Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 85

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 84) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 86) →

Astrology

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure

[edit]
Extended content
Wound theology: I don't see any advance notice of this GAR on Talk:Astrology? The normal procedure is to state one's concerns on the talk page, and if there's no (satisfactory) response, to proceed to GAR. I suggest this GAR should be withdrawn now, so we can discuss the matter on the talk page first. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the archives; I previously brought up certain issues (the theological viewpoints, in particular) and even flagged it with a disclaimer as being unbalanced. It was ignored and the template was eventually removed because no one else seemed to care. wound theology◈ 09:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was well done, and I see you've made some helpful additions to the article recently as well. But neither of those things constitute putting a notice on the talk page that you're considering a GAR, in the week before you do so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: The edit in which I added the Template:POV is here and the previous "discussion" is at Talk:Astrology/Archive 36#Theological viewpoints. Note that the edit in which VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) removed the template has an inaccurate summary, stating there has been consensus for "over a year" -- I did explain to her here that a lack of discussion is an example of WP:NOCON rather than the opposite. wound theology◈ 09:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find "GAR" anywhere in that archive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest: I was just following Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines, which is the first search result for me. That page only says to [c]onsider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors. Unless there is some hard-and-fast policy like the WP:3RR about talk page discussion about a GAR specifically, I think the problems on this page are serious enough to warrant a reassessment. The page is largely the accretion of several slow-burn edit wars and POV-pushing from both sides in the ten years (!) since it was elevated to GA status, and from my own personal experience editing the page -- not many are willing to give the proper historical context needed here. The fact that a cleanup template could stay up for over a year and then be quietly removed for a lack of discussion is evidence enough of that. wound theology◈ 09:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, GAR it is then. Let's proceed to technical discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Much has been changed and argued about since this page was promoted a decade ago. In general it is unbalanced and skewed -- not in the WP:FRINGE sense but in that it tends to ignore how widespread astrology was in ancient and medieval times, and seems to misrepresent the work of ancient philosophical skeptics (who rejected all philosophical and scientific inquiry.) The "Theological viewpoints" section, likewise, implies that astrology was historically rejected in both Islam and Christianity, despite the fact that the exact opposite is true. wound theology◈ 08:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a comment about content; reviewing the six GA criteria, the only one near it is Neutrality, but the page is studiously neutral, despite much added-and-reverted partisan editing. Instead, your remarks about "ancient philosophical skeptics (who rejected all philosophical and scientific inquiry.)" and "Theological viewpoints" (Islam and Christianity) are both matters of historical detail, which can be fixed simply by adding a bit more detail in both cases. I suspect you have historical texts to hand which could fix both matters quite easily? I'll be happy to support you in getting such materials into the article, but I see that as normal development, nothing to do with neutrality (basically, just fine adjustment).
As for your remark about "how widespread astrology was in ancient and medieval times", I'd say (looking at the article after a long interval), that it does quite a good job of indicating the topic's importance in those eras, giving substantial weight in a detailed 'History' chapter to this aspect. That does not mean we can't add more detail, and I suggest we do, to satisfy your concerns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is either Neutral nor sufficiently Broad in its coverage. The single largest section in this page is dedicated to the reception of astrology in the hard sciences, which dwarfs the comparatively tiny section on the principles and practice of astrology -- which covers three entire civilizations in less space than it takes to debunk the particular claims of modern horoscopic astrology. Elsewhere, significant weight is given to skeptical opinions in historical contexts, and even those viewpoints are presented in a very skewed manner -- the description of Plotinus as a critic of astrology without discussion of his very complex astrological views is heinous, in my view (see Adamson, "Plotinus on Astrology" in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35 for context on that issue.) Giving even broad coverage to the Theological viewpoints section is, to put it simply, a Herculean task -- it is a massively complex topic spanning centuries and dozens of particular schools and opinions, practically none of which can be given a single "pro" or "contra" summary; exactly why I find the lack of interest in expanding that section particularly telling. wound theology◈ 10:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't find anything "particularly telling": my view is that our job on Wikipedia in a top-level overview-of-a-major-topic article is to give a very brief summary of many large and complex issues in a small space. I'm happy to help you extend the history, as long as it doesn't overwhelm the article; any further detail would go into subsidiary articles on Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology (substantial articles, which we certainly can't and shouldn't try to duplicate here), etc.
With respect, we are very far from falling foul of either GACR Neutrality or Breadth criteria here: the article gives what many readers will find a surprising amount of detail on ancient matters. However, I'm very happy to accept your steer towards additional materials (possibly by asking you to email me a photocopy). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a brief statement about the ancient skeptics challenging everything: it's a bit of an iffy thing to do in an article as philosophers and others leap gleefully on anything with a "forall" in it, and it's close to being off-topic too, but it may help to answer your first concern (which I really don't see as misrepresentation at all: the article just says "A says x", which does not imply "A does not say y", specially as "y" is outside the article's scope). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence on Plotinus from Adamson, mentioning his interest and two key concerns identified by Adamson. If there are further points on other ancient figures you'd like added, please identify them and I'll add them to the article (unless you feel like doing so yourself). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for keeping

[edit]
  • Keep: 1) the article is studiously neutral, covering multiple points of view and giving equal weight to history, principles and practice, theology, science, and culture, and has been edited and debated by many editors; and 2) the article offers detailed and balanced coverage of a very large subject in the space of a single overview article (in "summary style" with "main" links to subsidiary articles). In particular, this one article cannot and must not attempt to cover every detail of everything that the more than 60 astrology articles on Wikipedia cover already: as sketched in the tree diagram below, this article is at the top of a substantial hierarchy of articles, and its job is to give new readers a compact overview of the field: which it does. Accordingly, it is a valid Good Article and should be kept as such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Astrology
over 60 subtopics
covered in subsidiary articles
and 3) the sources have been tidied up (moved inline) for simplicity and ease of maintenance, given the many new editors who visit here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: how shall I retract the reassessment? I don't think my original critique holds anymore. wound theology◈ 08:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just say so boldly here. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mathematical economics

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. While some prose is used to explain the mathematical formulas, and thus citations might not be required, other uncited prose is not used for that purpose, and thus needs to be cited. Some sections have an overreliance on quotes, which cause copyright concerns and are not summaries of the information. This includes the "Adequacy of mathematics for qualitative and complicated economics" and "Mathematical economics as a form of pure mathematics" sections. Ref 128 and 129 seem to be blogs. Are these reliable sources, or should they be replaced? Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Przemysł II

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the relevant criteria is "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged.... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". IMO concerns should be expressed in that context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Content in good articles need to be cited. I am happy to add citation needed templates if requested, but there are some citation needed tags from 2018 that are unresolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not arguing either way, just for a clearly expressed-concern that uses the criteria as a guide. And so an uncited statement per se is not a violation. On another note, an unresolved CN tag is a whole different different thing than the general thoughts expressed here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do in terms of sourcing, but no promises. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found one source that partially supports the statement but I don't know about the rest. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Piotrus and @HełmPolski: Can either of you help? I'm sorry, I'm kind of grasping at straws here. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping folks more familiar with that history period active on en wiki: @Merangs @Volunteer Marek @Orczar Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: &@Grumpylawnchair: – I can try to fill the sections where the 'citations needed' notes are present in the text. Is there anything else that requires addressing? On a personal note, I think the footnotes/citations in the lead section make it very untidy and any referenced information there should already be in the body of the article. Merangs (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uncited statements are the entire basis of this GAR. I could help you tidy up the lead if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: On that note, the notes should probably be put in their own notelist instead of the reflist since it is unwieldy. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notes and refs should not be mixed, good point. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: & @Grumpylawnchair: – Just wanted to let you know that I was able to locate and place sources for the uncited passages in the article. Merangs (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: Thank you very much! I'll take care of separating the notes from the refs. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The article probably needs a good copyedit (maybe someone should place a request to the Guild of Copyeditors), especially the footnotes, and a lot of the info in the footnotes can be moved into the prose. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: @Merangs: @HełmPolski: Honestly, some of the sources need replacing. Polskie Radio, while usually reliable, is not a good source for a history article. The sources to news articles should ideally be replaced. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a copyedit, I would ping @Nihil novi, although I am not sure if they'd be interested in this topic. My skills are not a good match for this particular problem. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to take a look, but it seems you've resolved the issue :) HełmPolski (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs, Piotrus, Grumpylawnchair, and HełmPolski: there is still uncited material throughout the article, if any of you are up for referencing it inline? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Concerns addressed and resolved. No other concerns with the article noted. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review Section

[edit]

(Taken from my points on the main talk page of the article)

This article hasn't been assessed for GA article status since 2008. Having expanded and the standards for GA having risen since then, I feel that the time is right for this article to be assessed to see if this article still meets the criteria. In the meantime, here are some things that I have noted so far.

  • The lead has no information on the game's development despite there being ample enough info to include.
  • The lead doesn't do a good job at illustrating the gameplay and plot.
  • Gameplay section is seemingly very messy -
    • It goes into seemingly too much detail about the game's enemies.
    • On top of that, it mentions the games endings in too much detail for something that should probably be reserved for the plot section.
    • The "Alternate Modes" and "Nintendo Wi-Fi" subsections aren't necessary as their contents can seemingly be shortened and added to the main section with no real issue.
    • Alternate Modes subsection has a majority of it in bullet points. Need I say more.
  • The plot section is too long and somewhat messy in writing in places.
  • The development section is decently well written, but there is a citation needed symbol and the Audio subsection feels sort of iffy to me.
  • Reception section might need to be rewritten. Definitely work in or remove the final line of the section though as it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the text in the section.
  • Some References, such as the Brady Games strategy guide, seem unfit for this article. Also, one of the sources isn't formatted properly.

Any additional points to be addressed are very much appreciated COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More points can be added here once a week of no commentary occurs on the main talk page.
@CooperCool23: I agree with most of your review. Here are some points that I have a different opinion about or questions for clarification:
  • The existence of the subsections seem appropriate based on what I remember of the coverage. Though I do conceded that if they are condensed, a smaller amount of prose wouldn't warrant a subsection. I guess wait and see until after changes are made.
  • Why is the Brady Game strategy guide unfit? It's an official guide made in collaboration with Konami, the developer, and is being used to source gameplay. Also, any other sources you feel are unfit?
  • I fixed the Nintendo Power source with the missing information.
I'll see how much I can help out with and start making edits as time allows. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@Guyinblack25 in regards to your comment about sources, I didn't know that official strategy guides could be used when citing gameplay so that is my fault. That, and I think I was just skimming through the list of references in the article and thought that I saw ones that were out of place (I think I also mistook that the "official" in the Brady Games source wasn't there...some how (don't ask)). I have now also done and double checked all the sources together with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and the article and can now say for certain that none of the sources seem to be unfit or unreliable for the article. Hope that clears some things up. COOPER COOL 23 user page 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👍 (Guyinblack25 talk 22:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Starting a discussion about the cover art caption to avoid back and forth reverts. I've seen that trend before and always change it because it is outside Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, image captions do not have to be short and should not be so short that they omit useful information to the reader. The term the MoS uses is "succinct", which means don't use ten words when five or six will do.

  • "Succinctness is using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as brevity, which is using a relatively small number of words. Succinct captions have more power than verbose ones."

Other points in the MoS that apply here are

  • "The caption should lead the reader into the article."
  • "While a short caption is often appropriate, if it might be seen as trivial (People playing Monopoly), consider extending it so that it adds value to the image and is related more logically to the surrounding text (A product of the Great Depression, Monopoly continues to be played today.)."
  • The special situation section of that MoS (MOS:CAPLENGTH) includes a video game cover as an example of a full-sentence caption in the infobox, citing Bioshock Infinite: "BioShock Infinite gives an example of an informative yet brief full-sentence caption describing the key element (the singular protagonist) depicted and its relationship to the article's subject."

While I agree the caption itself does not need to mention that the characters are new to the series, this is the only visual information in the article that depicts what the two characters (who are mentioned prominently) look like as the screenshot uses only tiny pixel sprites. Identifying them by name and connecting that to visual information helps most readers process and retain information. Basically, treating the caption as only a label is a missed opportunity to enrich the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Update - there are some places that could use some polish and there are probably a few more rabbit holes I could dive into for content, but I'm basically done with my improvements. If someone could review/copy edit the whole article, that would be helpful. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@CooperCool23: checking in to see if the improvements are sufficient to close the GAR. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@Guyinblack25: Most of what I majorly disliked about the article has been fixed and all the sources seem to be formatted properly. I'm willing to say that the GAR can be closed now. COOPER COOL 23 user page 02:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_85&oldid=1287379098"