remains to be done to keep the article at GA standard. Trainsandotherthings have you any interest? Else, @GAR coordinators: as to where this goes next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Initial discussion

My suggestion would be to notify relevant WikiProjects and then Delist if no one picks it up. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs work. Looked at the odd sentence "Wright was a director of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company", and from the sources available there's a date of starting and a reason for selection, neither of which are included. Agree with Lee it should be notified as needing a thorough checking. CMD (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Details are left out as a result of my DCGAR scrub. I will figure out how to notify WPs next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP notifications done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the scrub to be clear, mostly agreeing with your broadness comment above. CMD (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, my vote would be delist and stubify the whole thing like we do to most Doug articles. I don't really have the time or energy to work on this (and biographies don't usually interest me), I just started an FAC and that's going to keep me busy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to stubbify content that is sourced to public domain, because that's a different copyright animal. But I am just weary of reading through so much poor content, and every one of those blooming news clippings needs to be read. I would not be the least bit unhappy if someone else took a deeper knife to it than I have :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really shirk a Philadelphia-area railroad magnate, if he is such a thing. I admit my preference in such cases would be to rewrite from the ground up. Can I get a day or three to see what kind of modern sourcing might be available? Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about two and a quarter, plus change? CMD (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, awesome, take all the time you need from my end! Ping me when ready for a new look; you will find usable stuff in that which I had to scrub if you can locate sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like SandyGeorgia, I've spent a few hours on this. I've consulted a mix of academic sources that deal with the late 19th century banking scene (focusing on Drexel and Morgan), and a few sources dealing with the railroads that Wright was associated with through his position as a partner in Drexel, Morgan & Co. Wright is notable, definitely, though the apparent lack of even a biographical sketch, let along a full biography, is troublesome.^[a] I don't think the article is salvageable. It's rife with sourcing issues and practically plagiarized from The National Cyclopaedia and the obituary notices in the New York Times and Delaware Gazette and State Journal. The overuse of contemporary 19th-century newspaper accounts in general is a significant problem; as anyone who has ever written an obituary knows, relying on a brief obituary for claims of someone's accomplishments over a century later isn't acceptable.

I'm willing to write a new article to replace this one, though I'd feel more comfortable having actually read those academic sources, just to feel more comfortable with late 19th century banking. I usually work with the operational side of railroading. Who around here is our amateur expert in this area? Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we have their attention, maybe the @GAR coordinators: would work with Mike Christie to get a list of any other GAs submitted by Cleveland Todd, as I suspect there is more of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm ... I just looked at Cleveland Todd's user page, and all of those indicated at the top seem to be ... DCGARs. And yet I can't send them to WP:CP because, since the work is split between DC and CT, they aren't written by one CCI editor. So they all need individual examination and excoriation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, just to clarify, are you still willing to rewrite the entire article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Yes, but it's going to be a while. I've started by reading Strouse's biography of Morgan, just to get a feel for the setting and other players. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Susie Pak gives an overview in her 2013 social history of Morgan and related bankers; no surprises there.^[1]

References

^ Pak, Susie (2013). Gentlemen Bankers : The World of J. P. Morgan. Harvard Studies in Business History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-674-41690-1.

Image discussion

Hog Farm, as I don't do images, might you look at whether this image needs to be deleted? That does appear to be the GWB in the background, and it is unclear where DC got the 1890 date, so this image might not be public domain and might need to be deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discospinster reverted Aheimm with a note that "source says 1890", but I see no source at File:Wright house 1890.jpg and this looks typical for DC image and content issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems the the Museum of the City of New York says 1932 ... obviously, as the GWB is in the background. Surprise (not): it looks like DC made up the date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another DC-ism; the image says "unknown author" when the Museum of the City of New York does identify an author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, given that honesty issue, how do we know File:Wright mausoleum.jpg is own work -- why is there no camera metadata listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find that one concerning as well: unusual dimensions, tilted camera, no metadata. It's easily replaceable regardless. Mackensen (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mausoleum image is fishy but might be hard to track down. For the house, there's a small chance it's public domain, but I cannot find any information to support that possibility, so I've listed it at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wright house 1890.jpg, where it will either be deleted in 7 days or six months unless someone can find convincing information to support that outside chance. Hog Farm _Talk 19:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick attempt to find the mausoleum image online failed. And it is possible to upload images without exif, which I've done before when I don't want to include the location an image was taken in the file stuff. So I don't think we can prove that one either way. Hog Farm _Talk 20:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HF! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the hospital. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak images, so don't know if this one is OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

License history indicates that it was released under CC-BY-SA 2.0 in 2012, so it seems to be fine to me. Hog Farm _Talk 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This GAR remains ongoing.

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

Albert Einstein

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

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

Result: Kept, with thanks to XOR'easter for their hard work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's some uncited text and other problems including

If one end of a wormhole was positively charged, the other end would be negatively charged. These properties led Einstein to believe that pairs of particles and antiparticles could be described in this way.
Later, after the death of his second wife Elsa, Einstein was briefly in a relationship with Margarita Konenkova. Konenkova was a Russian spy who was married to the Russian sculptor Sergei Konenkov (who created the bronze bust of Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton).[67][68][failed verification]*the Einstein-Cartan theory section
The equations of motion section
The Adiabatic principle and action-angle variables section
In "Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung" ("The Development of our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation"), on the quantization of light, and in an earlier 1909 paper, Einstein showed that Max Planck's energy quanta must have well-defined momenta and act in some respects as independent, point-like particles. This paper introduced the photon concept (although the name photon was introduced later by Gilbert N. Lewis in 1926) and inspired the notion of wave–particle duality in quantum mechanics. Einstein saw this wave–particle duality in radiation as concrete evidence for his conviction that physics needed a new, unified foundation.
The matter waves section
Although he was lauded for this work, his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Notably, Einstein's unification project did not accommodate the strong and weak nuclear forces, neither of which was well understood until many years after his death. Although mainstream physics long ignored Einstein's approaches to unification, Einstein's work has motivated modern quests for a theory of everything, in particular string theory, where geometrical fields emerge in a unified quantum-mechanical setting.
The other investigations section
Einstein suggested to Erwin Schrödinger that he might be able to reproduce the statistics of a Bose–Einstein gas by considering a box. Then to each possible quantum motion of a particle in a box associate an independent harmonic oscillator. Quantizing these oscillators, each level will have an integer occupation number, which will be the number of particles in it.
Many popular quotations are often misattributed to him.[example needed]

and possibly more. Though some of these could have been general referenced and I missed it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather odd to open this without editing the article yourself or raising any issues on the article talkpage first. --JBL (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This review was put on hold for two months to relieve pressure on topic editors at GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a first reading, none of the uncited statements look atrocious. Various standard textbooks/histories/biographies should cover them, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working through these as I find the time. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the {{citation needed}} tags are addressed now. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter, thanks for your efforts. A couple of things still need to be directly cited: the quotes in the sentence beginning "As he stated in the paper" in the physical cosmology section, the Einstein–Cartan theory and Wave–particle duality sections. Also, do you think MOS:OVERSECTION is a problem at all? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for the "As he stated in the paper..." is immediately preceding that passage. I don't see the need to repeat footnotes there.

There are more divisions into short subsections than I would have included, but I'm not sure that's a problem per se. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Storm surge

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

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

Result: Extensive problems remain. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant unsourced material, including for statistics (GA criterion 2). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems after the last GAR, the impact section (which is entirely uncited) was not included in the article. I assume the article would meet the broadness criterion without it though given the article had some uncited text which went unnoticed at the 2008 GAR, I may be wrong about that. ~UN6892 ^t_c 19:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doctor Who (series 2)

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

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

Result: No response to pings, article hasn't been worked on for around a month. Issues still remain, so delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another GA from 2017. This has two problems. First, there's citation issues as the music and filming sections have no sources. Second, this also seems to fail broadness because there's absolutely nothing in the critical reception section. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these the only two issues? If so, I can begin working on rectifying these issues. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Music and filming sources. Working on cast source and critical reception. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Cast sources. Critical reception remaining. -- Alex_21_TALK 00:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on it, sorry for the delay. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any update Alex 21? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phil Simms

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

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

Result: No improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant citation issues, including uncited statistics and BLP content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Interesting article and clearly took a lot of work, but I think it should be delisted due to BLP violations. I can't even see a citation for DOB. Requires extensive spotcheck, which is beyond the scope of an easy fix. Ppt91 ^talk 21:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who nominated and the main contributor for this article for Good Article status but havent worked on it years nor maintained it. In next few days if you guys are patient I can fix some issues. I know you can delist and I can re-apply but it would be easier for me to fix the issues in the coming days if you all are patient. AaronY (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the purpose of GAR...take your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AaronY Absolutely! Thanks for picking this up. Ppt91 ^talk 00:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any update AaronY? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I forgot about this, dang. Wish someone would have contacted my talk page. AaronY (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Susie Pak gives an overview in her 2013 social history of Morgan and related bankers; no surprises there.^[1]

[1] Pak, Susie (2013). Gentlemen Bankers : The World of J. P. Morgan. Harvard Studies in Business History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-674-41690-1.

[a]

[1]