Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 81

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 80) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 82) →

15.ai

[edit]

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: Original review null and void due to sockpuppetry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed concerns about large-scale COI editing and neutrality issues in this article can be found at Talk:15.ai#Concerns about this article. GA criterion 4 is thus under serious question. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the current iteration of the article was as it was when the article was first accepted as a good article years ago. Much of the COI edits have been from vandals, and it's evident that the article has a major vandalism problem, the subject being a rather popular topic of discussion. I disagree with removing the GA label due to the edits of some bad-faith actors. HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While is this a good point, I would also like to express the concern over the fact that many of the citations make heavy references to one Kotaku article. Although I am repeating an concern already expressed in the above talk topic, I feel that it should be mentioned in this talk topic as well. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, as I did on the talk-page discussion linked, that the GA approval very probably should have never happened. The original COI discussion topic was never rectified and was randomly expunged from the talkpage before the article was assessed.[1] The individual who assessed the article as good only assessed one other article as good, and that article was deleted for large amounts of copyvio. It was an assessment provided by a new reviewer, after an IP editor randomly elevated the article to B Status[2] and expunged an entire talkpage discussion about COI editing. The one who reviewed the article has done little else Special:Contributions/SirGallantThe4th after the review, departed, and returned only to defend 15.ai from deletion[3] and then promptly returned to the ether. Again, there was considerable activity by individuals involved in the "Pony Preservation Project" to edit this article [4] including bragging about having their artwork featured on a wikipedia article [5] the same artwork that is presumably the logo that was copyvio'd off the wikimedia commons and which was improperly re-added to the article. There are blatant references on the PPP thread on the archive _which was included as a source_ on the article that show users suggesting fabricating sources and showing a coordinated effort to drive the direction of the article. Given the involvement of the PPP with 15.ai and the extensive editing done by members of the PPP, it is clear WP:COI. Given the circular nature of the sources (which were deemed reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources, which is dubiously applicable to this article, as the article is tangentially related to video games) and the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources says that editors should be cautious about blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance which the 15.ai article clearly is. If the Kotaku isn't reliable as "blog/geeky posts", that means every source that references the Kotaku article is likewise unreliable. Given that, the WP:NOTABILITY of the article itself is dubious. There are sources from Jan 2021 and then it only resurfaces in media covering a controversy of Voicesense, not articles about 15.ai itself. The problem with this article goes much deeper than some bad-faith actors who made random edits to the article over the years. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.
The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage. The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
Removing talk page content followed WP:TPO guidelines for outdated discussions. If specific violations exist, they should be raised at WP:AN/I rather than used to challenge GA status.
Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability. Per WP:NTEMP, the relevant quote is "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RGA, there's no minimum experience requirement for GA reviewers – questioning an editor's review history isn't based on Wikipedia policy.
It is entirely relevant when the editor in question had little activity on Wikipedia, reviewed two articles and two articles alone, and flagged them both as good when both articles had issues that should have failed them. Very specifically, this article failed GA Criteria for reliable sourcing when it was reviewed because it used WeGotThisCovered as a source [6] which has been an unreliable source on Wikipedia since 2020 WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED as well as using The Batch, which during the draft process was said to be an unreliable source.
The COI claims don't meet WP:COI burden of evidence – community discussion on PPP forums doesn't constitute "direct financial or close personal relationships."
The COI claims that were first brought against yourself, PortalFan22, and GregariousMadness Talk:15.ai#COI were never adequately addressed and were perfectly relevant. Moreover, the discussion was wrongfully expunged by IP Editor vandalismSpecial:Diff/1090463388. When the project you are writing about contains the notation Special shoutouts go to 4chan's /mlp/ and its anons who have spent hundreds of hours collecting, cleaning, and organizing clips of dialogue taken from the show My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Their collective efforts as well as their constructive criticism via thorough tests of experimental model versions have proven to be extremely helpful and ultimately indispensable to the development of my work and when the PPP cites 15.ai's code of conduct as their own code of conduct, yes, participating in off-wiki discussions about editing an article about something they are heavily involved in the development of constitutes a WP:COI. When material goods, such as artwork and logos, are being provided to 15.ai by PPP, that is a clear relationship. When PPP is directing individuals to edit the article to include information about PPP that is a clear and blatant conflict of interest.
Per WP:VG/RS, gaming outlets like Kotaku are considered reliable for tech coverage.
Per WP:VG/RS, News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance. The Kotaku Article is filed under Odds and Ends [7], not News. The article is not tagged as News. It is not a news post.
The article meets WP:GNG through significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Gaps in coverage don't invalidate WP:SUSTAINED once notability is established.
Furthermore, the last time WP:NOTABILITY of the subject was questioned, it was unanimously agreed that it met notability.
Notability isn't established. The coverage is trivial, and the previous AfD on this article was interfered with by blatant WP:SPA accounts that accounted for 4 Keep votes[8][9][10][11], and the AfD was specifically closed with the message Although not unanimous. The article plainly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSUSTAINED which says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The Eurogamer coverage isn't about 15.ai, the 2022 converage is solely about the Voiceverse controversy and stolen content from 15.ai, it is not sufficient to establish notability for 15.ai.
I find it odd that you consider an IP Editor who did nothing but vandalize Wikipedia pages aside from increasing this article to B Status and expunging a thread about WP:COI editing to have followed WP:TPO guidelines. In fact, WP:TPO explicitly states: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. The only exception given for deleting talk page content is Delete. It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article).
Nothing in WP:TPO allows for the wholesale deletion of a valid concern of WP:COI just because 3 months had transpired since the issue was brought up. Archival exists for a reason. Closing discussions exists for a reason. It is wholly inappropriate to delete and expunge the COI topic. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the suggestion that 15.ai does not meet notability is dumbfounding. It pioneered accessible neural voice synthesis, was widely covered in tech media, and influenced numerous subsequent AI voice projects. I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021. Whether or not you agree with how the GA review was conducted, the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable. The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.
~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your continued penchant of vanishing from Wikipedia and returning only for championing the existence of this article is highly unusual.
I would not be exaggerating when I say its advent was one of the biggest news in the AI space in 2020 and 2021 the project’s significance in AI development is well-documented and indisputable
These are not only wholly uncited and unsubstantiated claims, but claims which would indicate you have some sort of interest in this project and, again, should have never been involved in assessing the article in the first place. I am not going to repeat my points about why much of the sourcing is unreliable. If there is such wide, well-documented, and indisputable source coverage, where is it? Why is none of it represented in the article? Why is it that the only sources used were WP:SPS and unreliable sources?
The coverage is certainly not trivial, and the attempt to downplay it by cherry-picking coverage gaps or questioning the reliability of established tech journalism (and patently ignoring the sources that *are* reliable) does not seem motivated by Wikipedia policy.
It's not "cherry-picking" to state the plain fact that the sources used are not reliable for the purposes they are being used for. Kotaku's Odds and Ends culture section is not News. Kotaku is deemed reliable for News Posts during this time period. Articles which circularly refer to Kotaku's Odds and Ends piece within the same week as the Kotaku article does not represent WP:SIGCOV. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a concerning post. It’s extremely strange that my editing patterns are being used to cast suspicion on the subject’s notability and its GA status. As someone who works in AI, I naturally took interest in reviewing the 15.ai article given its significance in voice synthesis - in its heyday, it was literally the biggest thing in the voice AI space. The implication that my “return” to defend it from deletion was suspicious ignores the simple fact that many editors follow topics they find an interest in, and the fact that one can stay logged into my account without wanting to contribute to Wikipedia.
I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are. You’ve crafted an elaborate theory about coordinated editing and suspicious motives based solely on contribution patterns. Not every editor needs to be constantly active to make valid contributions, and returning to defend an article I reviewed from deletion is perfectly natural. Occam’s Razor applies here, and I hope anyone else who reads this can see it for themselves as well.
~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be coordinated disruptive editing going on. While the 15.ai article has experienced vandalism before, the current situation is unprecedented. The above editor's removal of well-sourced content followed by claims of insufficient citations is particularly concerning. That a non-neutral paragraph that blatantly violated WP:YESPOV (which I reverted recently) was "approved at DRN" is also strongly questionable, especially given the unusual spike in DRN activity as well.
I plan to restore the article next week in accordance with WP:BRD, and I hope other long-term editors familiar with the article's development can assist (including yourself). Per WP:ATD, I don't believe GA status should be removed until we've made a good-faith effort to address any legitimate concerns through collaborative editing. The current issues, while worth discussing, can be resolved through normal Wikipedia processes rather than immediately reverting to non-GA status. HackerKnownAs (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest stepping back and seeing how presumptuous (and frankly alienating) your comments are.
There is broad evidence of off-Wiki coordination to edit the article, coupled with the emergence of clear WP:SPA activity and manipulation in both the AfD and the editing of the article. It is not, frankly, presumptuous or absurd to suspect something is suspicious about an editor who erroneously assesses 2 articles as good, one of which is full of copyvio, and then disappears for an extended amount of time and returns only to defend this article. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve said multiple times that you have evidence of off-wiki coordination to edit the article, and yet you haven’t posted solid evidence at all. I wasn’t aware of any forum before I came across this article while surfing through random AI related articles two years ago, so how does that make my involvement with the article a coordinated affair? The burden of proof lies with the editor making serious accusations, and forum discussions and editing patterns alone don’t constitute evidence whatsoever. If you have actual evidence of coordination, please post them instead of throwing unfounded accusations at editors who just want to help.
~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be bludgeoning and belaboring the point to reiterate, again, the issues I already pointed to in the talk-page discussion and above, if you are not inclined to read what is already provided, I cannot help you. Whether you yourself were involved in the coordination is immaterial, my point is that because there was demonstrable coordination it is not unreasonable to view your assesment, disappearance, and return solely to defend the article, subsequent re-disappearance, and subsequent re-return to defend the article, with suspicion given the fact that the AfD was manipulated. I have levied no specific accusation against you beyond the fact that your assesment was improper, that your only other assesment was deleted for copyvio, that you were an inexperienced editor, and that you did little else after the review was done. All of these statements are easily verifiable. After your approval of 15.ai you made 9 Talk Page Edits, 7 Edits flagged as minor, and 8 Mainspace edits and then you disappeared. If you feel particularly aggreived at my characterization of your activity as "little" prior to reviewing the articles, I quite specifically mean that within your first 25 edits on Wikipedia you assessed an article now deleted for copyvio as good and then assessed an article that utilized a source deemed unreliable since 2020 and sources deemed unreliable when the article was a draft as good. That isn't a whole lot of activity and represents a lack of experience. Your improper assesment of the article as Good was also used at the AfD with the discussion being relisted by an admin who commented I'm very reluctant to delete an article that is a current GA. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that I haven’t done “little else” on Wikipedia, I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article, which has since been heavily cited numerous times in Chess.com articles, Youtube videos, and other places on the Internet. It’s not fair to pass judgment for not being active on Wikipedia when I prefer to edit articles where I’m familiar with the subject rather than editing as many articles as possible to pump my contributions number up.
If you want more volunteers to help improve Wikipedia, I suggest not scrutinizing casual editors. I’m honestly a bit offended that I somehow have less credibility just because I don’t edit articles frequently.
~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was responsible for creating the Berlin draw section in the Berlin Defence article
Which you did before the assesment. My statement, which you are apparently misunderstanding, was The one who reviewed the article has done little else...after the review. Which is to say, you made few edits after you assesed the article and then you left for 6 months and returned only for the AfD and then departed again. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t aware editors were required to edit Wikipedia 24/7 to have their past contributions count. It doesn’t look like it from reading WP:VOLUNTEER. Apologies for having a life outside Wikipedia. I’ll try to do better.
~~ SirGallantThe4th (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the maelstrom above, much of which seems to have little to do with the GA criteria (notability concerns should be taken to WP:AFD, conduct concerns to WP:ANI, COI concerns to WP:COIN), the point of relevant contention seems to be whether the article is overdependent on a Kotaku source? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of contention for the Good Article Criteria is reliability of sources and breadth of coverage. The Kotaku used isn't from the part of Kotaku that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources clarifies is generally reliable. The Kotaku used comes from Kotaku's "Odds and Ends" section, with VGRSN noting that caution should be applied to Kotaku's geeky/blog content, and all of the coverage of 15.ai comes either the same way of the Kotaku article, almost always referncing the Kotaku Article, or comes a year later with trivial mentions of 15.ai while covering the Voiceuniverse plagarism controversy. Prior to my excising them, the article relied heavily on WP:SPS and stuff posted on Gwern and other personal blogs. Gwern, notably, describes itself as The goal of these pages is not to be a model of concision, maximizing entertainment value per word, or to preach to a choir by elegantly repeating a conclusion. Rather, I am attempting to explain things to my future self, who is intelligent and interested, but has forgotten as well as fansites such as "Equestria Daily", which have been previously noted at WP:RSN to generally be reliable when dealing with interviews of the cast/crew of My Little Pony or official coverage from Hasbro only Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_100#Two_My_Little_Pony:_Frienship_is_Magic_sources.
In terms of "Broad Coverage", it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, the article does not seem to stay focused on 15.ai and a number of the sources used and a great deal of the content is simply about the underlying technology and a scandal.
The neutrality of the article is also up for debate as the "Reception" section includes only positive mentions and sources misrepresented to praise 15.ai specifically. For instance, Rock, Paper, Shotgun that is cited says Machine learning is absolutely fascinating and yet I mostly just enjoy when people use impressive tech to create weird skits and memes, the article currently represents this statement in the reception section as Lauren Morton of Rock, Paper, Shotgun and Natalie Clayton of PCGamer called it "fascinating,". Similarly, the PCGamer piece actually reads Spotted by Kotaku over the weekend, 15.ai is a deep-learning text-to-speech tool trained on a library of audio clips for dozens of characters. It's all very fascinating to read about These quotes have been misconstrued into being glowing reviews of 15.ai itself when the articles are simply saying that the underlying technology is fascinating or fascinating to read about. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to fix these issues BrocadeRiverPoems? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my attempts, yes, I have removed the manipulation of news articles. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this entire discussion sounds more like one person with a personnal vendetta against it
my opinion is there are alot of articles that have way worse sources that people should focus on deleting, not this one 108.191.41.11 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of this article is not being proposed here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Fails criteria 2, several uncited claims in the article. Fails 4, the article is written to promote and celebrate 15.ai, its creations, and whatever the "Pony Preservation Project" is. It’s also written by people who have a habit of defending the article whenever it is called into question and then running away. Probably fails 5 as well, with the large-scale edits being made. 210.10.4.224 (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing personal attack. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found this: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=361116#p361116
It appears that this user in question (User:BrocadeRiverPoems) has a history of sockpuppeting/alting and virulently defending ideologically driven edits, particularly those related to Yasuke, while engaging in hostile and aggressive behavior towards other users who disagree with their position. I would very much like an admin to look into the disruptive editing patterns and possible sockpuppeting activities of this user, particularly in relation to the ongoing edit wars and harassment on the article.
This blatant dogpiling should not be tolerated on Wikipedia HackerKnownAs (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - this is a quickfail #4 and fails general criterion #5 (stable) both owing to the constant edit warring that's been going on nearly three months, which has not been limited to the blocked editors. There are also significant concerns about the neutrality of the original review, and many cleanup tags on the article. It is very clearly not a good article as it currently stands. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:58, 18 November 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 Bill

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited information throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 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 Cat in the Hat

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Adaptions" section contains many unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs, and uses unreliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the unsourced Russian claim, cited the video game. The rest of the material seems to be reliably sourced: none of the sources are redlisted. I've reorganised the material slightly and removed the most trivial stuff. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ref 71 (to cracked.com) should probably be replaced, and other mediums expanded if able, but unsourced statements are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 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.

LGBT themes in comics

[edit]

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) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bunch of {{citation needed}} tags where there are unsourced statements, so now there's 22; some of those can be resolved by cutting material, but at least one cn tag has been there since 2010. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:24, 7 November 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.

Aneurin Bevan

[edit]

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 seem resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is quite long, especially for an article of this length. This should be trimmed. The article overrelies upon quotes and block quotes. This creates copyright concerns and also might not be the most effective way to give information to the reader. There are some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: strictly on the blockquotes, I'm not sure I see a huge problem -- the man was a politician and an orator, so there are a number of good reasons to give readers his own words rather than someone else's summary of them. There's no copyright concern regarding the secondary sources, since only the original publisher of a work can claim (or pass on through inheritance) copyright over it, and giving a speech in public qualifies as publication: even though we quote Bevan from Campbell 1987, that wouldn't give Campbell any claim over the copyright unless he had co-written the speech in question. Even then, quoting a person's words in an article about them, especially one which discusses those words, is textbook fair use. I can see an argument for cutting the Trafalgar quotation purely to make the point clearer, but wouldn't worry under WP:NFCC, WP:COPYVIO or any similar PAG. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is now 4 paras, & seems fine. I agree with UC on the quotes. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 12 November 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.

Fight Like Apes

[edit]

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) 14:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 breakup is not adequately covered. Instead of prose, the article uses a long blockquote one of the artists posted on Facebook. This needs coverage from independent, secondary sources and information presented in prose. There is lots of uncited text and one-sentence paragraphs that should be considered for expansion or merged together. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 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.

American robin

[edit]

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) 14:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, the article seems to be outdated. The conservation status, especially the culture section, must also be expanded and the refbomb should be removed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'In culture' section seems quite detailed enough for a species article, with a good diversity of coverage. If there is more it should go in a subsidiary article with a 'main' link here, but that is not a matter for GA or GAR.
Reduced refbombing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservation status: .........
Took a look through, and saw a few issues:
  • The map is poor resolution, and inaccurate particularly in respect of the southern edge of the breeding range; it needs re-doing (I might be able to do so later).
  • The vernacular names given for the subspecies ("eastern robin", "Newfoundland robin", etc.) are unverified; they are not used in the reference cited for the subspecies (Clement & Hathway, Thrushes), and should probably be deleted, unless other references can be found (which I doubt; weakly defined subspecies like these rarely get vernacular names).
  • There is far too much repetition of the page name, and even worse, in the possessive case "The American robin's xxxx", which looks awful. All of the latter, and most of the former, should go.
  • I've updated the tally of UK records to the latest available; I think this paragraph could be trimmed though, individual vagrants and their outcomes are too trivial to include here (and I say this even though I saw one of them myself!).
  • The 'Disease and vaccination' header would be better titled just 'Diseases'.
  • The 'Threats' section includes some very poor sentence structure and weird colloquial (unencyclopedic) phraseology - this has already been mentioned on the talk page 2 years ago, but not acted on.

MPF (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap - thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow this is a blast from the past. I'll take a look and see what I can do as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The San Lucas robin subspecies is mentioned in the lede as particularly distinctive, but this isn't expanded upon in the body.
    removed (the mention used English subspecies names, criticized already above here).
  • Could a cladogram be added to the Taxonomy section?
    it possibly could, but a phylogeny is certainly not a GAN requirement for an individual species, far less a GAR requirement.
  • There's a single-sentence paragraph in the Culture section.
    fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually impressed by Chiswick's work here in WP (I hope someone tackles Komodo Dragon). I still don't like the structure of the lead a little bit, but regardless of that; the article is looking good. Keep. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:33, 16 November 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.

Mzoli's

[edit]

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: Keep Sahaib (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was assessed 17 years ago, the article has changed substantially because of dead links and updates (such as the restaurant closing). I myself have edited this article in the recent past to address this but it still remains unclear whether or not the article meets the good article criteria. The article doesn't mention the fact that Jimmy Wales created the page despite it being mentioned in several sources (see talk page banner). Sahaib (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should confine itself to its subject matter (criterion 3b), not digress into discussing its own authorship. It could go on the article's talk page though. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General consensus over the years seems to have been to exclude its Wikipedia connection, which fulfills criterion 3b. Jimmy Wales creating the article is vaguely implied in the talk page with the Connected contributor template, however. 🍊 citrifuge (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia connection is not an issue as highlighted by the replies above me, that leaves the problem of the age of the GA review compared to how much the subject has changed. I agree that it needs a new review, so I'll go ahead and do it. I will start the review below, it should be finished within the next few days. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a general comment on two things. First, I don't any any opinion to express on the general question of whether the article is good now or not. Dead links sounds bad, but I've not looked into it very much. Second, me creating an article in Wikipedia and the subsequent nomination for deletion which ended in keeping the article is nothing about the restaurant and frankly not even that interesting about Wikipedia - except insofar as it does show that I'm not the god-king of everything haha. Basically, it's just evidence that even as late as 2009-2011 the press was still pretty confused about everything to do with Wikipedia, and this incident is probably only of very slight interest even in the history of Wikipedia!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose checkY

After me and Sahaib (talk · contribs) have rewritten much of the prose, I think it now meets quality requirements. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source health/formatting checkY

There were some issues but all have been fixed, all URLs have an archive link. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source reliability Magenta clockclock

Some unreliable sources were removed and replaced with reliable ones. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need a second opinion on the youth radio source. It is used to support a few sentences in the article. They say they are an organization that "equips emerging content creators between the ages of 14-24". It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source-text integrity check

I checked all sources and fixed any source-text integrity problems. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope checkY

I removed Some local residents near a long-planned shopping mall that was being built by a business partly owned by Mzoli's owner criticized his plans in 2008. Some businesses were evicted or threatened with eviction from older buildings owned by Mzoli, which were then knocked down to make room for the new property development. as it was off-topic. It be relevant in a separate article for Gugulethu Square. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Earwig finds no copyvio, I fixed all instances of too close paraphrasing during the source-text integrity check. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stable checkY

Article has only received 2 edits in the past year, despite previous controversy. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media checkY

No issues after removing Jamie Oliver. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captions checkY

First image is captioned well, see concerns about second image above. It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tags checkY

Tagged appropriately It is a wonderful world (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post improvements review

Hi Northernhenge (talk · contribs) and Citrifuge (talk · contribs), Sahaib (talk · contribs) and I have significantly improved the article. The major changes are listed above. If you could spare a moment to read the article and verify that it meets the GA criteria, that would be much appreciated. It is a wonderful world (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. There are a couple of CS1 tasks in source 6 (CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)). I think that the youth radio source is fine in context. The article doesn't rely on it and it gives a different seemingly authentic view of the venue. --Northernhenge (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I can't comment on the Youth Radio source as I don't usually do citing, though the readability and overall writing is fine. 🍊 citrifuge (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Citrifuge @Northernhenge Thank you very much. @Sahaib I'll leave it to you to close or highlight any further concerns. It is a wonderful world (talk) 23:02, 19 November 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.

Mephedrone

[edit]

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) 13:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have updated the pharmacology section using more recent sources. Still could use more review articles though. Boghog (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia could I ask for your opinion of the sourcing in this article, if you have the time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 22 October 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.

FreeSpace 2

[edit]

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) 17:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The plot section, at over 1,100 words, is more than recommended at MOS:PLOT. While PLOT only mentions films, I think this is too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This seems within the bounds of being able to fix the issue. GAR is intended as a "last resort" emergency when fixing the article fails. Based on the article history, you have done nothing to edit the page besides a driveby nomination, so this does not seem like a last resort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zxcvbnm: No article has to have good article status and I cannot find where it says that a reviewer has to edit the article before posting it to GAR. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors can choose where to spend time editing articles. If other interested, topic-expert editors wish to bring this article back to GA status, they are welcome to do so and I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's right in WP:GAR in bolded text. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. That means if you have not at least tried to bring the article up to standard first, you are doing something wrong. It should be obvious that it cannot be fixed by anything less than massive effort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: When I post an article on GAR, it is because I believe there needs to be a significant amount of work to bring an article up to the criteria. I am fine if others disagree. For me, to update this article would take hours, if not days. If others can and want to fix the article more quickly, I encourage them to do so and I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any event, oppose delisting. If the offending parts can simply be deleted, it doesn't fail GA standards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm just to confirm, you would support a simple removal of all uncited material from the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be cited, sure. Uncited, non-plot content is not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:OR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:52, 1 November 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.

High-pressure area

[edit]

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) 17:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited paragraphs, particularily in the "Wind circulation in the northern and southern hemispheres" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I've tidied this up, added refs as needed, and sorted out duplication. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article seems to be fine. I'm concerned about the completeness, but I am not a subject-matter expert and would prefer someone who would be able to evaluate that. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 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.

East Carolina University

[edit]

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) 17:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited passages throughout the article. The "History" section is too short and needs to be split into multiple paragraphs. "Notable alumni" needs to be split into paragraphs for readability. "Rankings" is outdated and does not include information in the 2020s. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a spin through the article and fixed several obvious errors. The glaring nature of the deficiencies likely indicates that saving this would be far more work than I have the capacity to take on currently. Sdkb talk 05:18, 14 November 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.

Live action role-playing game

[edit]

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) 17:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not summarise all the major points in the article. There are some sections and paragraphs that are quite long; these should be split up or reduced. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 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.

1980 National League West tie-breaker game

[edit]

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: Should be an easy fix if anyone knows where to find citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a lot of uncited text in the "Game summary" and the "Aftermath" sections. Z1720 (talk) 00:16, 28 October 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.

Concorde

[edit]

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) 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out (or removed because they have already been spun out) or reduced as too much detail. There are some sections that are too long: when trimming text, I recommend that each section have a maximum of four paragraphs. There are also some uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larger aircraft (prose) articles often have their operational history section split off in to another article. The 'Aircraft on display' section is another section that is often split off, it could be added to Concorde aircraft histories with that article being moved to Concorde histories and aircraft on display (or similar title). I can do both if there are no objections. Some of the engine section may be replicating Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 and could be trimmed, as the 593 was the only engine type used by Concorde its article could contain airframe details (I think it already does). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nimbus227: I support your proposal for these spin outs. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we'll leave it a day or two for objections. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nimbus227: I also think these are good ideas. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's been a couple of days. I looked at the engine content and the 593 article, the text is different (not repetition), it focuses mostly on the airframe aspects and I think this section should be untouched. Will have a look at creating/splitting/merging, making sure to adhere to the attribution technicalities. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the formal splitting notice on the talk page. There is quite a lot of 'aircraft on display' text in the operational history section which could probably be trimmed after it's moved. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The splitting notice should have been added to the article, not the talk page, have just done that. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been split, the current size is 93kb (from 230 kb) and 9,000 words (from 12,300). One section of five paragraphs was deleted bar one line as it duplicated information in the aircraft on display section and the BAC Concorde G-BBDG article.

Two tables now exist in Concorde histories and aircraft on display, one with images and one without, they could possibly be combined. During the split of 'Operational history' an automated warning appeared stating that seven sources were self-published and/or vanity press and to confirm their use. I would imagine that a few remain as the cite errors (sources not moved) didn't appear in the list IIRC. I hope that I got all the technicalities with attributions correct, I have raised a query at the help desk ref an old article ID not displaying as it should. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and Nimbus: Uncited statements remain. Z1720 (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning to get involved in the review beyond the split but while I'm here...!! I removed the unsourced text marked with CN tags, one line was tangled up with a sourced but off topic line so both were removed. Had a quick look through and it looks well cited now apart from the footnotes, of the six only one is cited, will see what can be done there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the five unsourced footnotes, they very much read like editor opinion/original research. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:20, 16 November 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.

Neal Boortz

[edit]

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) 17:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous citation needed tags in the article, with one dated from Oct 2019. There are some unreliable sources used in the article, like "nndb.com", "Antiwar.com" and "About.com" Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing on this article is diabolical, it's hard to find a single reliable one. This is especially bad for a biography of a living politically notable person. The sourcing issues are fundamental to the article, so fixing them would require a rewrite which is obviously a lot of work. I think this article should be delisted within the next week unless someone volunteers to undergo the effort. It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:23, 19 November 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.

2011 IZOD IndyCar World Championship

[edit]

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) 17:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several uncited paragraphs, including almost the entire "Background" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging @MasterAlSpain: as it looks like much of the unsourced text (in "Background" especially) was added through their three edits here, which added nearly 14,000 bytes to the article. It appears some references were added during these edits, but unless other sources can be found for the paragraphs missing citations, much of that material is liable to be removed if it remains unreferenced. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging and pointing out the missing references on the added information. I've now solved this issue, so all relevant paragraphs are properly referenced. Further references may be added in the next few days if necessary. MasterAlSpain (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MasterAlSpain: Thank you for your swift response and for taking care of these! @Z1720: If you have further concerns about the article in its current state, please don't hesitate to raise them here. It's been almost a decade since I put this through GAN, so I certainly understand if it could use some cleanup. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bcschneider53: There is still lots of uncited information. WP:GA? states that there should be a citation at the end of each paragraph, minimum. I also think the lead needs to be expanded so that all major aspects of the article (typically everything with a level 2 heading) are mentioned. Z1720 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. Currently working on adding references to every paragraph while extending the lead. There's also room for improving and optimizing the text without losing any relevant information. MasterAlSpain (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist work seems to have stalled and there are still numerous uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 18 November 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.

Northern green anaconda

[edit]

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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural; merge discussion closed as merge. charlotte 👸♥ 20:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to say, this was pretty much expected. In the future, I'll try not to nominate species for GA just a few months after their discovery. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not your fault these things happen. On wikispecies we often holdoff even creating pages for new species for up to 3 months to give time for the dust to settle, see if its going to survive the peer acceptance process. Give new species time to see if they will be accepted. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:45, 20 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_81&oldid=1258934261"