Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 76

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 75)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 77) →

Hurricane Kate (2003)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2003 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:12, 22 February 2024 (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.

Hurricane Lili (1990)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:1990 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:14, 22 February 2024 (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.

Hurricane Joyce (2000)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2000 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:18, 22 February 2024 (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.

Tropical Storm Arthur (2002)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge exists at Talk:2002 Atlantic hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:20, 22 February 2024 (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.

Mitsubishi i

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. 750h+ (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor references (numerous unreliable source tags), WP:NOPRICES violations and a few parts of the prose that fall short of GA standards (eg; 1 sentence paragraphs). 750h+ (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2024 (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 Antietam

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: Closing as kept; the more minor issues remaining I'm sure will be dealt with outside of GAR. Hog Farm _Talk 03:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 listing with uncited material. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work on this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we've got some uncited material and a few unreliable web refs (historynet, necrometrics, etc.). IMO there are frankly far too many images; we don't need to reproduce as many of the Gardner images or all of the Hope ones. This will take some work but it is fixable. Hog Farm _Talk 16:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the historynet source, but not done for necrometrics yet. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Eicher 2001, Frassanito 1978 (I think a different edition), Kennedy 1998, McPherson 1988, McPherson 2002, and Sears 1983 books from the sources listing, as well as the Gallagher 1989 and Gottfried 2011 sources from the further reading, in addition to Johnson's Artillery Hell and the Brigades of Antietam book edited by Gallagher from a couple years ago. It'll take me a bit, but I feel comfortable in my ability to fix the citation issues here. Also pinging Donner60 and TwoScars who worked on the Gettsyburg GAR awhile back. I have more time for the next couple weeks, so I should be able to play a more active role here than in the Gettysburg one. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielPenn4223: (Also pinging Donner60 and Hog Farm) I agree that Battle of Antietam needs to be fixed up. Since it gets lots of views—you might want to a) fix up a copy in your sandbox; b) get Military History people such as Hog Farm, Donner60, or other members of the group to look that version over; then c) replace the entire article. That way, people can come to a consensus on what needs to be done—and you should not get complaints. I have been involved in two recent rewrites: Battle of Shiloh was done using the sandbox method, while Battle of Gettysburg was not (Donner60 did most of the work).

My thoughts on the current article, which may not match what others think, are:

The opposing forces is a mess. We already have a separate Order of Battle—no need to reproduce it. I would discuss the Union's corps (each) and cavalry, with one image of McClellan. How many men did each corps have? Were they experienced? Well-armed? For the Confederates, discuss the two large infantry wings and the cavalry. One picture of Lee. Need similar info: size, experience, and arms.
I like sub-headers and images that tell a low–attention–span reader (like me) what is going on. The "Cornfield" section is too many paragraphs before we get another section header.
I'm not a fan of the Thulstrup image, especially since a Thulstrup is already in the InfoBox. Hal Jespersen's maps are usually good, but I think they are too small sometimes. I have cropped copies of his images for some articles. I can also see that some of the paragraphs in this section do not end with citations.
Midday phase has the same issues as the Morning Phase–Cornfield.
Midday also had text sandwiched by two images—not a recommended practice. The Sharpsburg's citizens image is a waste of time.
Same issues in Afternoon phase.
Aftermath is somewhat long. Maybe the first paragraph can be two paragraphs. I recommend the Aftermath section have a Casualties subsection, and a Reactions and significance subsection.
Battlefield preservation needs citations, and a better image would be what the battlefield looks like today.

Donner has added the citations, and I've swapped out the image for a picture of Burnside's Bridge I took when I visited the battlefield a couple years ago. It's a bit self-serving to use an image I took myself, and there's plenty of other images on Commons to use instead if preferred. Hog Farm _Talk 17:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the preservation section now, and I like the photo too. My tour was over 20 years ago, and the bridge is one of the few things I remember. TwoScars (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not like the Historic photographs and paintings section, and would drop it completely—but many people might disagree with me. I also try to not use image galleries unless they are only 3 or 4 images. See Wikipedia Manual of Style for galleries.

TwoScars (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the citizens image and have replaced the Thulstrup duplicate image with the famous dead horse in East Woods image. Hog Farm _Talk 18:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Hog Farm has fixed the opposing forces section, as noted below. Donner60 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars and Donner60: - would y'all be willing to look over my work in overhauling the opposing forces section? Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:Vast improvement, although I did not fact check any citations. I would still drop the Lincoln-McClellan photo since it is hard to see, and split the army commanders where McClellan is with the Union and Lee is with the Confederates. TwoScars (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The group photo is gone, and I've split up the Lee and McClellan images - let's see if the changes stick. The material in there is about 98% new text, so the citations should be fine although I'm always open to someone checking my work. I expect the new Hartwig book is going to be useful for strength numbers, I'll need to look over the wikipedia library copy. I'm more concerned about citation checking having issues in the parts of the article where people have just been adding material periodically for 15+ years. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough, Ontario

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) 22:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material (especially in the Infrastructure section), meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b), and has numerous other tags for a lack of updates. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2024 (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.

Maine Coon

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) 22:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple claims currently sourced to unreliable sources and I've had to remove an erroneous and ludicrous health claim present for 4 years. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment further review has lead me to find multiple instances of plagiarism in the article as well. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2024 (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.

Butthole Surfers

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) 22:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 Good Article has many unsourced statements and uses IMDB (a self-published source). Additionally, the band's post-2010 activities are given less weight than the earlier years. Spinixster (chat!) 03:48, 16 February 2024 (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.

Edmund Ætheling

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: Per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive biography of Edmund in this article is not supported by historians of Anglo-Saxon England, who say that there is almost no reliable information about him. Edmund and his brother Edward the Exile were sons of King Edmund Ironside and grandsons of Æthelred the Unready. It is known that Edward and Edmund were sent to Sweden as infants by Cnut to be murdered, but the King of Sweden was unwilling to kill them and sent them to Hungary, where Edmund died, possibly after a stay in Kiev. This article's far more detailed biography is mainly sourced to a book by Garriel Ronay. I do not have access to it, but I have found an article by him setting out his views, where he says that his main source is an account by Geoffrey Gaimar, who is unfairly dismissed by historians as unreliable ("Edward Aetheling: Anglo-Saxon England's Last Hope", History Today, Volume 34 Issue 1 January 1984). Simon Keynes describes Gaimar's account as "confused and (one suspects) largely fanciful" ("Crowland Salter", p. 363). Frank Barlow wrote that "because of the twelfth-century Gaimar's inventions in his Lestoire des Engleis, some very strange accounts of Æthelred's descendants are in circulation". Barlow cites Ronay's book as an example of these very strange accounts (The Godwins, p. 91 n. 25). There are other errors added after the GA review, but the basic point is that the article is fundamentally flawed as it is mainly based on an unreliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I don't have a particular view on this article, but a couple of thoughts: on a rough count, there are 18 hits in the article code for "Ronay" and 53 for "sfn", which gives a rough fraction of a third of the citations being to Ronay -- which is a lot, but not enough to really say that the article is entirely based on it. Certainly, we'd still have an article even if we decided that Ronay was totally unreliable and to be declared anathema. Secondly, I'm not totally sure where WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:OR leave our authority to determine the reliability of secondary sources: unless they're generally rejected by the historical consensus (and so much so that they're not even worth inclusion as a competing or historical viewpoint): there are reasons to be uncomfortable about Wikipedians blacklisting a peer-reviewed secondary source because we don't like its argument or methods. On a slightly different point, if Gaimar is unfairly dismissed by historians as unreliable (emphasis mine), why should we perpetuate that unfairness and continue to dismiss him?

I appreciate that this will read as opposition, and it really isn't intended to be -- this is not my field and I will leave questions of reliability and accuracy to those who know it. However, I do think it's worth bearing the considerations here in mind as we (you) go about addressing those questions. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it is mainly based on Ronay's book, not entirely. Many of the cites of other writers are for statements not about Edmund, for example four cites for the statement that Stephen was baptised in 985. Others are for uncontroversial statements. It would require a thorough analysis to see how many cites of other writers are for statements about Edmund, apart from the very few which are accepted by reliable sources, but I have found when reading the article that whenever a statement seems dubious, it is almost always cited to Ronay (apart from a few added after the GA review). I am not clear why you refer to a "blacklisting a peer-reviewed secondary source". Ronay's book is not peer-reviewed and it is cited as a source for statements presented as uncontroversial facts, whereas it is described by a leading expert on the period, Frank Barlow, as a completely unreliable "history" (Barlow's quotes). The article thus extensively relies on a non-RS for many unequivocal statements rejected by the historical consensus.

As to Gaimar, I should have made clear that it is Ronay's claim that he is unfairly dismissed. I quote above two leading historians as disagreeing. Gaimar is an original source, and we should only accept his statements if they are endorsed by reliable secondary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really interesting point. But hopefully WP:CONTEXTMATTERS gives some relief:

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

A sensible reading would be that a book written by a journalist does not have the same reliability as a trained historian. Or, a book written by a trained historian that has in its reviews been pulled up for certain issues, can be viewed as less reliable on those matters.

At least, without those readings, I think WP would struggle in some areas to make sensible decisions. Jim Killock (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist It's perhaps odd that B&B would let themselves be caught out like that, but the Sunday Telegraph damned Ronay's monograph with faint praise, describing it as a 'popularly written but scholarly book.' Too many important claims are cited to this one source, and as the OP has suggested, the remainder majoritively if not completely support less pertinent facts/oids. ——Serial 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Support as nominator. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2024 (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.

Blue Picardy Spaniel

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) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article was never up to GA standards, multiple unreliable sources were used which I've now removed (or replaced in appearance section). Traumnovelle (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2024 (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.

Hurricane Fran (1973)

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: Procedural delist Noah, AA^Talk 14:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:1973_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Merge_proposal. Noah, AA^Talk 14:24, 27 February 2024 (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.

Tropical Storm Arlene (1981)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:1981_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Arlene_Merger. Noah, AA^Talk 14:26, 27 February 2024 (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.

Hurricane Sergio (2006)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2006 Pacific hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:29, 27 February 2024 (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.

Tropical Depression Two-E (2006)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2006 Pacific hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:32, 27 February 2024 (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.

Hurricane Octave (1989)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:1989_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Octave_(1989)_into_1989_Pacific_hurricane_season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:34, 27 February 2024 (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.

Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone

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: I'm not seeing any indication that the issues will be addressed after more than three weeks have passed since the initial notification at the talk page and a week since this was opened. Therefore, I am delisting this article. Noah, AA^Talk 13:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with a lack of citations as well as the history section needing to be updated in regards to naming and other aspects. No response at the GAR notice. Noah, AA^Talk 14:58, 22 February 2024 (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.

Catholic Church

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 consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several uncited sections, including almost the entire first section of the History section. History focuses disproportionately on 20th and 21st century. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that the history weighting is a significant problem. Might require a minor rebalancing—-I’m not sure why John Paul II has his own section while other popes do not (aside from Francis, but the case for having a section on the current pope is strong)—-but that’s a modest edit, not a reason to delist. The several uncited paragraphs in the History section (which look to be the only significantly uncited section to me) do need fixed, but I note that History of the Catholic Church has a pretty well-cited early history section, so that shouldn’t be a hard fix. Reassessment seems a pretty big overreaction for these problems—-it’s pretty firmly WP:JUSTDOIT territory. El Sandifer (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds offered. The first part of the History section appears to be a lede-style summary of the subsections afterward (a la WP:LEADCITE), with the relevant citations in the respective subsections. If truly desired, go and move the relevant citations back up, but this is a style that isn't unreasonable. As for focus - the Catholic Church is a topic where multi-volume books have been written on it, there is no one perfect amount to cover on each time period. I will say that random readers are probably more interested in the recent history aspect, so it wouldn't shock me if the 2424 article on the Catholic Church disproportionately focuses on the 24th century. SnowFire (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist 1) if the unsourced content in the history section is a sourced elsewhere in the article, it is redundant and needs to be removed per GACR#3b 2) obvious recentism in the history section. The Catholic Church has a really long history so the twentieth and twenty first centuries need to be covered in similar amount of detail as other historical epochs, and summary style needs to be used. Note that I did not look at the rest of the article (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no obvious "recentism" in the history section. The 20th century section does not appear disproportionately long compared to the rest of the section. I also see no uncited sections. Note that my comments pertain to this most recent revision. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Zfish118's comment follows my examination and removal of the offending parts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work in trimming the history section! –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:30, 27 February 2024 (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.

Paresh Mokashi

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 to have been updated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not include post-2015 information and needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please check. 2001:8F8:172B:48CA:BC02:1AFE:B1EF:E267 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was away from Wiki for a while. I will try to update the article as and when I get time over next 2 weeks. I hope we get that much time. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:07, 13 February 2024 (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.

Achaemenid Assyria

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) 00:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, including large paragraphs, which means it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. This should be delisted. Ifly6 (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2024 (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.

1915 Singapore Mutiny

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) 00:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2024 (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.

Tenacious D

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 sourcing and weighting issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listed in 2007 by a very (*ahem*) Tenacious editor (check out those article milestones) who hasn't edited in 14 years. "Setlist" is a wiki. Not reliable. 14 citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (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.

Saskatchewan Highway 16

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) 00:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). It also contains extensive quoting of copyrighted material, which for me goes beyond WP:LIMITED and violates criterion 2d). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2024 (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.

Invasive species

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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it fails GA criterion 2b); at close to 10,000 words, it may also breach criterion 3b) and might need to be trimmed of superfluous detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the lead is problematical in that it gives alien species as a synonym for invasive species. On the one hand, not all alien species are invasive - some only persist because of repeated reintroductions. On the other hand, some concepts of invasive species can include native species. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it didn't, it explained the concept of alien species and then defined invasive as a subset. But it was confusing and I've reworded it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general definition of an invasive species is one that has been introduced into a new biological community and has spread away from the point of introduction. The concept gets a little messy when dealing with alien species and there are a lot of strong feelings about the topic that make this page a magnet for bloat. Hardyplants (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need help to recognize what constitutes "This 2007 listing." Thank you for assisting me here. "Significant uncited material" certainly fails Good Article criteria. Regarding the considerable detail in the article, given the complexity of the topic and the multiple angles from which it can be responsibly addressed, the fact that the article has what for me is solid section and sub-section structure, and (again for me) is consistently well-written, makes the detail unobjectionable. For example, in section "Vectors," sub-section "Within the aquatic environment," an editor in the fourth paragraph of this subsection has noted a "loophole" in "ballast water regulations." The level of detail here might appear to some as extreme, but I find it informative and would not label it superfluous. Canhelp (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canhelp, "This 2007 listing" means that the article was first listed as a GA in 2007. Thank you for your excellent reasoning on the matter of detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who had brought two articles to GA status last year (and has two more GA nominations under review), I agree that this article is not in a good state. It seems much closer to something like Environmental effects of aviation or Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity (both C-level) than a GA-level article (i.e. Effects of climate change).

However, this article also receives a fairly significant amount of pageviews, so improving it is important. While I am hardly short of articles to attend to at the moment, I can start making progress on making this article live up to its status this week, if the reviewers agree to wait before taking away its badge. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InformationToKnowledge, GARs are kept open for up to three months as long as there is someone willing to work on the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29: It was certainly verbose. I've cut the length of the article body to 6000 words and fixed the citation problem. That would seem to have addressed the concerns here now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2024 (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.

Saadanius

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: Closing Saadanius GAR as "keep" based on satisfied criteria based on recent article emendations. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So this article was promoted to GA class back in 2010, and I have to say that it doesn't seem to have aged well to remain in the same class. It doesn't follow the typical Cenozoic fossil taxon page format (taxonomy - description - paleobiology - paleoecology). It's also missing more recent sources made long after the genus name was established, so it has few sources. In addition, it says that anthracotheres and proboscideans were found which indicates a Paleogene range, but both extended to the Miocene in Africa as well, so it's pretty non-specific if it doesn't reference individual genera found.

Unless someone can drastically revamp the article, this article isn't up to Project Palaeontology's GA standards anymore. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PrimalMustelid sorry, I'm a bit confused. Can you clarify which part of the GA criteria this article does not meet? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article no longer meets criteria 1 ("Well-written") on the grounds that it does not comply with modern formats of recent Cenozoic fossil taxon articles, is a bit too detailed in "Phylogeny and significance" (should be a subsection of taxonomy/research history anyways), and lacks much academic sources after the year it was described, instead using several news articles (it only uses 2 academic article sources). PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only the second of those is part of the GA criteria, PrimalMustelid, but excessive detail is much easier to fix than too little—it can just be trimmed out.

An article is not well-written only if the prose is not clear, concise, or understandable, if spelling or grammar is incorrect, or if certain MOS pages are not satisfied; and unlike FA, GA does not require that reliable sources are high-quality. If you feel that the omission of academic sources leads to major aspects of the topic being left out, that is a different matter and comes under criterion 3a).

It is good to hear of Project Palaeontology's high standards, but the GA process is meant to be a common standard for all Wikipedia articles to follow. I don't know if your project has an A-class assessment process—perhaps you could think about setting one up? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original author here. I wouldn't mind a reorganization along the lines of the Paleontology project's standards (are those written down somewhere?). The article was written not long after the taxon was announced in 2010, and it should definitely be updated to reflect more recent research. I'll see if I can find some time for that. Ucucha (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so far it looks better, but there are still major issues:

"The discovery of Saadanius may help answer questions about the evolution and appearance of the last common ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes." That has an advertising tone, try changing the sentence.
Have "phylogeny" be a subsection of the taxonomy section, they're similar enough as a topic.
The description section should definitely be expanded upon more using the original source that described its specimens. Base it off diagnoses listed in the journal article source and explain more about how its anatomical features differ from other anthropoids. I especially recommend incorporating dentition information in addition to cranial information, perhaps make them separate subsections of the description section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha, have you seen the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I haven't had a chance yet to edit the article further. I'd prefer to keep the "Taxonomy" and "Phylogeny" sections separate as the article would otherwise look unbalanced. Ucucha (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd renamed the Taxonomy section to "History and naming" and Phylogeny to "Classification". Also, that list under Paleoecology, which should be in prose. Otherwise, the only big thing is that the article needs updating with any papers that have come out since its GAN. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the more recent papers have any hugely significant areas of information the articles don't currently mention, then that should be raised here. Otherwise, being comprehensive to the point of including all recent finds shifts towards FA considerations rather than GA. CMD (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through recent papers and didn't find anything too significant; mostly just brief mentions of the genus in comparisons with other new taxa. I will add some more discussion of anatomy though, as PrimalMustelid suggested. Ucucha (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ucucha, did you find anything usable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit some time ago. The original description doesn't go into a ton of anatomical detail. I don't think more is required for GA status. Ucucha (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that is satisfactory @PrimalMustelid, SilverTiger12, and Chipmunkdavis:? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not yet, it's leaving out a lot of diagnoses described in the original article (i.e. the medium size comparable to siamangs, the broad molars with thin enamel, etc), a fossil taxon is not adequate without mentions of its major diagnoses. The sentence "The discovery of Saadanius may help answer questions about the evolution and appearance of the last common ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes" has also not yet been addressed still, so I'll suggest something along the lines of "Saadanius has been of interest to paleontologists because of its potential evolutionary link to Old World monkey-ape divergence." PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I overlooked the part where the wiki article says that its size is comparable to gibbons, so that should be changed to "siamangs" to be more specific since they're the largest extant gibbons. Just pull information from the diagnosis paragraph and we should be good. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ucucha May you address these concerns? I'm sure neither of us want this reassessment up in the air for too long. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright look, given usual GAR protocols, I should have already set this article for delisting, but I do want to see it be improved. So, I'll give it until March 4th for improvements to be made, and if there are no improvements and no objections, I'll have to set it for delisting. It's really only 2 issues that you have to address. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you not do that yourself PrimalMustelid? In any case, I'm not sure I see a consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the author knows about their topic better than anyone else, and I made my concerns clear-cut. This isn't some minor grammar mistake, this is missing information here, so the author would be expected to patch these issues in either a GAN or GAR. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the breathless sentence in the lead and added a paragraph listing some diagnostic characters in the original paper, focusing on characters listed in the comparisons table in the supplementary material. Ucucha (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that work PrimalMustelid? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, think the article's in a better state, I'll consider it done now. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2024 (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.

Nina Simone

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) 17:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted to GA in 2007. This currently has 19 citation needed tags. Schierbecker (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2024 (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.

Rules of chess

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) 17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b).

This is likely to be fairly easy to fix if you have the relevant literature to hand, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is vague. I have been a GA reviewer, and I would never just wave my hand at an article and say, "not enough citations". Can you suggest where to look? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have several editions of the FIDE rulebook and the USCF rulebook. There are 101 citations. What in particular needs a citation? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, all paragraphs should end with a citation, unless it's a WP:SKYISBLUE thing. This article has a lot of paragraphs without a citation. Spinixster (chat!) 02:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay since I worked on this, real life gets in the way. I am compiling a list of places where the citation of sources is or may be inadequate. I will post it, and then, work on it.

There are a couple of citations of Eric Schiller's Official Rules of Chess. I do not have my own copy of this, but looking at this review (by a reputable critic), I am concerned that it may be a less than reliable source, especially for the things we are citing it for, such as the descriptions of the knight move and of checkmate. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the good work you are doing! I have a copy of Schiller's book, but it is packed away in a box. And, yes, is is not as reliable or authorative as other sources, like FIDE and USCF. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of possible citation issues

Citations of the USCF rules must be updated. We are citing Just 2014, which is the 6th edition. The most recent edition is the 7th. Moreover, the chapters that we cite in this article are available online.

I have updated most citations of (Just 2014) to Just 2019, except for some in the History section, which I could not find in either the old or the new editions of USCF. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial setup

First pgph looks OK.

Second pgph

Diagram, table of piece names, numbers, and symbols:

Description of placement of pieces:

I think the right way to support these is to give a reference to the FIDE rules at the start of this section, as is done in Chess. Instead we have a single citation of Schiller at the end of the section. I am not sure I like this, but it may be adequate for now.

Neither FIDE, nor USCF, includes a verbal description of the initial positions of the pieces (e.g. "rooks are placed on outside corners, etc."). They each just give a diagram. We may have made up the verbal description ourselves, or perhaps it is copied from Schiller or even some other source. It looks like a reasonable thing to include, although I am not sure the words "inside" and "outside" convey the intended meanings in this context.

Setup mnemonics: these are sourced to Schiller. They are in common use and I assume those pages of Schiller correctly support the citation.

Gameplay

First pgph, defining White and Black, specifying alternation, defining end of play, noting time control: does not need to be sourced.

Second pgph, determining who plays White: This needs to be sourced. Perhaps it came from Schiller? If not, some other source must be found.

Movement

Basic moves

If a reference to the FIDE rules is given at the start of the Initial Setup section as recommended above, it may be sufficient sourcing for this section as well. Instead, we currently have a citation of Schiller at the end of the last sentence.

Explanatory note a (about role of captured pieces in promotion): this should be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of moves of each piece, and of capturing: these are sourced to Schiller. They are correct, and I assume the pages of Schiller correctly support the citation. I am not entirely happy with these; I think clearer descriptions can be found elsewhere. But for GA reassessment, that would be optional.

The citation comes at the end of the last sentence, "The pawn is also involved ... promotion." This sentence is indented too far; and I am not sure it is clear that the citation applies to the whole itemized list of pieces.

Castling

There are some citations here. But, the description of the move, and the definition of "castling rights", need to be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En passant

This paragraph needs to be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk)

Promotion

This paragraph needs to be sourced. The two existing citations are for the discussion of what to do if the desired piece is not available. This discussion, as it stands, is applicable only to tournaments with arbiters; this qualification should be stated.

Source for definition done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check

The first paragraph needs to be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Block" is not as common in English chess literature as "Interpose". The latter should be defined instead of, or in addition to, the former.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

End of the game

Checkmate -- this appears to be adequately sourced.

Resigning

In the FIDE rules, "resign" is just defined as "give up", and there is no discussion of exactly how to communicate this. In the USCF rules, there is some discussion, but it is much shorter than what we present here. Our text should cleanly separate what is in the rules (resigning means giving up) from what is common practice (e.g. tipping the king).

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping clocks is not applicable unless clocks are used, and writing on a scoresheet is not applicable unless scoresheets are used. Clocks and scoresheets are used in FIDE and USCF sanctioned games (except that scoresheets are not used in blitz), but readers of Wikipedia may not be aware of FIDE and USCF, and should not have to learn about them in order to learn the rules of chess.

Discussion of random gestures for resignation removed. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draws

This section is disorganized for maximum confusion. The citations are not adequate. The fifty-move rule and threefold repetition should be mentioned in the bulleted list, and should cite the relevant articles in the FIDE rules.

Reorganized, though not exactly as described above. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead position

The reference to "insufficient losing chances" should cite the appropriate section of the USCF rules, and should be clarified.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag-fall

This whole paragraph should be replaced by a forward reference to the "Timing" section. As mentioned above, Wikipedia readers should be able to learn the rules of chess without having to learn about chess clocks, score sheets, arbiters, and other artifacts of sanctioned play.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the pieces

This section appears to be adequately sourced. However, it doesn't make sense except in the context of the touch-move rule, and in particular, the touch-move rule as enforced in a sanctioned event. Thus, it should either come after the section about the touch-move rule, or within that section.

Moved to the beginning of the "Competitive" section. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Touch-move rule

The high-level description, in which touch-move is described as a "fundamental principle", and the placement of this section under "Gameplay" rather than "Competitive rules of play", are improvements. Even in informal, unsanctioned games, touch-move is widely respected.

The first paragraph must cite a source; and the "special considerations" for castling and pawn promotion must be described, not just alluded to.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive rules of play

"Competitive" is used in this document and in the FIDE rules to refer to organized, sanctioned, chess tournaments and matches. The word is used that way, although that may not be its dictionary meaning, or its meaning in non-sporting contexts.

The first paragraph should explain this usage, and should summarize the consequences: clocks (although these are also used in informal play, especially blitz), keeping score, arbiters (and directors), and adjournment.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other things currently in the first paragraph should be moved to one or more additional paragraphs, for clarity. These include OTB versus correspondence versus online, adaptations for disabled players, different rules for rapid and blitz, chess 960, and computer chess.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be implicit from the wording of the first paragraph, but perhaps it should be stated explicitly, that the rules given in the following sections, unless otherwise indicated, are applicable only to FIDE sanctioned events. Other governing bodies may have sharply different rules on the same topics.

Timing

The first paragraph should cite at least one source. The only current citation, by the last sentence, evidently applies only to that sentence. (In addition, it's wrong; it should be page 22 of the Arbiter's Manual, not page 54.)

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph referring to USCF Rule 14E should, of course, cite that rule.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recording moves

This section starts with a diagram and an indication of how to label the squares of the board, but it doesn't explain that this is relevant to algebraic notation. Of course, the diagram and text are simply copied from Algebraic notation (chess). It may be an improvement to just remove them from this article.

Not done; this is outside the scope of the GA reassessment, and I don't want that to get bogged down in discussion of controversial changes. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is an illustration of a score sheet by Capablanca in descriptive notation, but no further explanation of descriptive notation, so the score sheet would be completely illegible for most readers. This score sheet illustration should instead be used in Descriptive notation. A better choice of scoresheet for the present article would be the scoresheet from Reti vs. Capablanca, New York 1924, which is in German algebraic notation (Planilha Réti e Capablanca.gif).

Not done; this is outside the scope of the GA reassessment, and I don't want that to get bogged down in discussion of controversial changes. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated a citation of USCF rules, section 15A variation 1, to cite the most recent and accessible version. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjournment

This section must cite the relevant section of the FIDE rules.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irregularities

These sections look OK (at first glance).

Equipment

This section has only two citations, and needs several more.

Quite a few citations of sources added. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

These sections look generally OK.

Bruce leverett (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have covered all the sourcing deficiencies mentioned above. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article exposition

There is a fundamental problem in the article setup. The article title is "Rules of chess". Then, the article declares the FIDE rules as the "Rules of chess", which is improper. Further, the article refers to the FIDE rules throughout without making this explicit in the beginning. I think it would be more appropriate to rename the article "FIDE rules of chess" and redirect "Rules of Chess" to it to reflect the content. Besides USCF pointers, the article focuses on FIDE rules alone and is not as general as the title suggests. Dlbbld (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that describing other sets of rules besides USCF and FIDE would fall under the heading of "comprehensive". I was under the impression that comprehensiveness is explicitly excluded from the GA criteria, but is more appropriate when considering the FA criteria.

Not that I would object to a better exposition of the differences between different rule sets, worldwide and for different flavors of chess (correspondence, internet server, etc.). But achieving this should not be in the critical path of the GA reassessment. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the "Rules of chess", so at the universal level, are. For example, I know that the Touch-move rule in my country is commonly known. Even in the most informal games, the players know this rule, though they often do not enforce it. I would really like to know how this is in other countries. Is it a universal rule? An article titled "Rules of Chess" should answer that. For it does not, it does not hold what it promises. This is why I say the exposition is wrong.

Again, to declare the FIDE rules as the "Rules of chess. " and then the problem to be solved is wrong.

The exposition must be correct and clear. Something like mentioning that is nearly impossible to specify the "Rules of chess" at an universal level. The FIDE rules sort of coming most closest. So, the article now describes the FIDE rules. But then it needs a discussion about why not to title the article "FIDE rules of chess" to start with. Dlbbld (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AT the risk of repeating myself, the article can be helpful to readers, and can even meet the GA criteria, without answering all interesting questions about the subject. Carefully read those criteria, and compare them with your own expectations for this article.

Suppose that, indeed, the article must answer the questions you asked about the touch-move rule. Do you think you can find reliable sources which would give those answers? If you have already found such sources, or know where to find them, then I will not hinder your efforts. But if you don't know where to find such answers, you are turning a routine Wikipedia clean-up procedure into an open-ended and perhaps never-ending quest. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, you are concerned about the process. I am actually concerned if it's a good article. That's a clash! It's so funny that the GA criteria don't even require correctness. So there is not much that I can help. It's such an obviously terribly bad article (in respect to Wikipedia), I cannot even be too serious about it :-) Dlbbld (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too found it amusing, when I was a GA reviewer, that the criteria omit many of the factors that can make an article better or worse. This doesn't mean, however, that you can't go in and fix things; it only means that you should do your fixing in a way that doesn't disrupt the GA process; sometimes this means just waiting until that process is over.

I was particularly interested in some of the agenda items you listed, but have since deleted, such as the distinction between "basic" rules and "competition" rules, in which we are drawing the distinction differently from how FIDE draws it, and FIDE and USCF also differ from each other about this (and differ from us). Also, I'm glad you noticed that all of our citations of FIDE are about 15-20 years out of date. As you can see, the level of attention that has been paid to this article over the last 20 years has not always been satisfactory. There is more work to do in Wikipedia than there are editors to do it -- quite a bit more. When I saw your agenda, I was very heartened: maybe somebody will actually do something about this article. I assure you that if you can find time for that, I will pay attention to it (the article is on my watch list). Bruce leverett (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I should have guessed, it's more complicated than just a bunch of citations that say "FIDE 2008" instead of "FIDE 2023". Many of the FIDE citations refer to the 2018 version. Also, "FIDE 2008" is a book citation, with an ISBN. However, this ISBN isn't very useful; doing an Amazon search with it gets no results, while doing a "Google Books" search gets me apparently to a 1997 version of the rules published in Australia. The citation itself includes a URL, which takes me to the current (2023) rules on the FIDE website.

I will try to bring some uniformity to the FIDE citations. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the citations of the FIDE rules, fixing them to cite the latest (2023) version and to use the sfn template. I have also fixed the citations of the Arbiters' Manual to use the sfn template. I found a couple of places where I did not think the citation was correct, so I used cn templates; of course, these must be fixed to get past GA reassessment.

I haven't yet addressed the original complaint, that there were some paragraphs that didn't end with a citation (or didn't have any citations). Still planning to get to that, of course. I do not mind if other editors "get there first" and fix or add some citation before I get to it. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlbbld: Regarding this edit, the reason I did not cite 7.5.1 for this, was because neither 7.5.1, nor any other section, explicitly says that irregularities cannot be corrected after the game; one can only infer that from what those sections don't say. Inferring some conclusion from what a source doesn't say is similar to WP:SYNTH, in which one infers a conclusion from what two sources say, when neither source explicitly states that conclusion. I don't know if Wikipedia guidance explicitly forbids this, but as a reader, I noticed it immediately, and if I were an inexperienced chess player, I would still be puzzled. However, if other editors think this is OK, I'll go along. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. Thank you for pointing it out. On a high level, I agree that the statement cannot be inferred from the article. As such, I consider it best to remove the sentence altogether, for I have never seen a source stating this explicitly.

However I would still clarify this on a rule technical level. The FIDE rules are tournament rules. One main goal is maintaining a good tournament flow.

The wording "during a game" is also used for piece displacement, clock setting and initial piece placement. There is also no explicit wording for how claims in such respect should be treated after a game. It's, however, common sense that if players start to claim such things after the end of a game, tournament flow would heavily suffer, so implicitly, it's not intended. That checkmate, resignation, stalemate, dead position and mutual draw agreement all contain the wording "This immediately ends the game" is relevant in this respect. As it makes any claims after such an event as after the game, so not "during a game".

To summarize, the wording is undoubtedly meant exclusively. Otherwise, it would be in opposition to maintaining a reasonable tournament flow. But the wording fails to convey this as understandable to the reader. As there is no rule clarification from FIDE (they stopped that fifty years ago), it cannot be part of Wikipedia. Dlbbld (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett: Edited too less specific, matching reference. Agree that an encyclopedia must reflect blurryness of the source and not clarify without references.

Comments related to USCF rules

For a standard article, the many comments regarding USCF should have better exposition. Only at the end, it is explicitly stated that the list of differences is not complete: "The rules of national FIDE affiliates (such as the United States Chess Federation, or USCF) are based on the FIDE rules, with slight variations.[99][i][100] Some other differences are noted above."

Additionally, the article omits major differences to the USCF rules, such as in relation to dead positions and piece displacement, while including other, less game-decision-relevant points. This information is fundamental for not being misleading. Dlbbld (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The FIDE vs. USCF issues are touched upon above in Talk:Rules of chess#Types of dead position. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion does not change the situation. It is only touching on one issue, and is even wrong. First, I must call you on your statement in this discussion: "The FIDE rules define "dead position" (5.2.2). The USCF rules do not."

The USCF rules under 14D specify, "The game is drawn when one of the following endings exists as of the most recently determined legal move, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side (effective 1-1-19)".

The above is exactly the FIDE definition of dead position. So, while the USCF rules do not give it a name (right), they crystal clearly use what is meant by dead positoin to define the rules.

The statement objected "There are two kinds of dead position" is written by me and is correct. The unclarity in the discussion shows, however, no common ground. Dlbbld (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I linked to Talk:Rules of chess#Types of dead position, I was not trying to cut across what you were saying, but to reinforce it. I figured that you would already be familiar with that discussion, but other readers, not already embroiled in editing of chess articles, might find this context useful.

The language of USCF rule 14D4 does indeed correspond to the language of FIDE rule 5.2.2. But the USCF rule does not call this a "dead position". The USCF also has rules for "Insufficient Material to Win on Time" (14E), which are completely separate from "Insufficient Material to continue" (14D), and do not recognize dead positions. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both FIDE and USCF draw the game immediately for a dead position. That makes the term relevant when speaking about USCF rules and makes me so obsessed with finding good wording up to personal research.

As you mentioned on timeout, there are differences. Thanks for going into that, though.

I really assumed "GA criteria" also mandates the article to be good in the general sense. Thanks for the friendly explanation. So, getting the invitation for the "Good article reassessment, " I mentioned all the points I found not good with this naive assumption. I'm sorry to clutter up your process. Dlbbld (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete sections like "Illegal position"

It's crucial for the article to address incomplete sections that fail to fully explain key concepts, like 'Illegal position'. A detailed explanation of its importance, as specified in FIDE's article A.5.4, should be incorporated to ensure comprehensive coverage. While I added the term because it's essential, it was uncomplete and also not completed. That shows to me the need for a closer review and completion of all sections. Dlbbld (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished section "Variations"

This section is unfinished. It is also important that one can relate to "variation" only in the general sense; it is not a term used in the rules.

What is here mentioned as "variation" is one of the several possibilities the FIDE rules foresee to parameterize a tournament. Other examples are the default time for losing the game when not arriving at the board (default zero) and applying the rules from Guidelines III (default no), possibly one or two more. So, the section must mention all these "variations" to be complete. Or simply just remove it. Dlbbld (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "Illegal position" and "Variations" sections have the problems that you described. For the purpose of GA reassessment, one could consider getting rid of them altogether. I agree that a proper exposition of "Illegal position" would be an interesting addition to the article, especially as it relates to retrograde analysis problems, etc. However, this is another thing that shouldn't be in the critical path of GA reassessment. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bounce away the two. But still. What concerns me is that such sections have existed for years, and there has been no improvement. I can only speak for a few sections. So, I can't say for other sections, but I fear there might be the same. For example, the History and Codification sections are heavy in length and poor in structure. From constant work, I would expect at least some structure, like subsections. I am not too optimistic here. Now, maybe fear is not a good enough argument.

But in general, from such observations, I come again to the conclusion that the article exposition is not clear. Why must the FIDE competition rules even be part? I think when one relates to "Rules of chess" in very general, whatever that is, the part until that is well. But why then to include the FIDE competition rules? That is surely not universal anymore. Have such discussions been held? Dlbbld (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce leverett, thank you very much for your work on this article; it is much appreciated. I have tagged just a few places which need citations—they are generally for the simplest things which don't fall under WP:SKYISBLUE, so it shouldn't be too onerous. After those are fixed, this GAR can be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest a lot of these tags do look like "sky is blue" stuff to me. A source for the initial setup, for example, is any book ever written about chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been traveling since 24 Feb and will not be able to get to this until 29 Feb. Looking forward to it; but I would not object if MaxBrowne2 wants to step in in the mean time. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that for an actual chess player, such as MaxBrowne2 or myself, it looks and feels strange to be citing chapter and verse while describing the rules of the game. One must consider where we are and why we are doing this. I didn't learn chess from an encyclopedia, and I don't think anyone else does either. (One of the reasons I seldom edit the articles about chess openings is that I didn't learn chess openings from an encyclopedia, either.) But if an experienced Wiki editor asked for more citations, that means to me that people are reading this article and taking it seriously, and the only constructive thing for me to do is put in the citations. The silver lining is that I have found some errors and some places where we say things that aren't warranted. Also it is an interesting exercise to explain to non-chess-players why one is expected to capture, castle, and promote with one hand. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked through your list. I'll wait a day or two for objections, then I'll close this. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing colors

In the second paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, we describe the method of choosing colors by concealing a pawn in each hand and having the opponent pick a hand. Strictly speaking, this is not part of the rules, and it could be left out of this article. I am interested in keeping it, though, because it is such an ancient and yet completely up-to-date part of the lore. My problem is finding a source. I could probably find it in some chess book for beginners, but I don't have any of them in my home library. When I looked online, all I found was stuff about online chess, where this obviously isn't applicable. Can anyone find it? Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it in the rules that came with my first chess set, $2.99 from Holdson (note incorrect setup). But it's a strictly informal practice. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That website has a "download the rules of chess" button, and the rules I downloaded didn't mention choosing colors. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you manage to find a source for this Bruce leverett? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot to return to this before declaring victory.

Searching just now through "reliable sources" that I could think of, I didn't find it. I guess it is in the oral tradition. (It was added to this article in this edit.) I will remove it. But if someone finds it in the literature, who knows. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quale has added a source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead positions

I think it would be satisfactory to treat king v. king, king and knight v. king, and king and bishop v. king as WP:BLUE. I may add a sentence to explain what I am doing here. Examining Fine's Basic Chess Endings and the endgame sections of Philidor and Staunton, they do not even mention these three endings; that is, they are counting on their readers, who are expected to be complete novices, to understand these endgames without being told.

On the other hand, I don't think the same way about king and bishop v. king and bishop, both bishops being on the same color. I had never thought of this endgame before I read this part of the Wikipedia article, and having done so, I had to think for a minute to convince myself that it is, indeed, dead. I don't see this mentioned in endgame texts, but I don't think it is WP:BLUE either. I think the right thing to do is just remove this from the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the glossary of chess article in a long time, but I think that a deal position is defined there. The Rules article could just say that a dead position is a draw and link to the glossary, without giving examples. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19th century

I do not know what source or sources the paragraph about the history of the rules during the 19th century was based on. I have added a citation to the corresponding chapter of Murray's A History of Chess, but I am not sure that this covers all the ground. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (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.

Mental status examination

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) 02:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to containing significant uncited material, this 2008 listing contains few sources from the decade and a half since its promotion; I thus believe that it does not meet GA criterion 2b) or the standards of WP:MEDRS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to de-listing. I think if this was the state of the article when I assessed it I should not have promoted it. The uncited information is the most concerning, but also the writing is quite jargony in places. Also, (this is minor but) I think the images of art with the captions claiming these could be a representation of a disordered thought process are a stretch. There are descriptions of visual signs such as unusual clothing that could be much better examples for images. I'm not sure I agree that the sources being old is a problem for most of the article--if it's a widely used test that's been the gold standard for years you might not expect much to change about it--but we'd at least want to check that that's the case and that it's not changed importantly. delldot ∇. 14:44, 1 March 2024 (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.

Olympic Games ceremony

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) 02:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. There's quite a large amount of uncited material within the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2024 (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.

Tropical Storm Zeke (1992)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 12:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:1992 Pacific hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 12:45, 4 March 2024 (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.

Tropical Storm Omeka

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 12:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2010 Pacific hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 12:47, 4 March 2024 (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.

Tropical Storm Julio (2002)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 12:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2002 Pacific hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 12:49, 4 March 2024 (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.

Hurricane Fausto (2002)

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: Procedural delist Noah, AA^Talk 12:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2002 Pacific hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 12:50, 4 March 2024 (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.

1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 12:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:1975_Pacific_hurricane_season#Merge_1975_Pacific_Northwest_hurricane? Noah, AA^Talk 12:51, 4 March 2024 (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.

Green Knight

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 have been fixed. Spinixster (chat!) 10:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article from 2007, reassessed in 2009. Alongside the 5 citation needed tags, the article has many more unsourced paragraphs. For example, in the lead, Scholar and writer J. R. R. Tolkien called him the "most difficult character" to interpret in the introduction to his edition of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight., is unsourced and not seen elsewhere in the article. Spinixster (chat!) 09:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled in the citations that have been tagged. The "most difficult character" is from Burrow (now cited), not Tolkien. It should be straightforward for anyone to cite anything else that is challenged here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spinixster: I've supplied citations for the (few) unsourced paragraphs, mostly primary "plot" material which we normally don't consider needs to be cited actually. Anyway, the whole text is now cited. The article is in good shape so I suggest we close this as Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2024 (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.

Annika Sörenstam

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) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a tremendous amount of work. 13 citation needed tags. The "Professional wins" section is completely uncited. Schierbecker (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

All results are here

Source:

I placed the ref in the Professional wins section.

Ryder Cup controversy source also in place.

Regards, EEJB (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[svara][reply]

^ "Spelare, Annika Sörenstam, Samtliga tävlingsresultat i kronologisk ordning" [Player, Annika Sörenstam, All tournament results in chronological order] (in Swedish). Swedish Golf Federation and Golf Data AB. Retrieved 21 February 2024.

EEJB (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEJB, do you think this is worth saving? I have limited time, but I can lend a hand in improving. Schierbecker (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like the nominator's concerns have been mostly addressed. Just about everything looks cited. I see only one cn tag left. If it can't be addressed, worst case that sentence could just be removed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is coming along, but the Professional wins, Major championships and LPGA Tour record sections are almost completely uncited. Schierbecker (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Professional wins" section already has two citations that cover the whole section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Sources put in place. Hope it's enough. Regards, EEJB (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2024 (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.

Michael Larson

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) 21:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sent this to GAR a year ago, and I'm still not sure it meets WP:WIAGA criteria for breadth and reliability of sources. To wit:

Tagged with {{one source}} which I don't agree with, but still should be discussed regarding the article's integrity.
Should the "Press Your Luck" scandal link to a bootleg upload of the special on YouTube?
This American Life, Buzzr, World's Greatest Con are all just primary links proving "this medium discussed Michael Larsen".
Buzzer Blog has been proven in the past not to be an RS and should be replaced or removed.
The GMA interview is also sourced to a bootleg upload and should be swapped out.
Is Mental Floss a RS? I haven't seen it on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.
Sources 20 and 21 do not prove that Larsen's record was beaten, suggesting WP:SYNTH.
Source 22 is just an inflation calculator and has little to do with the subject at hand.
Larson also discovered that the fourth and eighth squares... entire paragraph is unsourced

Honestly, I'm not 100% sure how far over the WP:BLP1E threshhold he even is, as most of the post-Press Your Luck information comes almost entirely from the documentary or from other primary sources such as the GMA interview. The previous GAR stalled out due to a focus on notability and did not properly address the sourcing issues I've brought up above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. I am quite disillusioned with this site at this point and simply lack the energy to try to save it a second time. I will note that I have never had any issues when using Mental Floss, nor have I seen any users raise questions about its credibility. I also question "BuzzerBlog has been proven in the past not to be an RS" as its editors are very well-connected in the game show world and have never (to my knowledge) put out blatantly false information on their website. I made the argument in favor of Larson's notability in terms of WP:BLP1E on the last GAR, so should this ever end up at AfD, I will gladly make an argument in favor of keep once again. But as for its GA status, others can gladly make that decision for themselves. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want this to get sidetracked by the subject's notability again. My concern is more in the sourcing quality and the unreferenced portions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is fairly clear that if more than 1,500 words are sourced entirely to a YouTube link, then that part of the article is not WP:DUE. At the moment, the article is in clear violation of GA criterion 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as I still largely agree with TenPoundHammer regarding this article's flaws, though I would probably pass Mental Floss as a reliable source. However, additionally: (a) About 11.6 percent of the article is unsourced. (b) "The game" section is wholly overdetailed, which has apparently been an unaddressed concern for about 12.93 years. (c) The {{one source}} is a problem. Lastly, (d) I cannot understand why this is written as a biography, given Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. 82.8 percent of the article is directly related to the Press Your Luck event, and the rest is only sourced to articles discussing him in that same context. (When I wrote suicide of Bill Conradt, and was accused of vandalism for redirecting the BIO1E thereto, Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) wrote at AN/I that the event-article was appropriate because what little biographical information existed about the subject was far-and-away secondary to the event.) There's plenty of sources here to write Press Your Luck scandal appropriately, but it too would need to reckon with the other problems listed on this—and the article's talk—page. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:52, 3 March 2024 (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.

Wind shear

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: Unfortunately, since the presented issues have not been addressed since the nomination was started on February 7, I am delisting the article. Noah, AA^Talk 04:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of response at the notice, I have copied and pasted my concerns below. I have not evaluated other criteria at this time. If someone wishes to work on it, I can do a more extensive review. The article will be delisted on February 14 if the concerns are not addressed.

There are areas needing citations as well as different sources since verification failed.
There seems to be more topics and newer sources discussing windshear here
The article seems quite unbalanced with most of it discussing vertical wind shear and Im unsure that all the main aspects are being addressed. Noah, AA^Talk 16:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. I’ve awaken from my crypt. ;) I’ll look into the citations, but newer citations aren’t always better. From what I recall, original sourcing is the name of the game, which argues against newness in established topics. If you’re unsure what needs to be addressed further, why GAR? Be bold and explore the topic. GAR is not completely incumbent on the main contributor to figure out what you mean. I hear you’ve GARed another article where this is true, and will respond there more appropriately. I hope you’re not simply targeting articles for GAR where the main contributors have been inactive lately. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thegreatdr, have had a chance to look into the references? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can tomorrow. I’m concerned that new content contributed since my last edit 15+ years ago caused the problem. If so, the resolution is simple. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting is certainly a viable solution, Thegreatdr. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given we are going on a month, I will be forced to delist this article unless some progress is made soon. Noah, AA^Talk 18:58, 5 March 2024 (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.

2007 24 Hours of Le Mans

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) 00:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 promotion contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2024 (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.

Wright brothers

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) 00:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 promotion contains significant uncited material, including 24 completely unsourced paragraphs; this means the article does not meet GA criterion 2b).

At over 12,000 words of prose (not counting lengthy quotes or captions), this article might also contain "excessive detail" and breach criterion 3b); considering the important subject matter, this is up for discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2024 (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.

Michael the Brave

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) 00:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Legacy" section, which means the article does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2024 (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.

California State Route 11

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 consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updates are needed to keep this as a GA. ChessEric 01:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: using a GAR to prompt article updates is a bit like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly, especially when your nomination statement omits what updates are needed. A better tactic would have been to post a list of needed updates on the article's talk page. A best tactic would have been to make the updates yourself if you could, and request assistance on the talk page only if you could not, say if lacked access to a source or sources for information you know warrants inclusion.

Now that we're here, what needs updating? Since I'm not clairvoyant, I need you to give me some indication if I'm going to help. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was bouncing around and editing many things at once and didn't put in a detailed description.

The updates are needed in the future section; it is outdated as the scheduled completion dates listed have either passed or are about to be passed. Additionally, some of the info within the section belongs in the history section. There is also, in my opinion, not enough information regarding Otay Mesa East Port of Entry border crossing, which is going to be the eastern terminus of this route. I would edit it myself, but I've also been busy with schoolwork and don't have time to look things up. However, I did find this article to help out with the update. ChessEric 01:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: I would reiterate the suggestion that trying some basic edits yourself would have been a much better course of action than initiating a blunt-force demotion discussion, especially since it looks like your issue is with a pair of sentences. (Please note that per WP:SS and other factors, we shouldn't add too much content about the PoE here as that is not the subject of this article.) Imzadi 1979 → 08:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to demote it; I'm just saying some things need to be updated. You're right that the GAR was a little too much, but I also didn't want to put an "update section" tag on a GA. ChessEric 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric and Imzadi1979: where does this GAR stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure at this point. ChessEric 20:18, 10 March 2024 (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.

Prince George's County Sheriff's Office

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) 00:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 Good Article has unsourced paragraphs, excessive citations, questionable sources, and bare URLS.

second paragraph unsourced — excessive citations — second paragraph unsourced — excessive citations — unsourced and flagcruft — bare URL — Instagram as a source — bare URL — youtube as a source. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist; fails 2b per nom. Also, dear Lord that first uncited para is looong. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 03:03, 10 March 2024 (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.

South West Coast Path

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) 00:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this 2008 promotion is uncited, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). In addition, the article needs cleanup for tone, as the "Route description" section often reads more like a guidebook than an encyclopedic article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2024 (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.

Mongolian language

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) 00:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 promotion contains significant uncited material, meaning it fails GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2024 (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.

Bergen Line

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) 00:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, meaning that it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2024 (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.

Cannons (house)

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) 00:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant uncited material in this 2008 promotion, meaning that it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2024 (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.

Tropical cyclone basins

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) 00:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. There are some uncited areas in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2024 (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.

Briarcliff Manor Fire Department

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: Article tagged for notability. Further action may be taken on that point, but GA concerns resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest qualm is with GA point 3b: this page is full of unnecessary detail. Ɱ (talk · contribs), the article's main contributor, appears to have had worked for Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society at the time, which might explain why this page is full of details only a local would find useful. Also, Abductive (talk · contribs) had raised questions about whether this GA was done properly in the first place, and whether it is properly covered by secondary sources, so throw point 2b in there.

This article is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Briarcliff Manor, and I'm suspicious of a few of those articles, but let's start with this one. Apocheir (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to take a stab at this, but Apocheir, are there any specific examples of passages you think are too detailed? I see a few examples, like this, but wanted to ask if you had other examples in mind.

1951 was the 50th anniversary of the fire department, and so the village held a week-long celebration beginning on July 1, 1950, with a morning service at the Briarcliff Congregational Church, a band concert at Law Park, and a Fourth of July parade with 5,500 spectators, with a march led by Fred Messinger, followed by eight ex-chiefs. The parade included Scarborough's first fire engine (the red hand-pumped 1901 truck), many bands, and twelve fire departments from Westchester County municipalities. The ex-chief's dinner that evening drew 85 guests. In that year, it was noted that there were not yet any resident deaths from fires within village boundaries. - Honestly, I would have condensed this to one or two sentences.
A year later, one of the most notable fires in the village happened at about 10 pm on January 22, 1982, in the village central business district. The fire began in the basement of Briarcliff Stationers and destroyed the Briarcliff Country Store, Briar Rose, and the Shoe Bazaar. More than a hundred Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville, and Ossining firefighters assisted to control the fire, which continued to burn at heights of 30–40 feet at midnight, but was under control by 1:30 am. Damage was estimated at $500,000 ($1,516,200 today[9]). - Again, this could be one sentence.

If your main concern is specifically with over-detail, I could try to remedy this. However, if sourcing is the other major issue, it would be much harder for me to find sources for this. Ɱ, who presumably added the main source for this article (A Century of Volunteer Service: Briarcliff Manor Fire Department 1901–2001. Briarcliff Manor Fire Department. 2001.), has unfortunately retired, and he probably has access to news sources that I don't. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished cutting the unnecessary detail. Anyone is free to restore details that they think are relevant, or to make further cuts. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really encyclopedic to have a list of retired apparatus? How far back do you go with such things for completeness? Is it really encyclcopedic to inform the reader about equipment that isn't used anymore? I work with governments, and some cities tend to burn through a lot of equipment. I can only imagine if we were to keep a list like this for the police department, listing every Crown Vic they ever had 10 years ago. I will also note that the source for the current apparatus does not support the various Tahoes, Expedition, or utility truck. Hog Farm _Talk 15:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "Retired apparatus" section and integrated the prose into the "history" section. I'm not even sure what to do with the current apparatus that's not backed up by this source, since I doubt whether these pickup trucks or the utility truck even count as firefighting apparatus. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Apocheir, do you have any other concerns besides the sourcing? I see you pinged Abductive to this reassessment - I'll try to fix anything that comes up to the best of my ability. However, if the fire department indeed is not notable due to a lack of secondary sources (as was alluded to in the original GAN), a merge discussion might be merited. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I think the sourcing is the most important issue. If it's going to be merged, we're going to need to trim a lot more than if it remains a stand-alone article!

That said, let me respond to your earlier question. I agree with Hog Farm about the chief and assistant chief's vehicles, and I also question whether we need to state every single vehicle purchase that this fire department made, and how much it cost. It seems like every run-of-the-mill transaction the department made is mentioned. I'm suspicious of the second paragraph of the lede, outlining what seems to be an arbitrary collection of mergers and moves. In general there's a bunch of stuff that's the same as any other fire department in the US. Every fire department in 2024 uses radios, for instance. On the other hand, I wonder if the material on the 2018 embezzlement and the 2021 law giving them a carve-out could be expanded. Apocheir (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have trimmed down some of the info about the vehicular purchases (in particular, removing the cost). I've also added some more details about the embezzlement. There really isn't much to add about the 2021 legislation, though.

In regards to the second paragraph, it summarizes the history section. I'd argue that the mergers and moves are one of the few notable aspects of the history section that will remain if one takes out the info about the vehicular purchases. If the mergers and moves are removed from the article as well, I do not think the article will meet WP:GACR criterion 3a (i.e. the coverage would no longer be broad). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius, Apocheir, and Hog Farm: where does this GAR stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are still notability questions that haven't been addressed. Each point of WP:SIRS is in question for most of these sources, as well as WP:AUD. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to some of the sources that aren't available online, but certainly not to the history of the fire department written by the fire department itself. Apocheir (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of my concerns have been addressed. While the unsupported ancillary vehicles have been removed from the table, they are still referred-to in text in the sentence The Briarcliff Manor Fire Department has one tower ladder, three class-A pumpers, one heavy rescue vehicle, two ambulances, three chief's cars, a utility truck, and an antique engine. The department also has a trailer for safety demonstrations with a source that does not mention the chief's cars, the utility truck, or the trailer. Additionally, I don't see how it's possibly a due detail to reference the $7,000 trade-in value on the ambulance, especially when it can apparently only be cited to the board minutes that approved it. Hog Farm _Talk 00:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, I think notability might be an even greater problem. I was really hoping that I would be able to add reliable secondary sources, such as the NYT, but most of the mentions of the fire department that I could find on ProQuest, newspapers.com, and fultonhistory.com are passing mentions. Even The Journal News, which serves this region, doesn't talk about this much. Like I said, Ɱ, the main contributor, probably has access to news sources that I don't; he hasn't edited in months, though. It is a shame, as I was really hoping to save this article by replacing many of the instances of the fire-department history source. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius and Apocheir: if notability is a problem, does one of you want to take this to AfD? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have we hit all the points of WP:BEFORE? Someone might want to fill out {{Source assess table}} or {{ORGCRIT assess table}} as well. We should have a pretty well-developed case before bringing a good-rated article to AfD. Apocheir (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2024 (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.

Lev Chernyi

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) 23:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is another article that was given a GA assessment over a decade ago. The original GA review was incredibly short and didn't really cover any of the GA criteria. I thought it'd be worth me going over the criteria and seeing if it still holds up.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Prose is understandable, for the most part. No major issues with spelling or grammar.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The layout of the article goes against the manual of style, as it currently has its "See also" section below its footnotes and references. This is easily fixed though.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Its sources are included and formatted properly.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
I'm not sure I'd call The Match!, an individualist anarchist magazine, a reliable source. Not only is its editorial oversight iffy, but it's clearly closely paraphrasing much of its text from Avrich's book, to the point it's questionable why it's being cited in the first place. I've also identified a few cases in which a source isn't cited inline with the information it is pulling from:
"Chernyi advocated the "free association of independent individuals" in a book titled Associational Anarchism and published in 1907." Despite this sentence clearly being a rearranged version of what Phillips 1984 said, it doesn't cite Philips, instead its cited to the primary source, which is in Russian.
For the sentence that says "Scholars including Avrich and Allan Antliff have interpreted this vision of society to have been greatly influenced by the individualist anarchists Max Stirner, and Benjamin Tucker" it cites Antliff, but not Avrich. This is problematic, as Antliff never actually mentions Benjamin Tucker as an influence, only Avrich does. But the way it's presented here, you'd think both authors considered both Stirner and Tucker to be influences, and that Antliff mentioned himself and Avrich's thoughts on this.

C. It contains no original research:
Quite a few of the things said in this article failed verification. I'd already removed some original research from the article,[1] but there's certainly more.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Soon after the article was assessed to be GA, a couple editors raised an issue with plagiarism on the talk page. But they were shrugged off by the author, who didn't see the problem with it. I thought I'd check it for lingering cases of plagiarism, and sure enough:
Going through it with Earwig's tool, there are still clearly problems with the article lifting entire sentences from Philips 1984.[2]
I've also found a couple cases where the article uses identical phrasing to Avrich, without attribution, for example describing Chernyi as a "vociferous advocate" of expropriation.
I also checked Cooke 1999, and sure enough, almost all of the sentence starting with "A personal acquaintance of Lev Kamenev" is plagiarised from this source. The subsequent section cited to Cooke is also too closely paraphrased for comfort and Chernyi's description as "one of anarchism's main ideologues" is word for word from Cooke.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It certainly hits the main beats, but there's definitely more sources that could be used to build this article further, especially in Russian. There's also some cases in which it seems to assume no information exists. Like it says Chernyi's birth date is unknown, which may have been true for the author at the time of writing, but we've known for some years now from police archives that Chernyi was born in the Smolensk Governorate on 16 February 1878.[3]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
It goes a bit too into the weeds about the activities of the groups he was involved in, but it's nothing major. A few cuts for concision would go a long way.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I think there are bits were it approaches non-neutrality, but these would be fixed by dealing with the plagiarism issues.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No reversions have been made since 2020. It hasn't received many major changes since its original GA review.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Photos are in the public domain. I even managed to find an example of pre-1929 US publication of the photograph of Chernyi for the purposes of this reassessment.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Bukharin's photo is tangentially relevant, but I'm not sure positioning it like this is necessary. It could easily be cut.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Were I reviewing this article now, I would have quick failed it on the issue of plagiarism alone. The other issues with the article certainly tip the scales for me that I don't think this article meets GA criteria, nor do I think it ever did. Changes could definitely be made to the article to bring it up to snuff, and indeed the plagiarised sections are the most in need of editing, but it's quite far from going over the line for me. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2024 (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.

Hurricane Fred (2009)

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: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 17:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge Noah, AA^Talk 17:53, 14 March 2024 (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.

Gorilla (advertisement)

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) 17:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant uncited material in this 2007 promotion, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2024 (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.

International Aerial Robotics Competition

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) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, much of which may be excessive detail; thus, the article does not meet GA criteria 2b) and 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) article has maintained GA status for over 14 years without any challenges to its GA status. Every section contains at least one, and often several citations that are relevant to the material in that section. The IARC is the world's longest running aerial robotics event, now entering its 10 Mission. Each mission is described and the results for each mission summarized without excessive detail-- just enough to describe the mission and how it was technically demonstrated by the winning team in accordance with GA criteria 2b) and 3b). Complete details for each mission are given at the Official IARC Website (which is referenced in the External links section) for those wishing to see full details. If there are instances where material is thought to be uncited, or detail believed to be excessive, these should be identified so they can be addressed, however the tenor, substance, and validation of statements contained therein, have been consistent for the past decade and a half that the International Aerial Robotics Competition GA status has been in effect. ⁃ Firewall 04:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firewall, please reply without irrelevant information (such as "The International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) article has maintained GA status for over 14 years without any challenges to its GA status") which has no relevance to this discussion.

"Every section contains at least one, and often several citations that are relevant to the material in that section." So? The point of a citation is not just to "be relevant to" material, but to directly verify it. Take the section headed "Third mission", which cites this source. Only around half a sentence of the section is verified by this source. This is even more true for paragraphs which completely lack citations, such as most of the "Seventh mission" section.

"Each mission is described and the results for each mission summarized without excessive detail". This is categorically untrue. Many of the missions are sourced entirely to primary, non-independent sources, meaning that they fail WP:DUE. Take for example the "Eighth mission" section, which only contains citations by the event's founder, a clearly non-independent source. The same goes for the "Fifth mission" section, which only contains a citation from the event's website.

Finally, I must remind you that as the founder of the event, you have a clear conflict of interest. You are expected to disclose it on your userpage and to follow the steps outlined at WP:COIEDIT when editing said articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article does not meet the GA criteria for the lack of VERIFIED citations, and more citations are required. When the article was first elevated to GA status by some admin, I (as the main author) was led to believe that it adequately met GA criteria-- and it has held that status, unchallenged, for 14 years. In bringing out that point, the longevity of its GA status further (albeit erroneously) confirmed the article's acceptability as a GA to me. In looking at the article I see that you have added "citation needed" tags, and I appreciate this. It is helpful. I suggest that we provide those citations, edit some of the wording where detail is deemed excessive (without losing clarity), and bring the article into GA conformance. All I can say is that the admin who guided me through the GA process on this article was misleading. To that point, I would like your help in getting the article to GA status. Regarding COI, there are other editors who have knowledge of the IARC and could provide the same input that I have, but as the founder of the event and one of the most knowledgeable concerning rules/results/references, I have taken the initiative to do the work on this article. I don't consider that a "conflict" insomuch as simply being the "point of contact" with the will to edit and the knowledge of where references can be found. I will do the work to bring this article up to GA standards with your help/review, but that will no doubt be seen as more COI. ⁃ Firewall 05:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firewall, the GA criteria have not remained constant; standards have got tighter over time, and this level of uncited-ness is no longer acceptable for an article marked with the GA icon. If, notwithstanding your COI, you wish to retain the GA status of this article, I would start by compiling a list of sources which meet the criteria of WP:RS, writing neutral, and fully-sourced revised sections, and asking for them to be implemented via edit requests. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have begun to find additional references. Since the International Aerial Robotics Competition has been operating for 33 years, some of the corroborating written reference material that was never on the internet (and therefore potentially archived by the WaybackMachine) such as magazine articles (especially international publications), TV news reports, and video science series, will be hard to find today. I'll do my best. ⁃ Firewall 22:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firewall, Wikipedia users of good standing have access to paywalled resources through the Wikipedia Library; you can also make requests at WP:RX, if you know the name of the source you are looking for. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2024 (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.

Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix

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) 22:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited information, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). It has also not been adequately updated since its promotion, as shown by events in 2015 being referred to with the future tense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to update much of the text and reduce the volume of material. I still need more general-use citations. Freeways of Milwaukee is my layout inspiration, and it may make sense to link to Phoenix metropolitan area arterial roads somewhere. "Roads and freeways" should just be "Freeways" with the exception of anything controlled-access (Northern Parkway). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie, do you intend to continue? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not now, but maybe someday. This really is one of those pages that would be best done after doing all the others. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:41, 18 March 2024 (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.

Prithu

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) 22:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, breaching GA criteiron 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and this article is not maintained. will work on it, give me a few days. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added references for the unsourced part. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz, the prose quality is now below GA standard. Take the first body paragraph alone: the first sentence is ungrammatical, "a ayonija" is clearly a spelling error, etc. Most of the article also seems to be based on a source (Wilkins) that is not cited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Airship that the prose needs some work to be at the level needed here. The GA bar for sourcing is not all that high, but I also have reservations about the age and quality of some of the sources used here, and the formatting of the references and bibliography is confused: while that isn't in itself reason to delist, I certainly wouldn't allow it through a GA nomination without fixing those problems. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:35, 13 March 2024 (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.

It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)

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) 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails to meet WP:NPOV (WP:GACR #4), specifically WP:AESTHETIC. For example, the second paragraph begins by saying "The song features some of Dylan's most memorable lyrical images." This would maybe be appropriate in a review, but it's not up to Wikipedia to decide which lyrical images in a song are the most "memorable". Other lines I'd call attention to are "Dylan sings in a new prophetic voice that would become his trademark", "...the critique in [the song] is more direct and less allusive", and "These lines seemed particularly prescient...". The first and last of these are WP:PUFFERY, and the middle is a subjective analysis. The prose of the article needs to make clear that these are the viewpoints of certain writers. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article way back in 2006, and it was just a brief account of the song's origins and a list of albums where it had appeared. In fact, my last act with regard to this article was reverting an edit with an unsourced opinion about the song's meaning. I had no idea it would grow into the current immense article, but I'm very impressed. I take your point about WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY, but I'm sure the article could be repaired to remove that without sacrificing the - to coin a term - encyclopedic sweep of its contents.ubiquity (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the article could be fixed without removing much information, the opinions just need to be attributed properly. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if User:BennyOnTheLoose, having had a recent TFA on Dylan, would be interested in taking a look and giving a view? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like the article can be fixed up to GA without too much effort, but I haven't checked it against sources. (There could be a some examples of OR, a common issue in Dylan song articles.) Some of the covers may not meet WP:COVERSONG. A couple of the sources (e.g. genius.com, imdb.com) aren't appropriate. If anyone would be able to add inline tags I'm happy to check specific examples; I've got immediate access to most of the Dylan books cited. Regards, 23:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Above comment was from me but I think I messed up the signature. I've made some changes to the article, and would be happy to work on any specific issues identifed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a citation needed tag, and a few places where the prose could do with tidying up, but to my eyes the WP:AESTHETIC, WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY concerns are dealt with. The article does need to be fully cited to meet the GA standards, but once that's done I think it would be over the bar. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation and tweaked the text (removed the lyrics) to match what the source supports. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly happy: two points on the citation note:

(the false start can be heard on both the 6-disc and 18-disc versions of The Bootleg Series Vol. 12: The Cutting Edge 1965–1966, released in 2015): artistic works can be used to cite their own contents (and we don't normally use a footnote in that case), but as we're doing a bit more than simply describing what any idiot can hear (that is, interpreting what can be heard as a "false start"), I think we need a secondary source here.
The author of Ecclesiastes laments (2:15–16) "The fate of the fool will befall me also; to what advantage, then, have I become wise? But I come to the conclusion that this, too, was futility, because the wise man and the fool are both forgotten. The wise man dies, just like the fool.": if nothing else, that inline citation should be a footnote (WP:PAREN), but to keep WP:SYNTH happy, it would be ideal to have a secondary source cited which has explicitly made that connection (I assume the Rogovoy citation above would do the job?)

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, did you see the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't. Added sources (Dylan's own site) for the false start. Added an additional citation from Rogovoy, as the quote above is in the book and he makes the connection. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, I'd be happy to close this as keep. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:24, 19 March 2024 (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.

Human tooth

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) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 promotion contains massive amounts of uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2024 (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.

Church of the SubGenius

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) 22:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of unaddressed cleanup tags. Doesn't seem to meet criterion #4, due to the number of weasel words. DrowssapSMM 02:53, 3 March 2024 (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.

Isaac

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. Real4jyy (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 Good Article has some sourcing problems (unsourced statements, possibly questionable sources) and an unclear citation style. Additionally, there may be some prose problems, such as MOS:PUFFERY. Spinixster (chat!) 09:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first observation is that the infobox is a disaster zone. There also appears to be far too much purely religious primary source material, while much of the other sourcing is exceptionally dated. The burial place section references a single mid-19th century work, which the etymology section is from the first decade of the 20th century. I could go on. As mentioned by the nominator, not an impressive sourcing picture. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Iskandar323 but would add that there are a few Citation Needed tags or Citations missing completely. The content also fails the criterion to be "broad", as it does not even mention the dispute if Isaac or Ismael was supposed to be sacrificed in Islamic tradition. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist lacking citations, and there should be more use of reliable, independent, secondary sources. I can't comment on whether it fails the broardness criterion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (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.

Press pass

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. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 GA uses many questionable sources and has many unsourced bits, which fails criteria 2 of the GACR. Spinixster (chat!) 01:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article organization, I see some issues. The lead talks about three types of pass issuers: news orgs, event organizers, and government law-enforcement agencies. I would expand the last one to government agencies generally, since other parts of government also hold press conferences where you need a pass to get in. "The UK Press Card Authority" absolutely should not be a level-2 section (a globalize issue). And there seem to be many uncited bits of text. This will need some work to save. Sdkb ^talk 02:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - would need significant effort to get to GA standards. Happy to give some time if someone does step forward to work on the artile. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2024 (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.

Clare Winger Harris

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) 04:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 Good Article has many unsourced statements, including parts of the "Critical view and influence" section. Additionally, I think some of the sources used are questionable, such as sources 7 and 9. Spinixster (chat!) 12:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can fix these issues and also give the article a general overhaul. But I won't have time to work on it until later in the week. Also, hard to believe it's been 17 years since I created this article. SMDH. SouthernNights (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SouthernNights do you still intend to get round to this? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad. I got slammed with life stuff and simply forgot. I'll work on this in the coming days. SouthernNights (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now addressed all the issues raised here along with giving the article a good rewrite, adding new information and citations, and doing a general cleanup.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SouthernNights, if you wouldn't mind, there are a couple of uncited statements that still require a citation; if those are appropriately sourced I think we can close this as keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm happy to fix those. Give me a few days, though, b/c I'm slammed with work through the weekend. SouthernNights (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok, I've fixed all theses remaining citation issues. SouthernNights (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2024 (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 Blackstone Hotel

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 appear to be fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 Good Article has three citation needed tags and some MOS:EDITORIAL problems. Spinixster (chat!) 01:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have handled the CNs (see edit summaries).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:17, 19 March 2024 (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.

Licancabur

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: Per Kusma, no reason to delist; GAR is not peer review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a moderate expansion/rewrite on the article in order to prepare it for FAC, which thus ended up quite distinct from the older version. I'd like to have someone check if it still meets the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" gadget in your preferences will show you numerous links which need to be specified. I would suggest having a look at links more broadly: e.g. he Inka/Inca (the former spelling is used more often in article, but the latter seems to be preferred generally on-wiki) are mentioned in the first section but are not mentioned until the archaeology section. You have some citation issues: #1 is not defined, while Ceruti 2012 requires a journal name.

More relevant to the GA criteria: adherence to WP:LEAD appears to be spotty—quite a lot of the article is not adequately summarized by the lead. You may also take a look towards copyediting, perhaps through WP:GOCE: sentences such as "Politically, it is located in the Antofagasta Region of Chile and the Potosí Department of Bolivia; the Treaty of Valparaiso establishes the border between Bolivia and Chile as passing over the mountain" could be trimmed of duplication, while "The slopes of the mountain are notably unstable; anecdotally, the noise can be heard all around the mountain" is a slight non-sequitur, as the connection between the instability and noise has not been directly made (and indeed, being mentioned only in Rudolph 1955, could it really be described as "notable"?)

However, these are minor issues which I know well arise after a complete rewrite; I have no doubt that the article meets the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Took care of some issues. In my experience, GOCE is not really the right place for pre-FAC copyedits; I think I'll ask @SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm:, when they have time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few general comments:

Try to avoid "5 – −25 °C (41 – −13 °F), decreasing to −25 – −40 °C (−13 – −40 °F)", it is quite unpleasant to look at and MOS:RANGE recommends not to do it.

Done, is it better now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The summit at 5,916 metres (19,409 ft) elevation[26][c] is capped by a summit crater is 500 metres (1,600 ft)[19]-400 metres (1,300 ft) wide summit crater that lacks large flat areas" apart from the obvious editing debris grammar problem, perhaps better to untangle this into several sentences ("The elevation of the summit is 5916 metres. It is capped by summit crater with a diameter of 400–500 metres and does not have any large flat areas").

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images: perhaps try to improve captions? Licancabur Lake is the black blob in the centre? The Laguna Verde photo is amazing, perhaps tell us in the caption that this is at 4000+m elevation?

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna: list of animals looks a bit random; are any of these particularly important / rare / only occurring at the mountain?

It's essentially these species which have their names listed out in sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Inka people you link to different from the Inca?

No. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "the mountains cover each other during the equinoxes" mean?

Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it looks like it could do with some copyediting and some work on the lead, but no reason to delist. —Kusma (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2024 (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.

Avocado cake

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) 06:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avocado cake. CMD (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2024 (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 Shanghai fire

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails criterion 2: This article has multiple citation needed tags, and all sources are contemporary to the event (WP:PRIMARY).
Fails criterion 3: The article is completely absent of any retrospective coverage or analysis after the sequence of events itself.

It's worth noting that its 2011 promotion was a quickpass that would not meet today's standards. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2024 (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.

Ryan Lochte

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 1b around lead, and 3b around staying on topic and 2b around citations. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 13-year-old GA that has quite a bit of unsourced content and a lead that is way too long. It was promoted 5 years before Lochte's 2016 Olympics scandal and has clearly not undergone a copyedit since. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:35, 18 March 2024 (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.

Pomeranian dog

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: While work is ongoing by the nominator to improve the article, it's very far away from GA status, so a new GA nomination may be better after the work is completed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to rewrite the health section due to sourcing being unreliable and I've removed other citations due to being unreliable. Other issues include uncited claims (and not just ones where I've had to remove an unreliable source), too much weight being given to a particular colour of Pomeranian dog (merle), a guidebook style paragraph (that I've removed), a very large gallery (should be inserted into the article naturally and some images should be removed as they're pretty much duplicates in terms of encyclopaedic/knowledge value), a US focused popularity section that delves far too much into the popularity of the breed in specific cities, and anthropomorphism of dog behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2024 (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.

History of Christianity

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 consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving GA from Generalissima I asked for a peer review to take this article to FA. In that review, Borsoka had a problem with sources that, in his view, were not general enough to reflect consensus. I have added more general sources, and have used multiple references to find and demonstrate majority views, but in his view this article, still, not only doesn't deserve FA, it doesn't even deserve a GA and should be reassessed accordingly. I am cooperating and asking for the community to weigh in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the records, I mentioned more than one problems. 2c: It probably contains original research because I found at least two sentences after a quick review that were not verified by the allegedly cited source. Furthermore, the article is not based on works about the general history of Christianty, but on several books and studies about specific aspects of church history. 3a: The article fails to address major aspects of the topic because it mainly focuses on the history of Western Christianty. 3a: In some cases, the article goes into unnecessary details. Borsoka (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. Which sentences do you think are not properly cited, and what major topics are omitted and what details remain. I've explained that this article covers each era by the geography of where Christianity was primarily centered in that era.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read my peer review. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed everything you mentioned there. I am still researching and adding more on the East one section at a time, but I am doing that. I meant, is there something else? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per the GA criteria, "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.

Personally, I do feel that the article is rather weak on its coverage of non-Western Christianity. Take e.g. Orthodoxy, which is mentioned in only four paragraphs across the whole article, and nothing between 1054 and the modern era. Similarly, Oriental Orthodoxy is mentioned once in prose and the Coptic traditions not at all. I think the assertion above that "this article covers each era by the geography of where Christianity was primarily centered in that era" is perhaps subconsciously biased; what it should read is "this article covers each era by the geography of where developments in the Christianity we see today were primarily centered".

The "Early Middle Ages (600–1100)" section is especially teleological: it deals near-exclusively with Western Europe (including the Crusades, viewed exclusively through a "Frankish" lens), which is difficult to justify. The sole paragraph dealing with Byzantium, beginning "By the end of the first millennium..." is inexcusably vague and dismissive.

That said, bearing in mind the GA criterion above, which allows "significantly weaker" broadness than that expected from featured articles, I think this article is acceptable at GA. Western-biased, yes, but that's not unusual for Wikipedia, and it's not terrible in the later sections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of featured criteria issues

Coptic Christianity was originally in the article, was removed as a less than major detail, and is now added back in. The article does focus more on the West than East. I used the Cambridge History of Christianity extensively - it's probably my major source - and it seemed to me like that is what they did, so it's what I did. I want the article to be as comprehensive as possible, and I am also deeply concerned about adding length. I will try to figure out how to fix this with both those things in mind. I have already asked for help from another editor who is knowledgable of Eastern Christianity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it clearly isn't what they did. Look at the relevant volume of the Cambridge History for that section ("Early Medieval Christianities, c.600–c.1100): nearly every chapter contains extensive discussion of the non-Italian/Western Christianity this article is centered around. If you are deeply concerned about length, you should look at where you are wasting words, such as entire paragraphs cited to single sources, a clear sign of WP:UNDUE material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I have not read every chapter of that volume. I must be wrong, but I was unaware. I have already been working on doing what you suggest. Please be patient. I was just explaining my previous thinking. Before coming here, I added 3 paragraphs on the East to Late Antiquity, but I'm afraid you still won't like them as they mostly cite one source. It does represent the majority view. It's just convenient, which I suppose is the same as saying it's the lazy approach. It's not an excuse, but I have spent so much time on this article that I'm worn out with the conflict over it. I want to see it through, and I am trying. I am concerned about wasting words. Please, you know I am. And I am again unaware of what you are referring to. It sounds as if "entire paragraphs" should be cut. Please tell me where. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I have collapsed this section as it does not relate to the GA criteria) In general, with articles of this size, you should not be including information which only one source has seen necessary to mention. Relying for entire paragraphs on one source creates WP:WEIGHT issues you can ill afford: how can you judge "the prominence of each viewpoint" from one source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quote. My problem is that this is not a "shorter article", but a large article which covers almost exclusively Western Christianity. I think it should be quickly delisted. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it comes under "overviews of large topics". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text would not allow us to present the history of Germany, France and England in an article about the history of Europe. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Eastern Christianity across the board will take time. It would be a demonstration of good faith to acknowledge that I am doing that and have done the rest of what you have asked as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move that material out and this page to History of western Christianity...? There seems to be a consensus that that seems to be what it actually is... ——Serial 19:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no History of Western Christianity article as such - but there could be. There is Western Christianity that contains a short history section. So are you suggesting a sub-article that expands the history section? That's probably doable. It would be a lot of work but that might actually resolve the conflict here. It would also make it possible to keep the size down.

There's actually an awful lot in this article on the East - I guess that could be merged into Eastern Christianity as well - if it isn't already there. I wouldn't mind doing all this if others agree it's the best approach. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved the History of Christianity to the History of western Christianity. If there are any objections, please go to the talk page there. Thank you ——Serial. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this end the reassessment? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So a general History of Christianity just doesn't exist anymore? What about the interwikis? I think a move like this really needs a consensus beforehand. Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too think this is a rather strange move. I get maybe there is a lot of detail in the west and east parts that merits its own attention, but there should be an overall history of Christianity page. As noted during the recent DYK run, it also needs a bit more balance in my view, the relative coverage of Christianity in the United States compared with Africa and Latin America is not proportionate. — Amakuru (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't see where SN54129 got the idea there was a consensus for the move, so ~~I'll move it back per WP:RMUM and start an RM~~ nope, Amakuru has already asked to do that at WP:RM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move. SilverLocust 💬 03:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dagnabbit!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SilverLocust for doing the work that restoration required. This article makes a better "History of Western Christianity" I thought and an overview article could easily be recreated from a synopsis of both the western and eastern articles. But if it's consensus to leave it, I will accept the decision of the community.

Now back to the GA reassessment I guess. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: My revert was at the request of the others. I am mostly indifferent about whether it is moved/split, but I agree with Skyshifter, Amakuru, and AirshipJungleman29 that the move needs a discussion beforehand — either by way of a requested move or proposed split. SilverLocust 💬 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate that, but it does seem as if many are willing to make demands about what this article should be without being willing to do the work. When you reverted, you did the work of adding back the refs and so on, so I thank you for that. Since there is disagreement over the move, we should probably deal with one issue at a time, and since the GA issue came first, we should probably address that first. So far, there is one yes and one no. I originally posted this request for reassessment because of that no. They give these reasons:

2c) First, it says two citations that cited the wrong chapter are "original research". I cited the author/chapter after the right one, but the rest was correct, even the page numbers. That's not OR, it's just an error. At any rate, that has been fixed.
3a) The "no" voter says the article needs more general histories. Those have been added. The reasoning given is that only general histories lead to an understanding of majority views, but I don't think that's true. They are only one person's perspective on a very broad history, and they probably aren't experts in every aspect. By using multiple books and articles on specific aspects of history written by experts, it is possible to get multiple points of view on the same events. The "common" view can be found two ways: when multiple sources say the same things - or when one of those specialists report on what's happening in the field. There are plenty of sources of both kinds used here, and I can assure everyone that the majority view is what is in the text.
3a) The complaint that the article has a western bias is fair and is being addressed. It is just taking some time for additional research.
"In some cases, the article goes into unnecessary details". For reviewers on this page, there are two complaints about not enough detail on some topics and one complaint about too much detail without saying where. One way or the other, I am working, with help, to make the article as concise as possible and still be complete in its coverage.
None of these should prevent this article from being seen as deserving its GA. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SilverLocust , ~~ AirshipJungleman29, Amakuru, Borsoka, and Skyshifter. I have now added Eastern Christianity - and am not yet finished adding - but it's already to the degree that this article is no longer the same article that received the GA. It should, perhaps, be reassessed accordingly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that after a short reading I found highly debatable statements: (1) In what would become Eastern Central Europe, Christianization and political centralization went hand in hand in creating the nation-states of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary, and Russia. Many of the nation-states listed came into being in the 20th and 21th centuries. (2) [In the Byzantine Empire] The eleventh century was a period of relative peace and prosperity, and Christianity was the ‘glue' of the empire. After around 1050, the Byzantine Empire lost large territories to the Seljuk Turks. 3. Bulgarians are mentioned as living in Asia, Alanians in the lands now forming Iran. I think you should do your homework, and complete this article before demanding new and new reviews from other editors. Alternatively, you may want to complete an article about a shorter period of the history of Christianity, and achieve its promotion as GA and FA. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, Thank you. You are right. I should have waited until all the new material was in, checked and polished before asking anyone anything. I rushed because this is still standing open. I expected to come back and continue to add and move things around, because I thought others would be willing to help. Now you have.

The nations listed had their roots/precursors in the Middle Ages, but that is unclear in how it is stated. Thank you for pointing that out. I have now changed it.

That "The eleventh century was a period of relative peace and prosperity," is not incorrect, it is just not a detailed discussion of "relative". If losing territory qualifies as the absence of peace and prosperity, then Byzantium never had any after Justinian, and we all know that is simply not true.

You are right again that Bulgaria would more properly be listed under Europe - except that category wasn't there. Since it's kind of borderline, it can be described as connecting to the Asian continent, and at the time, I had no better place to put it, so I just squeezed it in. I have now changed the section title and moved Bulgaria so it is now with the rest of southeastern Europe - which wasn't there before but is now.

I have added material on the East in every age including creating the entirely new section. Have I adequately addressed the issue of "Western bias"?

Have I adequately addressed all the issues you raised in the peer review? You have been the most critical - not complaining, just noting - but that is why I need an answer from you directly on whether or not I have adequately addressed those issues. If not, I need to know what hasn't been done. I know it's asking a lot, but this article is complex and needs all the input from multiple editors that it can get. I appreciate that you want the article to be the best it can. I share that desire and believe you are well able to help with that. You have, so please let me know. I do need your help and I am grateful for it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that I have not yet completed the East in the Late Middle Ages. I thought I would have it done by the time you read this, but I am not satisfied with it - mostly because I am now reluctant to put in anything that isn't already perfect - so I am not publishing it yet. You can still answer about the rest of it though, and I will have this last bit in the next couple of days - RL is interfering right now, but I'll get it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I stop replying your queries because we obviously live in paralel worlds: in your world, the loss of more than half of Byzantine territory is the sign of a period of relative peace, in my world it is not; in your world, the Byzantine Empire was continuosly losing territories, in my world, the empire was expanding under the first Macedonian emperors, and later under the Komneni; in your world, Bulgaria is located on the borders of Asia and Europe, for me, it is a clearly European country, etc. My opinion has not changed: the article has never reached the level of a GA. Borsoka (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The direct quote from Jonathan Harris' "Byzantium and the Crusades" is this: One consequence of Byzantine military success is that, especially after 1018, many parts of the empire enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity as the threat of foreign invasion, ever-present in previous centuries, now diminished. The frontier districts, particularly newly incorporated Bulgaria, Syria and Armenia remained vulnerable to raids from neighboring nomads, so many urban centers such as Adrianople, Philippopolis, Antioch and Theodosiopolis retained their military function and garrisons. In the interior provinces on the other hand, particularly in what is now Greece and western Turkey, towns were flourishing as centers of industry and commerce. Archaeological excavations reveal that areas of Corinth and Athens, which had been deserted for centuries, had now been reoccupied and built over, and important industries had begun to grow up. ... In general therefore Byzantium was probably a more prosperous and settled society in the mid-eleventh century than the fragmented and localized countries of Western Europe.

Constantine the 5th's reforms brought about a revival that lasted until 1204 and the fourth crusade. From the tenth century on, Byzantium projected wealth. This is in Paul Magdalino's, "Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development". In Angeliki E. Laiou's "The Economic History of Byzantium (Volume 2)"; in W. Treadgold's "A History of the Byzantine State and Society"; and any other history you check.

This is not an error on my part.

It does seem we are not living in the same world. For me, it is fair and reasonable - an act of good faith - to let things go once they've been addressed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Cambridge History of Christianity", volume 2, Bundy says on page 133: "The adoption of Christianity as the ‘glue of empire’ within Byzantium had serious repercussions for Persian Christians."

The Macedonian emperors are political and off topic for this article.

However, I have to say I am surprised you would mention them, since they prove my point and do not support your parallel world. Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty says ...revival took place in the late 9th, 10th, and early 11th centuries. ... The cities of the empire expanded, and affluence spread across the provinces because of the newfound security. The population rose, and production increased, stimulating new demand for trade. That's exactly what Harris - and all the others - say. It's what I said.

later under Komneni I did say I have not done the late Middle Ages yet.

None of these are legit complaints, except for one, Bulgaria is in Europe, which it is now. The GA criteria says that You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner. It does not say that if anyone has any suggestions for improvement, that immediately sinks the nomination. This article meets the 6 criteria. You'll have to do better than this to prove otherwise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2024 (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.

Military of Mycenaean Greece

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 sourcing issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread poor source use in this article, including the use of likely unreliable sources, text not being supported by their cited sources, and direct plagiarism, thus failing to meet GA2. (Thanks to Botterweg14 for noticing.) CMD (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist unless someone volunteers to rewrite the article from the ground up. While we shouldn't necessarily trust every scholar ragging on other scholars, the linked article on the talk page in Ancient History calling the book that is the article's main source "garbage" and written by non-scholars is rather damning. Even setting aside plagiarism / close paraphrasing, unreliable sources is a deal-killer. SnowFire (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this, I have a strong suspicion that some of the remaining text is plagiarized from the Osprey book. So fixing the article will require much more than simply checking the information against higher quality sources. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2024 (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.

Hurricane Karl (1980)

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: Procedural delist Noah, AA^Talk 14:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge consensus Noah, AA^Talk 14:39, 1 April 2024 (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.

Hurricane Juliette (1995)

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: Procedural delist Noah, AA^Talk 15:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge consensus Noah, AA^Talk 15:01, 1 April 2024 (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.

Hurricane Lili (1984)

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: Procedural delist Noah, AA^Talk 15:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge consensus Noah, AA^Talk 15:03, 1 April 2024 (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.

Glenn Robinson III

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) 18:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted back in 2012-2013, and while it met the standard at that time, in the meantime Robinson has essentially played his entire professional career. As a result, the article has atrophied, with 2018 onward in particular being sorely lacking in depth and the personal life section turning into a mess. The lead as well needs a complete rewrite. Wizardman 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on late career, LEAD and personal sections.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting as a post-closure comment that I reviewed the changes and am satisfied so I'm fine with this being kept as a GA. Wizardman 23:57, 6 April 2024 (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.

Geert Wilders

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) 18:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for GA in 2009. Since then a lot has changed, which has led to a lower quality article. After 2010 the article contains no coherent story, but rather incidents. Biographies of him are not used, but only articles about these incidents. The article is focused too much on international initiatives and travel bans, while leaving out many important things on the national stage. Party election results are often mentioned, but rarely linked directly to the person of Geert Wilders. Alltogether I believe it does not meet criteria 1, 3 and given recent national developments also not 5. Dajasj (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Agree that it is currently not in very good state. The problem from any article about an active person - factoids keep accumulating making the article more cluttered - while leaving them out would make the article outdated. As is now it seems the introduction is very long but any post 2010 details seem almost completely missing. As Dajasj states, the more recent inclusions are a long listing of incidents without sufficient narrative. I do disagree with Dajasj though on part election results as his political party (PVV) has only one single member: Geert Wilders, making the party results very much his personal results. Nevertheless I think that the article needs a very thorough revision / rewrite that ensures the style and quality of the pre-2010 sections is brought inline with newer sections. All in all I do not think it meets GA standard right now. Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2024 (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.

All-China Women's Federation

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: See also the section "GAR concerns" on the talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uncited paragraphs and the history section gives minimal post-1994 information. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2024 (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.

Llullaillaco

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: Clearly meets GA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is another of my previous good articles which has just received a large rewrite and expansion, pending a nomination to featured article candidacies. I'd like to check that the current form does still satisfy the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to clearly meet the GA standards still.

There is one unsuitably old source in the climate section, about the early Holoceen maximum being hotter than today. Today is much hotter than 28 years ago, ands accuracy in paleoclimate reconstructions is much much higher. There are prose quibbles I have which I can leave on the talk page. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with more recent sources that discuss the Norte Chico climate during the Holocene? And yes, I'd like to know about the prose quibbles, if I may ask. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with any local reconstructions. If you look at this 2022 reconstruction, you see that the pre global warming peak temperature at 23 S didn't take place in the early Holocene, but more like the late Holocene. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and the active lithium prospect "Proyecto Mariana" at Salar de Llullaillaco. I know it usually takes over 10 years to open a mine, but with lithium in high demand a more recent update would be good here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-GA-relevant proses quibble examples:
- Llullaillaco has been active in historical time, making it the highest historically active volcano on Earth. Mid-sentence cites impede readability. Sometimes they're unavoidable, but here the first sentence fragment is completely unnecessary, as it's already implied by the second sentence fragment
  - Pulled one reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentences are often a bit too long for nice flow. For instance, you can split the sentence about the ceremonial path like this: A ceremonial Inca path, starting from the tambo, leads up to the volcano. Spanning 1.5–2 metres (4 ft 11 in – 6 ft 7 in) in width, it narrows on steep sections and is delineated by wooden posts and cairns, likely to ensure visibility under snow cover. I use ChatGPT for this kind of copy-editing a lot, asking it to improve flow or write things more concisely. Might be an idea for the top-20 long sentences in the article.
  - Hrm, it seems like that sentence is already split? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is most often associated with either convective or cyclonic activity during summer and winter, respectively --> the word respectively forces a reader to reread earlier parts of a sentence to match elements. Here, you can rewrite as "It is most often associated with either convective activity during summer or cyclonic activity during winter".
  - Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Only a few climate data are available on Llullaillaco --> This will feel grammatically ambiguous, given that data is usually not used as something countable. You can use alternatives such as "Limited climate data is available on Llullaillaco"
  - Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I would ask for a copy-edit before you nom at FA, or make use of LLMs for it instead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2024 (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.

Solaris (1972 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 • GAN review not found

Result: Issues have been resolved and I have fixed the plot that was too long. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 addition has three citation needed tags, one disputed tag, and uses some unreliable / questionable sources like IMDB. Thus, this fails criteria 2 of the Good article criteria. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it weird to reassess a GA whenever it gets a couple of tags. WP:SOFIXIT. We all should know quite well how to handle WP:V: Just delete the dubious pieces, or, better, move them into talk page, because they may contain valid info, simply nobody freaking cares anymore. - Altenmann >talk 03:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spinixster, I've cited all the tagged material in the article. Were there any other specific ones you wanted to check? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all issues have been addressed. The Plot section is over the limit suggested in MOS:FILMPLOT, but I think I can fix that myself. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:44, 3 April 2024 (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.

AMC AMX III

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) 20:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2021 listing contains poor sources and poor sourcing, extremely poor grammar - specifically in the “History of development” - and this page was completely copied from the German Wikipedia version, which is an “excellent article” on that site, but we know that what classifies as “good” on that site is a lot softer than the English WP. This page obviously did not undergo a thorough review, and will need a heavy copy and sourcing edit. 750h+ | Talk 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I reviewed this article, I checked each individual reference that was cited, both to verify the claim and to assess its reliability as a source. If you don't like the refs, that is one thing, but to say it "obviously did not undergo a thorough review" is not true. I am given to understand that there was some attribution issue with this article's translation -- but this is easy to fix by noting the attribution in the edit history, and does really seem relevant otherwise. jp×g 🗯️ 10:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting one of the paragraphs from the article: “The decision to outsource the development and production of the AMX/3 to European operations was made for financial reasons. Management hoped to keep production and sales prices low in this way. Series production was to be undertaken by the German coachbuilder Karmann, who, in Rheine, had been assembling AMC Javelins destined for Europe since 1968 from disassembled parts kits.The schematics called for increasing production of the AMX/3 to 1,000, after an initial run of 24 cars, and according to other sources, as many as 5,000 annually. They would be marketed in the US and Europe. Other sources suggest that AMC initially targeted building 5,000 cars annually and later reduced this to 24 cars yearly. The estimated retail price was to be US$10,000 to $12,000 . Although not in the same category, this was about three times that of a contemporary mass-market Ford Mustang base model. A more equivalent two-seat mid-engine GT car, a Ferrari 365 GTB/4 "Daytona" was offered for US$19,900 [33]” is an example of bad punctuation and grammar. I’ve checked a few of the sources throughout the article too, and they do not verify what is being said. “In the autumn of 1968”; considering this page was almost entirely copied from the German Wikipedia, how are we supposed to know what it’s talking about? No offence, but I highly doubt you did a thorough review of each and every one of the 104 sources in the article.

Also, I realised this article did undergo a featured article candidacy. A comment by Buidhe states, “Referencing needs a lot of work, both in terms of formatting and use of unreliable sources/OR with various self-published websites and photographs of cars all being cited to support text.” which I 100 per cent agree with. Another comment by a coordinator says “as well as Buidhe's concerns, I note some statements that are not cited at all, and others that editorialise, e.g. "What is certain is that in the summer of 1970 AMC..." So as well as improving sourcing, a good copyedit is probably in order, it might also remove seasonal references like the one in this statement. After that I'd recommend trying peer review before considering a re-nom at FAC.” IMO, some questionable references include The Truth About Cars, amx3.org, the Ultimate Car Page, Supercars.net, Sports Car Market, drivetribe.com (dead link), www.amx390.com, among others. This would be a quick fail if I were the reviewer.

In all, referencing needs heavy work, some unverifiable text may have to be deleted, and prose could use come copyediting too-but this could easily be fixed, as you mentioned. If you do plan to fix up the page, as CZmarlin is currently doing, you’re going to need an experienced editor/reviewer to come check the page for verification-every source. 750h+ | Talk 06:16, 24 March 2024 (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.

Ronald M. George

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 consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2011 GA has some unsourced statements and prose issues (MOS:EDITORIAL, etc.) Additionally, this article may not be up to date (the latest information in the article was in 2013) and may also fail the broadness criteria (the article is quite sparse despite his roles). Spinixster (chat!) 11:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I was pinged on this, as I have not edited this article, except that I am part of a related WikiProject. That said, the most recent edits appear to be from last year, and it makes sense that the most recent information is from 2013, as that is when the subject's public life basically ended. As for matters of copy editing and unverified content, this sounds like stuff that can be easily fixed. I hope I am not the only WikiProject member who was notified, so that way these issues can be resolved.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 15:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were pinged because you were the GA reviewer in 2011, RightCowLeftCoast. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That was so long ago. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 14:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a word search for MOS:EDITORIAL, my word search didn't find any of those. The closest is notable cases sub-section header. I think it's fine to mention the cases as part of the subject's judicial history. Why those, I don't know why the article creator chose those specifically, but the content is verified to reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What specific "MOS:EDITORIAL, etc." issues did you have in mind Spinixster? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "extremely unusual decision", "Oddly," "their evidence against Buono was so weak that it did not justify even an attempt to win at trial", etc. I am not too well-versed on these kinds of MOS policies, but those words do not sound encyclopedic. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All seem to be supported by the sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2024 (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.

Midway International Airport

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) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains significant unsourced text. Prose is difficult to parse in many places due to intricate details and suffers from WP:Proseline. Talks about a 2018 plan in the future tense (about concourse A). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist issues are unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 01:00, 6 April 2024 (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.

SM UB-14

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) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies heavily on Uboat.net, an WP:SPS enthusiast website. Schierbecker (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2024 (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.

Kraków

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) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material throughout the article, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec. According to point 3 of the procedures before nomination for reassessment, you should consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors. I see no evidence you did, and if there is a possibility of improvement, we should use it.

I have some knowledge about that city and plenty of access to Polish resources if needed, so let's resolve it without delisting. Tag the passages that are wrong and suggest any other improvements needed to retain the GA status. It will take some time, but sure, but we can do it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point of this process Szmenderowiecki; I am glad to hear that you are willing to take an active role. As you are a subject-matter expert (or more so than I in any case), let's start with the general: do you think that the general organisation (layout, weighting, etc.) is good enough? For me, I am slightly concerned by the "Economy" section, which appears to be unduly focused on "Entrepreneurship"; do you agree? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit too busy, but I'll be back with a detailed reply shortly, I'll need to analyse some books for that to make an informed judgment. I want to strive to something like FAs of large cities (I'm working in my sandbox on Le Touquet, a French seaside resort of 5k people, and I'm using Kent, Ohio and Hamilton, Ontario as examples of what should I strive to. Btw, if you can update the Kent article with 2020 US census data, that would be great). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the economy section is a shambles, it needs some serious rework. I compared it to an excellent section about the economy of Bristol (an FA). Also, no budgets existed since 2011? The lead is also IMHO a bit chaotic. When I'm able to edit from desktop, I'm gonna dive deeper.

I'll look into this in the next couple of days or maybe weeks, maybe will do some ILLs to some history of Kraków books, of which I'm sure there's a lot. Maybe by that time I'll also finish the Le Touquet stuff. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:AirshipJungleman29, if you could tag the statements that concern you, I'll take a look and add cites. SilkTork (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, I've done so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The first tag is on "The first acclaimed ruler of Poland, Mieszko I, took Kraków from the Bohemians and incorporated it into the holdings of the Piast dynasty towards the end of his reign." That sentence was not there during the GA assessment - it has been added since. I've just started looking, and this detail is not certain - there are some doubts about it. Given the uncertainties, and that the detail is not essential - it can be explored more fully (along with the uncertainties) in the History of Kraków article - I think it would be more appropriate to remove it. The essential fact is that "In 1038, Kraków became the seat of the Polish government", which is cited. SilkTork (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Users interested in that period of Polish history, IIRC, are @Merangs and @Orczar - perhaps they can help. I can try to look for some soruces or verify stuff too - ping me if more help is needed (I'll try to address some cite needed to help, time permitting). It would be good to rescue this; the article is comprehensive but undercited. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here in case anyone's unaware: this GAR can remain open for three months as long as the article is being worked on. Feel free to take your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging me. I wanted to address this issue myself some time ago. I will try to do my best over the coming week or so. Merangs (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Merangs, do you intend to return to improving this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: - Yes, however, it is disappointing to see that I am one of a very few users doing so and that I cannot dedicate a hundred percent of my time to this. Merangs (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Baggins I noticed you have made some improvements; do you intend to continue? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I wasn't planning on doing any more, no – I just took an interest cos my son visited Kraków recently. I can do a bit more copyediting, and maybe a source review, if it would help, but can't promise it would happen any time soon. As we are all volunteers, it's sometimes difficult to get traction on these things, which I know can be a tad frustrating. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2024 (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.