Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:GA/R)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport
Reviewing initiatives:Backlog drivesMentorshipReview circlesPledges
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

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

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

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

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

Opening a reassessment

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

Reassessment process

  1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
  4. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
  5. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

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

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

Disputing a reassessment

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

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  2. Pest control 2024-08-22
  3. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
  4. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  5. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
  6. 18th Military Police Brigade (United States) 2025-05-01
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023

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

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

Articles listed for reassessment

Spider-Man in film

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

I was going through the remaining entries at WP:SWEEPS2023, had some concerns regarding the quality of this article, and found that Z1720 had already posted a notice about two weeks ago. There is substantial uncited content in this article - while some of this is plot information that can be assumed to be sourced to the movies, much is not. Additionally, there are rather poor sources which are being used, such as IMDB and various blogs/pseudonymous sources such as Comic Book Movie or Video Junkie. Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Metro

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

Lots of uncited statements, including the entire "QR Code Ticket" section. Z1720 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a delist from a look through the article. There are numerous spelling and grammar errors and straight up not very good writing (the fare section is a mess to read and needs to be reorganized, the "issues" section really doesn't seem to be justified at all, and there's a completely empty rolling stock section). This is in addition to the numerous paragraphs and entire sections lacking citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720, thanks for the ping. The GA promotion was from a while ago (nearly 5 years to the day, as I write this). Since then, this article has undergone drastic changes - unfortunately, not all for the better. In addition to the issues mentioned above by TAOT, there are other issues I see:
  • Currently, the Network section lists the Yellow Line as one of the four operational lines, even though it's technically not yet operational. The four currently-operating lines are already listed.
  • Some text in the article (like the number of stations, and some of the names of the lines) is bolded in violation of MOS:BOLD.
  • This article unnecessarily capitalizes certain things like a Tunnel boring machine hit an Aquifer at Bowbazar. This wasn't the case when I originally reviewed the article, by the way; the inconsistent formatting and capitalization is more of a recent development.
  • The "Proposed expansions" section is from 2012. Since then, some of these expansions have been constructed, but it isn't clear which ones; this section is currently presented in present tense.
Unfortunately, I also have to !vote delist. However, I do hope @ArnabSaha will come back to remedy these issues, or that someone else will fix them in his place (as ArnabSaha hasn't edited for nearly 7 months now). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something, Something, Something, Dark Side

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

Lots of uncited statements, including most of the "Production and development section". Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel the plot summary is way too long relative to the article, and the "popular culture" segment way too long and overly detailed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Empire: Total War

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

Unsourced statements, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" since 2016. Several sections are too long, including "Campaign" and "Reception". These should use additional headings to break up the text and have their prose trimmed of excessive detail. Z1720 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Station model

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Kippax

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs labelled with "citation needed" templates since 2019. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boron nitride

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The orange banner from June 2024 states the article relies upon primary sources. The lead is too short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph:
  • "The hexagonal form corresponding to graphite..." what does that statement even mean?
  • " is the most stable and soft among BN polymorphs, and is therefore used as a lubricant and an additive to cosmetic products." also pretty awkward.
  • " The cubic (zincblende aka sphalerite structure) variety analogous to diamond is called c-BN; it is softer than diamond, but its thermal and chemical stability is superior. The rare wurtzite BN modification is similar to lonsdaleite but slightly softer than the cubic form." why the obsession with carbon allotropes?
  • "Boron nitride has potential use in nanotechnology." so what? glib.
  • History section consists of two sentences, one about a high school teacher who discovered "boron nitride". Which boron nitride?
  • Next sentence "Boron Nitride [see capitalization] is now used to make nanotubes, and used for mechanical insulation, and other nanomaterials used in the industry and occasionally pharmaceutical purposes, as well as recent development in electronics." Sounds like flim-flam. A quote from the (single) supporting ref "The first device demonstrations are very encouraging." unconvincing. How many tons are produced and what industries depend on it?

Tentative conclusion, the boron nitride article has promise, but the present version is not ready for prime time.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Naismith

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

There are uncited statements in the article, including the "In popular culture" section and entire paragraphs. There are short, one sentence paragraphs in the "Legacy" section. "Personal life" has a chart outline his teaching career, but I think this should be prose in the article body to better conform to MOS:LAYOUT. Z1720 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wacha

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

The 2014-2019 section is quite large, and should probably be split up or trimmed. Post-2019 information suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and might need and expansion of more recent career highlights. There is an "update needed" orange banner at the top of "Pitching profile" from 2021. The lead needs to be updated and expanded to include new information added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do here. It will probably take me a week or two. Hog Farm Talk 20:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Youngblood

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evansville tornado outbreak of November 2005

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

Maintenance tags show issues with verification & uncited states. pretty well; article also relies heavily on breaking news stories (unreliable per WP:RSBREAKING) and contemporaneous weather reports. Not inherently problematic, but this has resulted in large sections being built almost entirely from primary sources which are an issues for compliance with criterion 2. Large amounts of the article are also copied directly from contemporaneous NOAA reports, and to keep in line with our plagiarism policies I have fixed those (though the material really needs to be sourced better). Aftermath section also has multiple paragraphs sourced to organizations about the organizations own activities; these likely need secondary sources.

Note that this passed a GAR recently, but that GAR was closed essentially procedurally. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M-152 (Michigan highway)

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

Every source in the article is either a primary source (Michigan Department of Transportation), a map, or both. Article fails WIAGA 2B due to a total lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think Like a Cat

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

Of the nine sources in the article, one is About.com (which is listed as questionable on Wikipedia:DOTDASHMEREDITH), one is the show itself, two are press releases from the dubious looking "Cat Channel", and two are press releases. Given the show's short life and obscurity, this is probably about the best article you could write about it, but I still don't feel it's enough to pass GA. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing as how this is a single-program game show without information about contestants and winners, I'd say it's missing key information. Gonnym (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self-harm

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

It seems that this article needs a lot of medical citations, something that hasn't been addressed since August 2023. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth mentioning is that the History section has the original synthesis template. I've seen 6 instances of [medical citation needed] in the Pathophysiology section. But the more medical citations at the top seems to imply that more than 6 of those are needed, possibly throughout the entire article. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

F-41 (Michigan county highway)

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

Heavily tagged for uncited content, overuse of primary sources (i.e., road maps), and text-source integrity. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was substantially expanded after this GAR was filed, but I don't want to close it yet as I feel the current form of the article should be checked to see that the expansions merit it staying GA. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lahaina Gateway

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

Article is only two and a half paragraphs long, which seems to fail criteria 1 and 3. Sourcing is also dubious, with an over-reliance on primary sources (the mall's website, developer's website, or websites of tenants), press releases, and even a Fodor's review of all things. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Badge (Scouting America)

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Bhakat

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

This article has a few issues. Listed from biggest to smallest:

  • There is no information from 2019 to the 2025 Olympics. As the infobox indicates, she was very active during this time
  • The lead currently does not summarise the article
  • There is some reliance on the website Sportskeeda, which hosts primarily user-generated content
  • The end of the career section is too heavily reliant on primary sourcing IAWW (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swaminarayan Akshardham (Delhi)

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

Multiple uncited statements. There's a whole Guinness World Records section, which is badly written. There should probably be some kind of reception section where this, along with criticism and praise of the temple should be put. The article also appears to be over-reliant on primary sources. There are multiple peacock words like "intricate" and "ornate", and the whole exhibits section has a promotional tone. I don't think the article is neutral, sufficiently verifiable, or well written. KnowDeath (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KnowDeath I'll have a look at this article and see where it needs tweaking to maintain its GA status and if not, we'll have to reconsider changing its status. Chilicave (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helvellyn

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Large sections like "Topography", "Tourism" and "Geology" should be broken up with level 3 headings for readability. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boughton Monchelsea Place

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

The article relies upon the "National Heritage List for England" as a source. When I searched for additional sources, I found the following:

GAs are not expected to be complete, but I think if the article is relying upon one source to the exclusion of others, (besides the heritage list, the article only uses one other source) it is very unlikely that it is broad in its coverage (WP:GA? #3) I did not conduct a thorough search for sources and there are several excellent UK databases that I do not have access to, so I think more sources could probably be found if an interested editor conducts a better search. Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source for the history is Hasted and the primary sources for the estate and for the building itself are the two main National Heritage List entries. The other National Heritage list entries are references for minor buildings within the estate. Along with unpublished information, the National Heritage List entry for the house references the Thomas Badeslade view of the house in the article and John Newman's Kent: West and the Weald from the Buildings of England series, which would be a primary source if not already condensed by the listing entry.
I have had a look at the suggested articles:
  • Aside from a single reference to Boughton Monchelsea Place being among the finest houses in the parish, there's nothing in the Sarah Pearson article about the house - it deals with smaller mediaeval hall houses and specifically excludes Boughton Monchelsea Place.
  • There's very little in the first Orlin article that can be used, as Alice Barnham whose portrait with her sons is discussed never lived at the house. It makes one reference to Francis Barnham being the son of Belknap Rudston's daughter (though that does not appear to correspond to the parentage of Francis Barnham given in his own article). The link to Boughton Monchelsea Place is that her portrait resided at the house for several hundred years.
  • The second Orlin source is a book which focuses on Alice Barnham and her husband Francis Barnham (not the one who owned the house, but an ancestor). The first chapter expands the article The Search for Lady Ingram from the previous source. There are references to the house in the same way as in the article and also in a a chapter on "closets" (private rooms), discussing a small room at the top of the stairs that may have been an office but nothing really worth adding.
DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Hotel

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

Uncited statements, including the first paragraph in "Design and construction" and the entire "Demolition" section. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does need some work, but I think it should be manageable without needing to look at a delisting. I have done a little work in the demolition section and reworked it more into a closure/demolition with some minor rephrasing, but some other stated facts would benefit from being cross-checked. I found a couple of period newspaper articles to support some of the prose here too. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andover F.C.

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar Challenge (TV program)

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

Not much information about season 2 in the article (which aired after the article's GAN promotion). Information about that season should be added, especially in the "Critical commentary" and lead. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ski flying

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

There is lots of uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 12,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Curator" of the article here. Won't argue any of that in the slightest. It's been a decade and a lots of material has been added since. I did originally mean to spin off the History section into its own article but never got around to it. Would that be a good first step? As for detail, any particular sections that should be trimmed? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mac Dreamstate: Spinning out the "History" section might be good if the article on its own would be notable (I suspect that it is). I usually prefer subject-interested editors to review the article's prose first because they often have a better sense of what is the most important information. However, I think spinning out/reducing the amount of text in the History section will probably solve most of the too-detailed concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'll get to work on that. Also, could you point to the paragraphs of uncited text—those should be easy to fix. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate: I have added citation needed templates to the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissus (plant)

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

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some of this prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. Many sources listed in the Bibliography are not uses as inline citations: Should these be moved to Further reading or removed? Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I wandered over from WikiProject Plants to look at this, and it looks like the 3 issues identified were present when the article originally passed GA. I think I'd rank them in the following order of priority:
  • Uncited paragraphs. Our institutional culture has generally gotten increasing lax about what constitutes a "reasonable challenge" to material and more fascinated by blue clicky numbers, but I editorialize. Fixing these should not be too hard and is useful.
  • Spinning out the "Further reading" section. The original review noted "I'm not sure the system of subheadings in the bibliography is appropriate, but I wouldn't change it yet." Looking over Wikipedia:Further reading, it might be desirable to spin off a separate bibliographic list based on the existing references section (including subheadings), as I think just moving all the uncited materials there would create a somewhat arbitrary and overly-large "Further reading".
  • Article size. This is the real sticking point—spinning off articles and condensing to summary style requires a lot of labor and energy (especially given our communal drift towards "Anything that's not exactly, explicitly stated in a source is vile reprehensible OR!") I think there is some room to argue that Narcissus is a broad and important topic and is inevitably going to be a big article when (G/g)ood; looking at the sections, most of them already have spin-off articles. "Cultivation" and "Uses" are probably the two best targets for further summarization here, but I'm not sure how much improvement we can expect. Choess (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Choess: Regarding article size: If articles like Earth, Philosophy and Beyonce can get to the ~9,000 or less word count, I think this article can also reach for that goal. Most Wikipedia editors are looking for general knowledge and an introduction to the topic: more specific details can go into the spunout articles. A copy edit might also help with summarising the information more effectively and reducing the size of very large sections with more headings or by trimming words: the "Flowers" (under Description), "Bacteria" (under pests), "History" (under "Cultivation"), "Commercial uses" (under "Uses") and "Western culture" (under "Art") are all very large sections that might be good places to start.
There is also some MOS:OVERSECTION in the article with short, one or two sentence sections. Merging these sections together might help reduce the word count. Some OVERSECTIONs include some "Art" level 3 headings, the level 4 headings in "Commercial uses", and some headings under "Reproductive" (fruit, seeds, etc.) I usually recommend a target of 2-4 paragraphs per heading, though this is not a specific rule and there are always cases where shorter or longer sections are necessary. However, anything too long makes it hard for mobile users to navigate the text, and paragraphs that are too short make the article look like a list. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with this critique–I've been fixing individual tagged errors on some other broad-scope plant GAs recently, and they also have that sprawly, OVERSECTIONed feel. I would definitely feel that it was a blocker if the article was brought to FA, but I am not sure whether it warrants delisting as GA. I don't personally have a clear feeling for how stringently the community wants to interpret "unnecessary detail" in 3b. Broadly speaking, condensing and summarizing appropriately is definitely something that takes effort and helps separate good writing from mediocre, and it's not unreasonable to ask people to do that to achieve a hallmark of quality. On the other hand (to be a little less peevish than above), I do think our cultural drift towards increasingly high adhesion to "exactly what the secondary source said" (driven by worst-case scenarios like CTOP) makes this unusually hard to accomplish compared to our other markers of quality, and we ought to consider that when we set our thresholds. YMMV.
Another thing that caught my eye was the big illustrated table in Taxonomy. It's not clear why that particular system was selected, and while it won't change prose size, spinning that off would reduce the visual clutter and scrolling. I'm sure there are opportunities like that for spin-off, but I am not sure how much I will be able to accomplish. Hopefully we can get the primary author and their collection of sources involved. Choess (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is 10 years since the GA promotion, and at that time this was basically a rewrite by myself, so I might be a little biased. Obviously a number of people have "improved" it since, which is inevitable but sometimes destabilises the original concept, but the way Wikipedia is run continues to evolve necessitating some tweaking. At the time of review, one reviewer stated it was well beyond GA! I think there needs to be a very high bar for delisting GAs on important topics. I really can't see anything fatal in the article that would justify its delisting, but of course it can be continually revised to meet changing stylistic guidelines. I have never been too concerned about size in GA provided that there is a good lead and the contents are well organised so readers can read what they want to. Nor do I think it makes sense to insist every source used is explicitly cited in the text, provided the text is actually supported by reliable sources. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 23:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Goodyear: My biggest concern is the uncited text: I would not be able to recommend that this article keeps its GA status until that was resolved. The formatting concerns fall within MOS:LAYOUT, which is required for WP:GA? 1b. The "Further reading" concerns are of less importance, and I'm happy to help if requested. Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, thanks so much for stopping by. I've added some "citation needed" tags, not in the spirit of challenge but just to help keep track of where the uncited text occurs. There are a few cases where we might be best off just dropping the sentence. Choess (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as spin-offs go, we had already added multiple spin-offs. In my experience, "uncited" paragraphs largely occur when somebody splits a cited paragraph leaving sections "uncited" rather than implying text is unsupported. That is a cosmetic issue that is easily addressed. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 00:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit surprised to find that we didn't cite the number of species from POWO (76 species and 93 named hybrids); I've added it now - MPF (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At GA we went with the World Checklist and spun off species to a separate list. You will note that the current POWO list contains a large number of hybrids, so one could make an argument for two numbers - with and without hybrids. This was originally discussed in the section dealing with historical difficulties in determining the number of species. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that small subsections should be merged. I also agree that the Taxonomy section should be drastically cut given the separate article – the present situation with taxonomy discussed in two places makes maintenance unnecessarily difficult. This is a genus with massive historical, horticultural and cultural significance, which the article reflects. It's always possible to split off some sections into separate articles, but the determining factor should be value to readers, not some arbitrary length limit. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the Taxonomy section should be drastically cut. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rose of Sharon: firstly, this mention doesn't appear to be appropriately placed under Art; secondly according to Rose of Sharon it is one of several candidates for the referent of the Hebrew word rendered as Rose of Sharon in the KJV, while the text here implies that the identification is uncontroversial. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution: "Section Pseudonarcissus, although widely naturalised, is endemic to the Baetic Ranges of the southeastern Iberian Peninsula." - I believe that the citation here has been misinterpreted, and instead refers to the subset of species from section Pseudonarcissus that are endemic to that regions. (These species are often recognised as forming section Nevadenses, as the traditional wider concept of section Pseudonarcissus is paraphyletic with respect to section Narcissus.) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: The spelling in use for new section (or subsection) is Nevadensis rather than Nevadenses - I've made an inquiry to IPNI whether this is in accordance with ICNafp. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Queen (Disney)

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

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. While some might be covered by WP:PLOT, some text is not. At over just under 11,500 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I recommend that some information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or trimmed. There are some unreliable sources used as inline citations like Filmic Light and listverse. This article needs a source review and unreliable sources replaced or removed. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+ Also, it's too long; it's over 11,400 words, which isn't an appropriate length (per WP:SIZERULE) Lililolol (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suharto

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is a "one source" orange banner at the top of the "Consolidation of power" section: is this still valid? The article, at over 10,500 words, is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some of this article's prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan

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

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. At almost 12,000, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Spinning out and trimming prose can possibly begin with the sections that have a "too detailed" yellow banner on top of them. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A ridiculously embarrassing problem is that it's claimed since 2007 that Manhattan Island's 22.7 square miles while it claimed for over a decade that Manhattan (borough)/New York County land area's 22.83mi² even though the borough+county includes other land which can't possibly sum to ≤0.185 mi² which is the max possible (22.835-22.65) and no one ever complained. These are likely both borough land maybe counting piers and/or water level differently as I once cut a map of Manhattan that didn't seem naked eye fucked up (many are) into 1 mile squares and leftovers cut to pack 1 mile squares and got something like 17 mi². Whether that includes lakes or not (I don't remember) that's still way under 22.65. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way in hell Roosevelt Island, Wards Island, Randalls Island, Liberty Island, Ellis Island, Governors Island, U Thant Island, Mill Rock & Marble Hill sum to 0.185 mi² they're effing huge in fact Wards and Randalls Island alone is 0.81 mi² (consistent with its dimensions eyeballing it), Governors Island's 172 acres (172/640 mi²), Roosevelt Island's 0.23 mi² & Marble Hill's 0.145 mi². Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As hard as it may be to believe, land areas are always being remeasured and they constantly change. The 2024 County Gazetteer File for New York State lists a land area of 22.658 square miles for New York County / Manhattan. We can dig further and analyze the Census Bureau's data for Manhattan island and all of the other islands / land masses in New York County / Manhattan Borough, but it's little surprise that there are differences between data from different sources calculated at different times using different techniques. Where there are such discrepancies, they should be appropriately noted, but they are not necessarily indicative of "a ridiculously embarrassing problem". Alansohn (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skopje

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

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "Festivals" section also has an orange "additional citations needed" banner. At over 12,000 words large, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that some information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai

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

In December 2024, an IP introduced an uncited "Society" section to the article. This contributed to the article's bloated 12,000+ word count. There is also other uncited text, especially in the "Administrative divisions" section. Z1720 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Society section and am planning to rewrite rewrote the Administrative divisions section based on the zhwiki article section (which seems to be pretty well referenced). Could you perhaps highlight if there are any other places that need citations? S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 09:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decompression sickness

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

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Timeline" section is written in bullet points. Instead, this section should be written in prose form to avoid it looking like a list. It also has an "expansion needed" orange banner: is this still valid? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what specific part of the GA criteria forbids bullet points for something like this. Sure it would probably look better as prose but I don’t think it is specifically apart of the criteria. I will look into the history section when I am able to. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IntentionallyDense: WP:GA? 1b states that articles should comply with Manual of Style guidelines for layout and list incorporation. MOS:PARA (part of layout) says "Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose" and "[Lists] may be used in the body to break up a mass of text". In the timeline section, there is no prose for a timeline list to break up. MOS:EMBED states "Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content." However, it is not supplementing prose because there is no prose in that section. Lists are not forbidden, but prose is preferred and in this case I do not think this section justifies having only a list and instead it should be written as paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, “forbid” was harsh wording, i was tired and not thinking much and just wanted to hear your reasoning. While I do agree that yes, prose would look better here, for the sake of narrowing down any of the articles issues to just things that are directly apart of the GA criteria, MOS:PARA also states “ Sometimes, it may be preferable to use bullet points instead of having a series of very short paragraphs.” If we were to change the timeline into prose I suspect (i would have to look at some sources first to verify) that it would be very broken up and all over the place as medical timelines tend to be a couple big discoveries broken up by years of research that can look like years of no developments.
    Im curious about your thoughts on my interpretation and if that’s something you’re willing to work with. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 15:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at the "Timeline" section, and I think the biggest problem with the bullet points is that the entries sometimes do not explain the significance of the events. For example, "Charles Pasley, who was involved in the recovery of the sunken warship HMS Royal George, commented that, of those having made frequent dives, "not a man escaped the repeated attacks of rheumatism and cold". No context for this event or quote is given to reader, or how this contributed to the research/discovery/humanity's understanding of decompression sickness. Why is this event important enough to be in the article? If this section is expanded out into prose, the entry's significance can also be explained. I think it's OK for the section to have years of no discoveries: that is the nature of research and articles should focus on notable events. Another option might be to split the Timeline prose into themes: have a paragraph discuss the sickness's discovery, another about the development of technology to prevent it, and another to describe various changes to laws concerning decompression sickness. I don't know what might be the best format: it really depends on what information editors want to have together in the same paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the timeline needs a review for what is worth including and what isn't. I'm going to get together some information first and then we can worry about how to format that later. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so I removed the banner at the top of the timeline section as I couldn't find anything that was obviously missing for that timeframe. I've found two pretty good sources for the timeline section but they mostly cover pre 2000's history. Based on those sources, I suspect that some information could be removed as it is more relevant to the history of diving and less so to the history of the disease itself. I still have to gather the main points together but I wanted to update you. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this reassessment, and as the original main authors are no longer editing, and I am familiar with the topic, I would like to offer my assistance where I can. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few refs, a section summary and a bit of copy editing. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological order can intrinsically provide context in that, for example, a treatment is normally sought after a condition has been identified and described, also frequently after a hypothesis for causation has been proposed. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rheumatism symptoms have significant overlap with DCS symptoms, and DCS was not recognised at the time. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list supplements prose in other sections. Is there reason to claim this is unacceptable? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now it has a prose summary of the gist of the timeline. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, timeline articles and sections quite commonly use a list format as the information tends to be presented in chronological order by date, which makes use of the content relatively easy when one is interested in sequential events. When historical content is laid out as a narrative in prose form, it is less likely to be titled a timeline. While I hold no strong opinion on which format is better in this case, I think that a list format ordered by date is quite appropriate. Perhaps a short introductory summary paragraph would help? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Argo Tea

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

It posesses cleanup tags that have not been solved since September 2024, and the GA criteria state that a nominated article can't have major cleanup tags; in this case Update tags. Earth605 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M-157 (Michigan highway)

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

Recently tagged for notability and use of primary sources. These tags were backed by another editor (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#WP:NROAD question). Roast (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not part of the GA criteria, but if the present AfD ends with an outcome other than keep this should be procedurally delisted. Right now it looks like it could go either way. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thor

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the uncited paragraphs, I think there's a bunch of other issues.
  • Prose is fine; don't think it meets broad; might be some copyright problems with Simek in "Modern influence". Would be a quick-fail if nominated in the current state. Combination of unskilled editing since nomination + increased standards since 2012
  • Minimal modern scholarship beyond some annotated volumes – none of the vital recent Old Norse scholarship (PCRN).
  • Lots of primary sources (i.e., almost 20 straight Larrington refs – I think those page numbers represent her translation rather than her commentary). Very little commentary on the various sources (primarily just recounting bits of myth). If you compare it to Athena I think the deficiencies are striking
  • The "Modern influence" section includes some very bad links (Age of Mythology Ref Guide; Game Rant; YouTube). Forbes link is a contributor. In the first two paragraphs, most of it is ripped straight from Simek's book (visible in reviewed form). Sometimes the words are swapped around but it's pretty close to replicating a full two pages.
A rescue is not impossible by any stretch but getting back to the criteria from this spot will be tough, and IMO the 2012 promoted version wouldn't meet our standards today. Primary author, who wasn't the nom, actually opposed promotion during the review and was bizarrely overruled. Maybe worth keeping open for the full period in case someone fancies sinking their teeth in but wouldn't be easy given the scope of the topic. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manasa

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

Several uncited paragraphs, especailly in the "Worship" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Worship section has been expanded over the years by various articles. Will look at the same. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with @Z1720 that the article no longer qualifies to be a Good article. I've tried to add references where I could but the article still needs some working on. Having assessed good articles myself, the article fails to meet the one of the six main criteria–that being, verifiable. Chilicave (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "Music and lyrics" section is also quite long, and I suggest that this be trimmed or broken up with additional headings. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium (Nirvana song)

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Does not read well, at all. Even if there weren't sourcing issues, pretty much this entire article would need to be redone. I don't even think this would warrant B-class. λ NegativeMP1 22:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amarillo, Texas

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calais

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs Z1720 (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoor al-Jamri

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

Not much post-2012 information in the article. When I did an Internet search, I see that the publication he was editor-in-chief at was closed by the government in 2017 (not mentioned in the article) and that he published several books (only briefly mentioned). Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Hippe

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

Not much post-2010 information, even though he is still active in his career and released a book in 2021. This article might need to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Bunch

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Unreliable sources used, like IMDB. Z1720 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is probably fixable if anyone is willing to put in the time and effort, but WP:LEADCITE and WP:COATRACK is yet another minor issue that needs to be cleaned up. -- 109.76.132.191 (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LEADCITE allows citations in the lead, but I do not think "Regarded as one of the greatest films of all time," should have 10 inline citations in the lead to verify the information. Z1720 (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allows, but does not require (but essentially encourages editors not to put citations in the lead section unless they absolutely need to). Editors have gotten much better at writing high quality articles and making it clear the summary in the lead section is clearly well supported by the article body. I would hope the citations could be moved out of the lead section and down into the article body. I would expect that editors would be able to manage it with further improvements to Reception section, but properly moving the information down into the article takes a bit more care and attention than casually removing citations from the lead (if it was an easy fix I'd have done it already). -- 109.76.135.66 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moore's law

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

A very long "Other formulations and similar observations" section with some uncited paragraphs makes this section hard to read. It also feels like lots of this information is a WP:COATRACK for the article. The "Recent trends" section has a yellow "this list might be better as prose" banner. "Forecasts and roadmaps" states that the observation's namesake predicts its end in 2025, so the article might need to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Seyfried

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

The entire "Awards" section is uncited. There's an orange "update needed" banner at the top of the 2020-present section. Z1720 (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 i'll do this 750h+ 07:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 750h+ 11:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: I added some cn templates to some sentences and phrases without citations. The 2020-present section seems a little underdeveloped when compared to other sections: should there be more information here? Or should the other sections go through a copy-edit to not give undue weight to earlier times in her career? Z1720 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devika Rani

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

Uncited statements, including the first two paragraphs of the "Elopement" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100,000-year problem

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

Most of the paragraphs in "Recognition of the 100,000-year cycle" are uncited. There are also uncited statements elsewhere in the article. There is an "Update needed" orange banner at the top of "Ongoing research". Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of the article has multiple occurrences of "refers to", which contravenes WP:REFERSTO, which is part of the WP:NOTDICT policy. GeoWriter (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although that's true, compliance with NOTDICT is not required in WP:Good article criteria, so failing to comply with that stylistic advice isn't (directly) a reason for delisting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Pacific typhoon season

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

Lots of uncited pargraphs and sections. Z1720 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem is the overreliance on the JTWC. The article became a GA before modern standards, so it will take a fair bit of work to improve it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

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

Lots of uncited statements and a "more sources needed" orange banner in the "Legacy" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No guarantees, but I'll see if I can work on this a bit. GoldRomean (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abergil crime family

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

The lead is quite large, especially for such a short article. The "Case 512" section is completely uncited. Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Boot

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

There's a "sources are too closely associated with the subject" orange banner at the top of the article since October 2023. Has this been addressed? The lead contains new publications written by Boot, but these are not mentioned in the "Career" section. The "Career" and "Political beliefs" sections are too long and have too many small paragraphs. I suggest that these use level 3 headings to break up the text and be reformatted into larger, fewer paragraphs. The lead does not summarise the political beliefs of the subject. There might be some post-2018 information that should be added to "Career" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icehouse (band)

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

The article uses sources that WP:RS/P does not consider reliable, such as "Rate Your Music" "Discogs" and "IMDB". These should be replaced or the information it is verifying and the source removed. There is also some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diving cylinder

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At almost 13,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Information should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed if too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Busy with citations. If there are any statements you feel specifically need further citation, please tag as such. Preferably with some indication of why if it is not obvious. (I will query if it is not obvious to me). Sections with multiple subsections may include summaries which contain material cited elsewhere in the section.
Please feel free to make actionable suggestions for which content should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed, specifying which of these you are recommending, and motivating each case. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations mostly done, but you may want more. If so, please specify. Some summarising tightened up and a bit of "too much detail" removed when available in hatlinked articles. Many hatlinks added, as a large number of sections are already summaries of other articles, but were not linked, It is now 10 years since the original GA, and a lot has changed in our coverage of diving related topics, hence the proliferation of hatlinks. I will continue to tinker, but would like some feedback where there are things that are obvious to you but may not be obvious to me. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbsouthwood: Thank you for working on this article. I added some citation needed templates to the article to indicate some places that need citations. The "Standard sizes by internal volume", "Rebreathers" "The cylinder's capacity to store gas" and "South Africa" sections have a lot of uncited text (the former has a citation in each list entry: is this verifying all the information in that line?) so I didn't add cn tags, but it still needs to be resolved. At over 12,000 words I still suggest that more information be spun out or trimmed. I don't think the article needs a list of manufacturers (at the end) and should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added more citations per your tags, and expect to add a few more in the sections you mentioned. A couple of points have proven intractable. The information is out there somewhere, but does not seem to have been accessibly published on the internet. I would also like to reduce the overall article size, and am considering how best to do this.
    Is there some other place where you think the list of manufacturers would be better suited? It is interesting and useful information that took a while to gather, and is not yet complete, as it has no mention of Turkish, Indian, Chinese or Japanese manufacturers, which I think exist - I know I have seen Turkish oxygen cylinders, for example, but not for diving. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbsouthwood: If the list is notable, I think it could be its own article with the information summarised in the article. If it was to remain, I would want this section to have more information, like who was the first to produce the product and which companies innovated on the design. However, considering how big this list can get, the fact that most of these entries are not notable (as indicated by a lack of wiki-article), how the article is already quite large, and that Wikipedia is not a directory, I do not think the list is needed in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of a Wikipedia article is no indication of lack of notability. All it proves is that there is no article at this time. In my opinion, it is likely that most of the manufacturers are notable by our standards - it takes some serious industrial capacity to make diving cylinders - but it may take some effort to gather the sources, and some may be in languages other than English.
    The reason I put the list in this article is because it is relevant to the topic, but not enough to have much more information, which would be more relevant in an article on the specific manufacturer, if or when it is written. All that is relevant to this topic is that those companies manufactured diving cylinders, but that is relevant, and this is the best place for it that I know of. A section on the history of diving cylinders might be the right place for the other information you suggest, and if I can find such information I will probably write such a section. On the other hand all those companies probably manufacture or manufactured other products as well, including gas cylinders for non-diving purposes, so that is a can of worms I will not be opening too soon.
    It is also a relatively short section, and there may be other areas which are more amenable to summarising more tightly. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbsouthwood: If you feel that it is important information for the reader to know, then I'm fine with it. However, I would note that the article is over 12,000 words: About 1/4 of the article prose needs to be cut for the article to fit within WP:TOOBIG. WP:SPINOUT and trimming things that are too much detail are probably going to be necessary. In other words, if this section stays as it is then something else will need to go. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TOOBIG does not forbid an article of this size, even larger, it recommends trying to reduce it, but accepts that some articles are going to be large. I agree that this is larger than ideal, but am working on trimming it down where it does not detract from usefulness. It is not a good solution to make the article worse just to get past an arbitrary criterion so that a box can be ticked. We are necessarily flexible in our guidance as reality tends to find an exception to most arbitrary rules. The tricky thing here is to work out what is too much detail that can be cut without harm. We try to avoid the Procrustean solution. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbsouthwood: TOOBIG is a good indicator if information should be cut. Manufacturers is one example of a section that, as a general interest reader, I have suggested can be WP:SPINOUT. I think there are other sections that could also be considered. If articles have too much detail, the reader will not know what is the most important information they need to know about that topic. I do not think the scope of this topic justifies having more than 9,000 words, especially when articles like Earth, Philosophy, and Beyonce (the latter which I worked on) are able to have ~9000 or less words. I am happy to do a copyedit and suggest other prose to remove if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have split many articles, including Diving cylinder, from which Scuba cylinder valve was split out a few years ago. I am looking into the current possibilities here. There are a 9 sections already hatlinked to 10 main articles, and a larger number hatlinked to 'see also' or 'further' articles or sections. In these cases there may be potential to move some of the content to the other article if it is also relevant there, create a new article with content from both where a new article makes sense, or condense the current content where the linked article is logically appropriate for the more detailed information and already contains it. What we need to avoid is indiscriminate removal of information specifically relevant to this topic, just to make it shorter, if that removal reduces comprehensibility of the local content.
    I would welcome suggestions for prose which could be removed, provided the proposal also explains why it is not better to keep it, and where the information should go if it is not already elsewhere on Wikipedia. There is some information that is repeated because it is relevant in more than one place to provide context to the reader. It may be possible to trim some of this down, though that level of editing is more appropriate to a FA nomination, and this is GA review, and the criteria are different.
    I have had mixed experience with copy editing during GA. Some has been good, but some have been overzealous and resulted in removal of necessary context and changes in meaning by editors with reasonable command of the language, but lacking in the technical comprehension of the topic. This is Wikipedia, and anyone can edit, but it is preferable when the edits are consistently improvements. I have no idea of what your background is in technical writing in general and particularly underwater diving, so have no expectations either way. If you are confident that you will conserve the relevant information and comprehensibility, go ahead.
    At the moment I am concentrating on trimming and condensing the summary sections. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have trimmed the size down some more, and will continue to look for places to trim further, but I don't think it is going to get significantly smaller, and over time it is likely to get larger again, as new material is found. You are welcome to point out places which you think can be trimmed more, and I suggest you finalise any further edit requests. The article has been objectively greatly improved, so you have done the job. I do not think there are any points that fail GAN criteria left, but it is your responsibility to make that check. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant

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

Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, the article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too detailed. Many sources listed in "Bibliography" are not used as inline citations and should be moved to "Further reading". Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, this article has already been reduced in size, to allign with the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower article. Grant's presidency was detailed, as it included 8 years of turbulent Reconstruction, Native American, Domestic, and Foreign Policy. Second, Grant's presidency article, should not be a reduced format historical article format, when the Eisenhower article receives ample article size. This is Wikipedia. Articles should be detailed, supplied by reliable sources. Important issues such a civil rights, prosecution of the Klu Klux Klan, should have detail. Both Grant and Eisenhower, deserve equal importance and equal size. As far as sources, not used in the article, I have no issue with them being removed. Third, I think this article has already been improved, and deserves GA standing. I am not sure why Grant is getting this attention all of a sudden. The article appears to be written in a neutral format. Why now? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, and not all details will be included in an article. If the level of detail is important, the information can be spun out into a child-article. WP:DETAIL outlines examples of how much detail an article should have, and states that "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)." The last part, linking to separate articles, might be what is best for some aspects of this article. WP:TOOBIG outlines that articles should probably be less than 9,000 words: at 14,000, this article far exceeds that. In a GAR, the current article version is evaluated on its adherence to the GA criteria and does not consider how much work has been done to an article, or how much it has been improved. The Eisenhower article is not a GA, so it is hard to compare the qualities (and size) of those two articles for this GAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, articles can be spun out. You have not mentioned anything specifically you want changed. What is it exactly you want changed? Again, I have substantially reduced this article before. Is there an exact rule of how long articles should be such as 9,000 words or less. What does "should probably be less" mean ? Anymore reduction in this article would reduce the reliability and needed context of the article, imo. Grant has a lot of biographers and biographies. Renewed interest has been taken in Grant's life, generalship, and presidency. Charles W. Calhouns (2017) book on Grant's presidency has 593 pages. What specific areas of the article do you find too long? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable people and topics have books that are hundreds or thousands of pages long. WP:TOOBIG has useful rules of thumb for article size. I usually do not recommend specifics at the beginning because I want to give a chance for subject-matter experts to make recommendations first. Since I have been asked, here are some suggestions:

  • In general, I recommend that a subject-matter expert do a copy edit of the entire article and remove redundant text, off-topic information about others, and sumarise text more effectively when possible.
  • First Presidency:
    • "Financial policy" Suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. I suggest these paragraphs be merged and extra/too detailed information be placed in the appropriate article.
    • "Failed annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)" could be too detailed and possibly trimmed.
    • "Native American policy" also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and, if the paragraphs are merged together, information can be spun out to the appropriate articles.
    • "Domestic policy" also suffers from OVERSECTION and not as much detail is needed for all of these individual aspects (especially the "Holidays law")
  • Second Presidency:
    • "Vicksburg riots" and "South Carolina 1876" spend at least a paragraph explaining the conflict before mentioning Grant. While a brief introduction is appropriate, too much space is given to this off-topic information and this article should focus on Grant's actions and policies.
    • "Foreign policy" suffers from OVERSECTION with the last three paragraphs: these should be merged and summarised.
    • "Reforms and scandals" Lots of oversection, it is better to merge the information and give a wikilink than have a whole paragraph explaining each topic.
    • "States admitted to the Union", "Vetoes" and "Government agencies instituted" can be moved to the part of the article most appropriate to his presidency. "Memorials and monuments" can be moved to Grant's main article.

This is not an exhaustive list, and there can of course be disagreement. None of this negates the uncited paragraphs in the article, which also need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those spin off articles have not been created. The Presidency of Barack Obama article 13,915 words. I found that on XTools. Is this correct? You can verify that. The Holidays Laws is important. They are national holidays created by Grant and congress. This article can be improved. You are free to make edits to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: Yes, Presidency of Barack Obama is 13,000 long. No, it is also not a GA. This process is to evaluate an article against the GA criteria. If the article topic is notable, any editor can make a new article and place information there. I will not be making edits to this article as I am busy with many on-and-off wiki tasks. I am happy to support those who do want to make those edits and will re-review if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article passed GA in the past. Yes. There is room for improvement, and thanks for the specifics. I just don't think it necessary to take away the GA status, when in the past it was given GA status, by whatever standard(s) was(were used) at the time. Improvements can be made to the article without removing the GA, imo. I have made past reductions to the article, found in the talk page, to improve the article. Grant's Native American policy, reforms and scandals, have been made into spinoff articles. Probably, the next spin off article should be Grant's Foreign policy. Grant's presidency was different. He was elected and served two consecutive terms in office, that would not be repeated until the election of Woodrow Wilson. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: An article will not be delisted if improvements are ongoing and concerns addressed. My concerns are listed above. The GAR will assess the article against the current criteria, not the criteria that was in place when it was passed. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been significantly been reduced in size, before. Your concerns are noted. What about editor concensus? These objections seem to be only your objections focused specifically on Grant, not other Presidents. You also seem to be requiring other spin off articles to be made on Grant's domestic and financial policies. The Santo Domingo annexation was very important to Grant. It was also a drama between Grant and Charles Sumner, who would control the Republican Party. Some leeway should be allowed in that section on article length, since this article focuses on Grant's Presidency. When you say "delisted", are you saying removal of the article from Wikipedia? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Impact (spacecraft)

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

Uncited statements, including an entire paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few uncited paragraphs is not that bad. I'll try to fix it all. I don't have enough time in the next ~week, so let's keep the GAR open for a bit longer. Artem.G (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem.G: Thanks for offering to do this. GARs remain open for at least month, and longer if an editor offers to make the necessary improvements (like you have indicated above). Feel free to ping me when this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Army during the First World War

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

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, this article has too much detail and is WP:TOOBIG. While this might be a large topic, I think some prose can be spun out, summarised more effectively, or trimmed. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk

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

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 18,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Many sections are numerous paragraphs long without a heading, making the text difficult to read on mobile devices. This article should be trimmed, with information spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed if too detailed. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the 14 subspecies has a separate Wiki article. This is very unusual - and in my opinion a bad idea. Subspecies are just regional variations, usually in size and plumage. Subspecies are very similar to the nominate form, often so similar that they cannot be distinguished in the field. The differences can be easily described in the article for the nominate. The behaviour sections (Food and feeding, Breeding etc) will normally be identical. Should the information be repeated? Another problem is that most subspecies don't have accepted English names. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I worry that merging them all would overwhelm the main article, and even more so if other relevant details (taxonomic history, etymologies, conservation status and trends, number of breeding paris, photographs, etc.) are to be added for each of them, too. Already now we give a lot of room to the subspecies; making that section even longer might verge on WP:undue. If the subspecies list gets too long, we could maybe create a spin-off article Taxonomy of the red-tailed hawk, where we could have a proper section for each subspecies. This would also allow us to cover potential subspecies and those that are currently not accepted, as well as other taxonomic detail that does not fit the main article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is minor compared to the other issues, but could someone more familiar with birds take a look at the external links section? At 10 links, it appears to have too many entries if I'm reading WP:EL correctly. I'm questioning why a Flickr group is included and why several of the other links cannot either be incorporated as citations or added as "further reading" instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed a good number of the bullet points in External Links just now. The All About Birds species account is already a reference in the text, the North American Falconers Association is not expressly relevant to red-tailed hawks, and the other four links I removed were guides on how to identify different morphs. Commons and Wikispecies can be accessed through the sidebar more easily than at the bottom of the page. -- Reconrabbit 18:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, the external links section looks a lot better now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Cleveland Browns

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

Numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 16,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Should this article be split into various time periods, or should prose be moved to other articles, summarised more effectively, or removed? Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime You Need a Friend

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

Uncited text, some labelled with "citation needed" since October 2021. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Grant (basketball)

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

"The Basketball Tournament" section is uncited and underdeveloped. There is no post-2020 information, although it seems like he played in the 2021-2022 season for a Kosovo and Liga team. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Flames

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

Lots of uncited statements near the end of the article, including entire paragraphs and the entire "Uniforms" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I'll do my best to keep this article in good standing. However, could you place in citation tags in the places you think are very necessary? Thank you. Conyo14 (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royal intermarriage

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

Lots of uncited statements. Also, the latter half of the article seems to be an indiscriminate list of every royal intermarriage ever without curation: I suggest that this information be spun out into its own articles. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has had more than 7,000 words added to it since it was promoted to GA in June 2014 in this version. I agree with Z1720's comments, above. As well as having too many uncited statements the article now suffers from a bad mess in the References section: authors are given, seemingly at random, by forename/surname or sometimes by surname, forename; capitalisation is equally arbitrary: "anselme", "FREDERIC WAKEMAN JR" (but also "Frederic E. Wakeman"), "RETURN OF THE ROYALS"; we have "Beeche (2009)", "Beeche (2010)" and a dateless and accented "Beéche"; in the References section we have bibliographical details of more than 40 books that clearly ought to be listed in the Sources section (and some are given multiple times: the details of Wakeman's The Great Enterprise are given four times); titles are sometimes in sentence case and sometimes in title case; and we have some impenetrable citations such as "BAILII, 'Act of Settlement 1700'". The referencing plainly fails GA criteria 2a and 2b in my view. This is now such an omnium gatherum of an article that I think it also fails criterion 3b. Tim riley talk 07:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satake clan

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

Uncited statements tagged with "citation needed" since 2014. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

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

Lots of uncited statements, including the entire "In popular culture" section. The lead could be expanded upon a little bit. Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades Interstate Parkway

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

Uncited paragraphs in the "Rest areas" and "Controversies" sections. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augustin-Jean Fresnel

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

There are some uncited statements. While some of the statements might be covered under WP:CALC, other biographical statements are not covered under this and will need citations. I am happy to add citation needed templates to the statements that I think need them, if requested below. The article, at almost 16,000 words, has redundant phrases and too much detail. Some of the prose could be moved to other articles, or removed per WP:TMI. Some sections are also quite large, leading to poor navigation (especially for mobile users). I suggest that sections be around 2-4 paragraphs, with more sub-headings used to break up the text. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I am not going to have time to act on this in the foreseeable future. So I shall just have to accept the outcome.
— Gavin R Putland (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Some uncited text (including entire paragraphs) and lots of one-paragraph sections which should be merged per MOS:OVERSECTION. History stops at 2022 so there might be some recent information to add to the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly needs updating for the past four years, but it's not an impossible task. Best of luck. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some prior work on US drug policy articles like United States v. Doremus, so I will take this GAR on and get started within the next few days. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mythodea

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Dream – The Ride

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

The lead is quite short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article. There is lots of uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Development Association

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

The "History" section stops at 1960, even though it continues to exist today. Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Xilai

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

Uncited statements in the article, including the entire "Popular culture" section and multiple paragraphs. At over 10,000 words, this article is too detailed. For example, there is far too much detail about his marriages, including a very long block quote that should be summarised instead. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added starting sources to uncited paragraphs and removed some unsourced material. How do you think the marriages section should be cut? The Account 2 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Account 2: An article should have information about who the partner is, one sentence on how they met, when they were married, their kids, and how their marriage ended (if applicable). Unless there is something really notable about the marriage, other information can be trimmed/cut. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it look now? I trimmed and split some of the info to a new article. I didn't want to remove too much information about his second marriage because it played a central role in Bo's career and ultimate political downfall. The Account 2 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did some fixing up: copyedits, trimming repetitive text, and moving citations around to cover places where they've drifted away from the text they support. I hope to do some more. This shouldn't be especially difficult to bring back to the GA standards, it's just extremely long. Toadspike [Talk] 19:00, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Allen (governor-general)

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

No post-2009 information, even though he has been governor-general of Jamaica during this time. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Zahorchak

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

The article's history stops at 2011. I did a quick Internet search and saw that there was controversy in the Allentown School District that he was superintendent at, and that he is now a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Johnstown. I think there is post-2011 information that needs to be added to the article. There are also some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, and many sections are quite long and should be broken up with additional headings. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was the primary author on the original email. I'm not as active on Wikipedia these days, but I'd be happy to add post-2011 information to this article and fix some of the issues that have been identified here in this GAR. I think I can find some time to do this either this weekend or early next week, and will share updates here either way... — Hunter Kahn 17:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steel

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Some have been tagged with "citation needed" since January 2024. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and added citations, rewording sections as necessary. If there are any other poorly cited sections feel free to let me know. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 07:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me it looks fine, although I noticed some {{page needed}} for, I assume, books. In some cases I have used chapters or sections when the sourcing is not just a single page, which is often the case in science. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @VolatileAnomaly and Ldm1954: I have added citation needed templates to the article. The bulleted lists in "Uses" are uncited, so I just put the cn tag at the end of the last entry. These would need to be resolved before I could recommend a "keep" Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720 Resolved, I feel a lot of the entries fall under WP:BLUE, so I stuck to citing the major uses. This is in addition to the citations for the variety of uses in the overview of uses I've added. Feel free to challenge any other individual entry and I'll gladly cite accordingly. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 01:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @VolatileAnomaly: BLUE is an essay, and so is WP:NOTBLUE, both of which say at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors...Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." What is part of the GA criteria is "All content that could reasonably be challenged...must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph". That is a higher bar, and lots of facts can be challenged even if they seem obvious to some. Also, if the fact is so obvious that the reader would know it, I would suggest removing it from the article as it is taking up space for other information that the reader does not know. Some examples of uncited text in the article that could be challenged include "The most common are annealing, quenching, and tempering" and steel being used in various building materials under the "Uses" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but when the claim is essentially "Steel is used to make wires and railroads", the WP:BURDEN of proof is so low I could cite a home depot or amazon listing and fulfill WP:V behold, steel wire!. Regarding the annealing sentence, I'll reword it so it states "There are many types of heat treating processes available to steel, such as annealing, quenching, and tempering." and rework the list of Uses to focus more on broad categories, especially since List of applications of stainless steel exists for detail. If a citation is necessary, I'll find a textbook from the page and cite it. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 06:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haapsalu Castle

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

The "History" section is quite short, considering how long this has existed. More recent events should probably also be included. The lead is too short and does not summarise all major aspects. The article has uncited information, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German submarine U-853

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

Uncited statements, mostly in the "Legacy" section. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added cn tags where relevant, and gone ahead and removed most of the legacy section. It dealt with the post-war history of USS Atherton, which is completely irrelevant to U-853. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not easily verify the remaining statement, and it seemed to be of low importance to the article. If somebody wants to research the question of what happened to the propellers and write it up, they could. On balance, such low importance, unverified information is best removed. Jehochman Talk
Here's a source, that perhaps might be sufficient to restore that content about the propellers. [3] What do you all think? Jehochman Talk 20:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant NHHC article here covers the propeller point. As a 2020 publication, it might be useful in filling in other gaps in the article as well. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Although now that I look at it, the wording for U-853's part seems distressingly similar to your writing of twelve years earlier! What do you think? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uncited armament section was added in 2016, by an editor who hasn't edited in many years. It appears to be giving details of a rearmament carried out after completion of construction, but (1) doesn't really fit as a standalone section so should be integrated into the design section, and (2) badly needs sources that can pin this specific upgrade to the submarine in question - while U-853 will have been re-armed (an increased anti-aircraft armament was required for operational use) there appear to have been several different options for this upgunning.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that for at least some of the book sources (i.e. Due to enemy action... and The greatest submarine stories ever told, the publisher claimed for the edition cited does not match that for the ISBN according to Worldcat - this may indicate a need to check sources more closely.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • While as a 2008 GA it's possible this could use some work, this claim does not appear to be true? I'm not seeing any unreferenced paragraphs here, barring the Gameplay / Plot section which is implicitly sourced to the game itself (and there are some references thrown in anyway). SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire: Per MOS:VGGAMEPLAY, "gameplay details must be appropriately verifiable to reliable sources." The last paragraph of the "Music" section is also entirely uncited. It is correct that the Plot section does not need citations, but I took another look and noticed its length: MOS:VGPLOT says that, in general, video game plots should be less than 700 words, or if episodic, 300 words per episode. This article's plot is over 1,700 words so it might need to be trimmed and/or have the information about the characters in their own section. Z1720 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In practice, since gameplay sections accept primary sources (if grudgingly) and a lot of the secondary sources are going to be in Japanese, this is just about the most acceptable kind of Gameplay section to have be primary sourced. I don't know the game but I suspect a lot of it could be handled with someone who does know it just making explicit citations to the game. It's not ideal and would be a problem on well-covered games, but the expectations are a bit different for non-English obscura.
    • Your other points are fine, but I think they should have been in the nomination statement. As I noted, it wouldn't be shocking if this article needs some cleanup, and I agree the plot section seems a tad over long. SnowFire (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: If action is not taken soon, I agree. I see an entire paragraph outside of plot summaries uncited. This paragraph starts with "The opening theme of Ef: A Tale of Melodies is the English version". The sentence "The PlayStation 2 version released by Comfort will include an image song CD in the game disc, which will contain a song called 'Echt Forgather' by Hitomi Harada" is also uncited. Ideally, paragraphs outside plot summaries and summaries of cited material need to be cited. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist economics

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Ramírez (Dominican pitcher)

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

Uncited statements, including entire sections and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did work at two of the recent baseball GARs (Ian Kinsler and Buster Posey) but I don't functionally read Spanish and I know little about the Mexican League, so I don't anticipate being able to do much to help this article, as the Mexican League portion of his career is what needs the most work. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist; there's quite a bit of work needed here. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union

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

Lots of uncited statements including entire paragraphs. Citation needed tags since 2017. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Cornell University

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the good article status. Here is why: There are too many block quotes which are too short to justify blocks. "Henry W. Sage donated $500,000 to fund the construction of the library" is unreferenced. Oberlin and University of Michigan allegedly "provided models for Cornell," but that assertion is unreferenced. There are several entire paragraphs in the section "Support from New York State" which contain no references at all. The graphic "Dedication plaque on Uris Library" is illegible. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the use of quotations is excessive. There's a time and place for their use, but most of the instances in this article should be removed and instead covered as prose. I was struck by the ubiquitous PROSELINE in the "Support from New York State" section, which also occurs frequently throughout the article. This is a symptom of disorganized writing and something I would call out as a problem in a GA review. You can tell which sections have been rewritten within the past few years because PROSELINE is largely absent from them. This combines with the uncited statements to merit a delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Belgrano

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

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is also a "citations needed" orange banner at the top of the "Family tree" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirin

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

The "Formulations" section has a "needs expansion" orange banner fom 2023. There is uncited text in the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both issues appear to have recently been fixed. That leaves a couple of minor tags to be sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On reference #47 (Goel A, Aggarwal S, Partap S, Saurabh A, Choudhary (2012). "Pharmacokinetic solubility and dissolution profile of antiarrythmic drugs". Int J Pharma Prof Res. 3 (1): 592–601.), it indicates verification needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one of the two tags. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source exists, but seem to deal with antiarrythmics, not antiinflammatories. Therefore I have removed it. Boghog (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second tag requested that the USPSTF recommendations be updated. This has now been done in this edit. Boghog (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism

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

Uncited statements, including the entire "Short term effects" section. The lead might also need to be trimmed a bit. Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me some time to work on this article and the Asprin one as you’ve opened 3 medical GAR recently and these tend to be quite hard to track down citations for. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 07:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense: GARs tend to stay open as long as editors are working on them. Please provide periodic updates so that editors know that you are still making progress. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IntentionallyDense, do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i do really hope to, there’s about 5 (guessing, i’m not sure) medical GARs open right now and i’m currently dealing with my own medical issues so i’ve come to the conclusion that i won’t have time to improve all of them but i do want to at least work on this one. I will try to remember to pop by and update people in about a week but if i don’t please feel free to tag me as this will be my first priority as soon as i am well enough. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'm slowly trying to pick away at the unsourced bits of the article and I did attempt to trim the lead but I don't think there is much more I can do there for now. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (band)

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 10,000 words long, this article is WP:TOOBIG and has too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed several unsourced statements within the article. Are there any sections in particular that you believe are too detailed? If you can identify some areas for improvement, I can try to scale it back a bit. In terms of references, I do not possess any Yes books, so any sources I add will likely be limited to websites, newspapers, magazines, and online texts that are available through the Internet Archive. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - I have access to the Yes books (at least the main ones we rely on in the article), so happy to help out I have time or if you want me to look up a citation! Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "WP:TOOBIG" policy mentions "though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." This article concerns the history and ongoing activity of a band that has so far spanned 56 years, 20+ members, numerous other collaborators, 24 studio albums, cultural impact, etc. Numerous pages on bands with similarly long histories have similarly long word counts. OP - do you have an example of an article of parallel topic complexity that should be a model for the level of brevity you believe is appropriate? ` —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shubopshadangalang: AC/DC was promoted in 2023 and might be a good model for a band (although their achivements might be a bit bloated, but I haven't taken a thorough look). Beyonce is about 9,300 words and I would argue that she has a lot more information that needs to be included in her article: this article is getting ready for an WP:FAC. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on those examples, which have shorter, less complex histories (with fewer lineup changes, and fewer album releases, for example), are only slightly shorter than this article. If anything, these examples tell me that this article could easily justify being longer. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could always skip huge sections of the band history for the sake of brevity, and employ the very well-received Star Wars sequel trilogy method, and open a section of the article with "Somehow, Rick Wakeman returned." —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just tested this, and we can reduce the article length by nearly 3000 words by removing the 15 years of history between Tormato and Keys to Ascension. I recommend making this change and seeing whether there's any negative feedback from other editors. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skipping 15 years of history is probably not to solution. However, there is information that can be removed such as what individual band members did during the band's hiatus (these can be moved to the person's biography). I went through the first paragraph of the article and made lots of edits to reduce the prose. This included WP:TMI about rehearsal space, their last performance, a quote with no context that did not influence actions, and some word redundancies. I think with a copyedit of the whole article lots of this information can be spun out or removed as WP:TMI. Please note that none of this resolves the uncited text that is in the article, which I can highlight with "citation needed" templates if asked. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced such removals are warranted, based on previous editors' consensus, but as a good faith experiment, I've made edits to the haitus section based on your suggestion, removing all side/non-Yes projects from that period. Curious to see how this is viewed by other editors. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 19:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure about the removals, either - for instance, some of the info removed in this diff provides context on the formation of the band that could be considered important, and it's not obvious that removing it is doing the article any favors. Would it be better to trim down some of the later sections (1995 to present), perhaps forking some of it off to a separate article, and to keep these important details about the early history? The edits to the Hiatus section look good to me. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The cn templates would be helpful! Though I assume you are just looking for all uncited sentences to be cited? I.e. we could aim to cite throughout at the sentence level (I generally prefer this style anyway). Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! :) Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, in the last month, for better or worse, about 10% of the article length has been reduced, and this is largely in response to this thread and its OP's stated opinion that the article is too long. I'm curious whether the original goal here has been satisfied. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 19:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Z1720 as above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping AJ29, sorry that I didn't see this sooner. @Shubopshadangalang: At ~9,100 words, I think the article length is basically fine. After the citation needed templates are resolved (either by adding inline citations or removing the unsourced prose) I will try to do a copyedit to remove redundant phrases (WP:REDEX helps with this) and suggest sentences that could be removed because they are too detailed/off-topic/not necessary. I encourage others to also copyedit the article for added improvements. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Caleb Stanford and Dobbyelf62: are either of you interested in resolving the citation needed tags? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to! Looks like there are 26 of them. I am not sure I have time to go through all of them at the moment but I could take a section or two. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to take a look at the article and help with web and newspaper sources. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Stanford and other interested editors: I have added citation needed tags to the article. I am happy for any of my deleted prose to be returned to the article, but please note here if something is put back so there can be a discussion if necessary. As someone who does not know this band, I my goal was to remove information that I thought was more trivia or not needed to understand who this band was and their accomplishments. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. The citation needed tags will help users identify areas of improvement. In terms of trimming the article, it is my opinion that the band's 50+ year history necessitates a relatively long article to accommodate for the band's numerous personnel changes, releases, tours, and any other notable event worth mentioning. Of course, if anyone would like to flag certain passages for removal, I am receptive to assessing the merits of the contested content.
Upon looking at the article again, I have also identified another issue: On no less than 21 occasions, AllMusic is used as a reference to cite chart positions in the United States. While AllMusic used to provide chart histories for bands and solo artists, this feature is no longer present. As such, it would be advisable to swap out the AllMusic references with information from Billboard. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Pie

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

The entire "Archive Collection reissue" section is uncited, as well as other uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer to help fix this. The original nominator is a friend of mine, but he is on vacation and thus not willing to come out of retirement to fix it. mftp dan oops 16:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from this brief statement: "the critical reaction to Flaming Pie was strong, with McCartney achieving his best reviews since 1982's Tug of War", the article lacks actual critical reviews too (aside from scores). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also integrate "Album title" into another section, as per MOS:OVERSECTION. Additionally, the Personnel section there doesn't specify track duties (see WP:PERSONNEL), although I know for sure those are in the liner notes. I'll volunteer to help with that one, as it's something I routinely do anyway. The Keymaster (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of debate recently about whether or not the inclusion of deluxe editions and copious bonus tracks is warranted in most cases, so an argument could be made that that section should just be removed, which would fix that problem. The Keymaster (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up to everyone, I intend to fix this article tonight. When I'm finished, let me know if there's anything else I need to address or if I need additional refinement. mftp dan oops 20:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, are you fixing this article? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been busier than expected, but by morning it should be close, if not completely repaired. mftp dan oops 02:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a substantial amount to reception. There is a little more to be done, and some re-organizing, but that should not be difficult. I am going to get some sleep and will resume in the daylight. mftp dan oops 05:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, before I proceed with the Archive Collection heading, I need clarification. Are these tracklists even pertinent? I know how alternate tracklists, especially for reissues, have been covered on Wikipedia has recently come under scrutiny and some changes have been made, but I've not kept up and would like some explanation on just how much I have to source, or if there's any I ought to remove. mftp dan oops 05:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, could you please answer the query, thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MFTP Dan: Sorry that I did not respond to this sooner. This is a tough one for me to answer, as I think most albums have track listings and extra additions usually do not have so many extra songs. I think the information about the different editions might be too detailed and promotional. As for listing all the tracks, that might be a good question for WP:WPMUSIC or WP:ALBUM. Z1720 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Fort William Henry

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

An uncited statement in the "Background" section and a "unreferenced section" banner for the "Order of battle" section since 2023 and no information about the French forces. An editor on the talk page indicated that lots of information was added to the article since its promotion, so a spot check might also be needed. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the order of battle in a sandbox until I can put it in proper form. I have a citation for the background section from Anderson, Fred "Crucible of War". I want to look at a few other sources before I post it. Donner60 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still working on Battle of Lexington and Concord and Flavian dynasty. I intend to get back to this as soon as I can. I think that my sources, especially the one that I cited above, will provide the references needed to improve the article back to GA. Donner60 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I likely have finished work on the Battles of Lexington and Concord article and had finished Flavian dynasty earlier. I will now return to work on this article. With any luck, this one will not take as long to recheck and improve. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Progress update: I have added two citations to the uncited statement in the background section. I have deleted a dead link citation but fortunately it is in a paragraph with a citation at the end which supports the earlier sentence.
The size of the article is about 3,000 bytes larger than it was in 2010. It was about 3,000 larger than that for a brief period of time. Every paragraph has one or more citations. I don't see anything new that requires citations or revision. From what I have read about the battle in Anderson and Parkman, the article is reasonably complete but I think I need to do at least some more reading in other sources before I conclude work on this. The number of words is nowhere near too large.
If I am looking at the right comment, the user who stated there was much to be added apparently was involved with the archaeological work mentioned in the last paragraph of the article. Perhaps there have been interesting finds that are not in the article but the absence of more information on that, if it exists, would not seem to affect the assessment. Again, if I am looking at the right comment, the comment is 19 years old and the user has not edited since 2013.
I have looked at Parkman who goes into some detail but I did not see much worth adding. (I might take another quick look. Since Parkman's account was first copyrighted in 1884, he may be one of the sources for the later accounts. Perhaps some more information became available to later authors, as well.) I have a few other books that cover the French and Indian War in whole or in part.
I will look further for any orders of battle. I suspect some general statement on the size of each forces may need to suffice. Some general numbers for the opposing forces precede the order of battle section already. Many of the "French" forces were Native Americans (Indians), who don's seem to have been divided into the type of units found in modern armies. They were from different tribes and led by their tribal leaders, although quite likely under the French commanders' direction to some extent.
I have a few other books about the French and Indian War or which cover that war as part of a larger history of the Seven Years War or a longer period of time. I plan to look at those in the next few days, to see if I can add anything to the article. I will also be looking for details about the numbers and composition of the British and French and Indian forces, of course. Donner60 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further update: I removed the order of battle section. I will continue to look for a verifiable order of battle but it may not be possible to find one. I will also see if I can add anything to the numbers of the forces already stated in the article. I think the order of battle section is not crucial for this article and its removal should not affect the GA status. This may put it in good enough shape to keep the assessment already. But I will continue to work on it for at least a short period of time. 03:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Gloria Steinem

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

The election support section stops at 2016, and does not comment on 2020 or the upcoming election. There are many uncited sentences and paragraphs. There are many short, one sentence paragraphs, especially in the Activism section. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that some sections could use a re-write to better organize instead of a dated list of factoids. There are no "citation needed" maintenance tags so if there are claims that need citations it would be good to identify these. It will be a couple of weeks until I can spend some time with this article. Nnev66 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nnev66: I have added citation needed tags per the above request. Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding these. I will look for citations and have already added a few. I notice there are sometimes details that may not need to be included in the article (too granular) that don't have sourcing. I'm tempted to remove these, e.g. "Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press" and "Frontline Women's Fund" - do you have thoughts about this? On the latter there is a non-independent web site for half of the claim, but I don't think every organization Steinem has been involve with needs to be listed, especially if it doesn't have WP:RS coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29: There's some unreliable sources in the article (tv.com, Zimbio) that should be removed. I would also like to see "Personal life" and "In media" sections fixed up more before doing a copyedit and several sections need more level 3 heading to split up the text. "Selected awards and honors" is too detailed and non-notable awards should probably be removed. Overall, the amount of work needed to fix up the formatting seems more than a simple copyedit that I won't be able to complete, and I wouldn't give a "keep" declaration at this time. @Nnev66: are you interested in addressing some of the above? No worries if not. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can work on these. Removed the tv.com, Zimbio refs. Nnev66 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McKellen

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I began fixing some of the uncited issues on this article before, and I can try to complete it. I'll be busy until the weekend, during which I'm fairly confident I can get most of the citations needed. --Lord Theoden (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Theoden: How do you feel about the article now? I see you've made some significant edits to the article since your comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: Hello. I have gathered 20-30 more references which should resolve all the remaining uncited issues, I'm just in the process of creating citations for all of them. I had hoped to have this done last week, but I should have it completed before the end of the month. Lord Theoden (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. Please don't feel rushed, as long as there is work ongoing I have no intention of closing this reassessment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg the Wise

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

Popular culture section unsourced. One CN tag and two primary source tags. In addition, several statements are uncited or have footnotes referring to primary sources. Mellk (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the primary sources with secondary sources accordingly. Please let me know if these qualify; I've never done this before 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 02:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I finished pop culture section and removed info marked with cn tag (my instict that an absence of something difficult to cite; maybe some else find cite for it). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the improvements. We can definitely cite Shikanov and Pashuto. I still see a few citations that refer to primary sources, for example: The Primary Chronicle and other Kievan sources place Oleg's grave in Kiev, while Novgorodian sources identify a funerary barrow in Ladoga as Oleg's final resting place. Mellk (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mellk: It's OK for articles to cite primary sources, as long as they aren't promotional or undue. Were there any particular passages that you were concerned the use a primary source to verify the information? Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: You are correct, but I feel that there is a bit of original research going on with some of the statements not fully supported. Take for example the following:
    • The earliest and most believable version seems to have been preserved in the Novgorod First Chronicle, which says that Oleg departed "overseas" (i.e., to Scandinavia) and was buried there.
    • The text of the Schechter Letter is given at Golb 106–121. It is cited herein by folio and line (e.g. SL Fol. x:x)
    • SL Fol. 2r, 15–16; 17. The author of the letter describes Khazaria as "our land". SL Fol. 1r:19, 2v:15,20.
    For the following, there is also a hidden note that says: his assertion doesn't hold water, see my refs below.
    • No less a personage than Mikhail Artamonov declared the manuscripts' authenticity beyond question. Artamonov 12. Nonetheless, other scholars expressed scepticism about its account, due in large part to its contradiction of the Primary Chronicle. E.g., Gregoire 242–248, 255–266; Dunlop 161. Anatoli Novoseltsev, noting the discrepancy, admits the document's authenticity but declares that the author "displaces the real historical facts rather freely." Novoseltsev 216–218. Brutskus asserted that HLGW was in fact another name for Igor. Brutskus 30–31. Mosin proposed that HLGW was a different person from Oleg and was an independent prince in Tmutarakan; the existence of an independent Rus' state in Tmutarakan in the first half of the tenth century is rejected by virtually all modern scholars. Mosin 309–325; cf. Zuckerman 258.
    Mellk (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reverosie and LastJabberwocky: are either of you interested in continuing to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be willing to, but please know that I will not prioritize it unless I have to 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 12:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile, Alabama

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

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took another look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including the entire "2010 census" section. There's also some MOS:OVERSECTION in the sports section and I think some of the prose is too detailed for an article about a city (especially in the "Arts and Culture" section). Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take a stab at filling out the citations. I'll circle back to the sports and art issues you mention after inline citations are in place unless some kind soul hops in and takes it care of first, Rjjiii (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added citations while correcting errors and updating information. The only uncited things left are in the census sections. Next step will be to go through Mobile, Alabama#Demographics to update and cite the information there, Rjjiii (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Demographics" section is now cited and up to date, using census data. I'll look soon to see if secondary sources comment on the city's demographics. Then, I'll check through the "Arts and Culture" section. Rjjiii (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, I've been going through "Arts and Culture" and have trimmed much. What do you make of Mobile, Alabama#Historic architecture? I have not touched this part yet and hesitate to remove all of these historic buildings. Rjjiii (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii: I made some major cuts to the article, including removing non-notable list items (like names of schools and businesses), removed information about institutions not located in Mobile, and merged some sections per MOS:OVERSECTION. Please take a look and let me know if there's any concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, thanks, the cuts all seem like improvements. I had focused on the "Arts and Culture" section. Rjjiii (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would any of the photos in the article need to be updated to what the locations look like today? EulerianTrail (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EulerianTrail, which photos are you thinking should be replaced? Rjjiii (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Mobile Civic Center picture should be replaced (Renovations/construction of a new one is currently being done); hhowever, I would wait until it is done. Several photos are old but still represents the idea of the place, but may be nice to have a more modern look. Some places that would be nice to have is a photo of Langan park with the dinosaurs art exhibit, the new Amtrak station, USA Health Children's & Women's Hospital looks like a lighthouse, the Fairgrounds (which is basically like a second civic center, but with a focus on having an outdoors area), EulerianTrail (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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