Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Process of quality control review}}
<!--{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
{{PP|small=yes}}{{Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header}}
|}<!-- -->
<div style="padding:0em 0em 1em 0em">''[[#Articles needing possible reassessment|'''↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓''']]''</div>
{|
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines}}<!--Full text of nearly entire page-->
| width="100%" style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf; padding:1em 1em 1em 1em; background-color:#ABCDEF"|
{{shortcut|[[WP:GA/D]]<BR>[[WP:GA/R]]}}
The '''Good article review''' page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if [[WP:GA|Good article]] listed articles still merits their [[WP:GA|good article]] status, contesting former GA's that someone may think was improperly delisted, or request feedback on articles that have not yet been promoted.

Articles on this list are graded against the [[WP:WIAGA|good article criteria]] in which an article is checked to be at the GA-Class grade on the [[Template:Grading scheme|article assessment scale]]. It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the article's status. '''<u>This is not a Peer Review Process;</u>''' for that see [[Wikipedia:Peer Review]].
|}

{| style="clear:both; background:none; color:black;"
{|
| width="50%" style="padding:1em 1em 1em 1em; border:1px solid #dfdfdf; background-color:#E0EDFA" valign="top"|

<span style="font-size:14pt">If you believe an article should be delisted</span>
[[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|right|40px]]
If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the [[WP:WIAGA|good article criteria]], then you can '''delist''' it:
# Check that you have logged in, anons may not delist articles.
# Check the '''[[WP:WIAGA|good article criteria]]''' to see which criteria it fails to meet.
# If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to [[Wikipedia:Be bold|be bold]] and fix it yourself.
# If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s). If possible, put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See [[:Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates]].
# If you see an article on the GA list which clearly fails the [[WP:WIAGA|criteria]] , you can delist it and remove it from the list at [[WP:GA]] immediately. To do this remove the {{tl|GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{[[Template:DelistedGA|DelistedGA]]|{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}. <u>'''Do not use'''</u> {{tl|FailedGA}}.
# Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
# Remove the article from the list at [[Wikipedia:Good articles]].

If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to '''review''' the situation by adding the article to the list below. Please check that you have logged in, notify the editors in the article's talk page that it is under review, and provide a link to the [[WP:GA/R|GA Review page]] before listing the article here.
| valign="top" style="padding:1em; border:1px solid #dfdfdf; background-color:#E0EDFA" |

<span style="font-size:14pt">If you believe an article should be listed</span>
[[Image:Symbol support vote.png|right|40px]]
If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nominations]] page straight away.
# Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page.
# If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the [[Wikipedia:What is a good article|good article criteria]], you can just '''[[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|renominate]]''' it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
# However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfill all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to '''review''' it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be listed as a Good Article.
|}
{{Template:Process header blue
| title = Good article review
| section = (archive)
| previous =
| next = ([[Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 16|Latest]])
| shortcut =
| notes =
}}
__TOC__
__TOC__
==Articles needing possible reassessment==
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/notices given}}
{{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 {{tl|GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.
{{User:AnomieBOT/C/Good articles in need of review}}
*{{#time:H:i:s, d/m/Y}}: Current date for reference


The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a [[WP:FAC|featured article candidate]], please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
==Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)==
{{-}}
:'''Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to [[WP:GA/R]] for review and possible delisting of its [[WP:GA|Good Article]] status. Include <nowiki>[[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]</nowiki> in the section heading.'''
<!-- Add new articles below this line -->
<!-- But don't even think about adding a new article below his line until you've added a notice on the relevant article's talk page. See text above -->
<!-- And when a discussion is over, there are archives that reviews should go into.-->

===[[2007 Texas Longhorn football team]]===
This article has been listed as a GA candidate for a month. Today, an editor failed the article without a review. Their reason was that more information will become available at some point in the future, so they failed the article.

The GA criteria states
<blockquote>5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.</blockquote>
This article meets that criteria because it '''is''' stable.

The idea that more information will become available in the future is not a reason to fail it now. If the article makes GA now and then becomes unstable later, it can be delisted later. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it is improper to fail this article on the basis of something that might happen in the future.

As of today, the article is informative, and I think it passes all the GA criteria. I ask that the article be given its GA review based upon what the article is today and what is known today about the topic. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 16:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:'''Comment'''. I am the editor who failed this. I hesitated, because as Johntex says the GA criteria do not make it absolutely clear that the reason I gave for failing it was legitimate. I was also influenced by [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Stability|this comment]] of Raul654's, on FAC talk, indicating what the original FA criterion of stability was intended to govern. Of course he's talking about FAC, but the concern seems to arise for GA too.
:I'm not going to vote to support or reverse my fail; either outcome seems reasonable. However, I'd also like to see discussion of the GA stability criterion and what the boundaries are. Raul654 made it clear that he judges the Virginia Tech massacre article to be unstable. What counts as unstable for GA? [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Reply''' Hi Mike, thank you very much for your note. As you say, it will be good to talk this out a little and see what the consensus is.

::I am of the opinion that if an article is stable today but might change in the future, that we should review it on the basis of what it is today. Otherwise, we may as well delist [[Mars]] and [[Pluto|Pluto]] and for that matter we may as well take away FA from [[Solar System]]. We will undoubtably learn more about these topics in the future and in fact we have probes at or on the way to Mars and Pluto right now. I admit this is not a perfect analogy, but I do think it helps to illustrate what an article should be judged for what it is today, and for what is happening to the article today.

::I think the "stability" criteria is more about whether the article is changing too fast for the GA reviewer to decide what version to review, and whether (once reviewed) the article will just immediately change to fall out of GA standard. That is not likely to happen here for several months at a minimum.

::In the best case, GA standards will be maintained in this article through the whole season. It really only takes one or two well-written updates a week. At worst case, the article could be delisted if/when it no longer makes the criteria.
::Anyway, thanks for your note and your opinion. I don't take it personally that you failed it, and I am glad you don't take it personally that I asked for a review. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::'''Comment''': Hi John, no hard feelings I hope. I am on the fence about these types of articles. It is hard to say they will be stable when off-season develops are as frequent as they are in football. I think I am going to remain '''neutral''' on this one. I don't think the reviewer was totally wrong, this is kind of a gray area. We had a similar discussion concerning [[Wikipedia:Good_article_review/Archive_15#Spore_.28video_game.29|Spore]], an unreleased video game, I believe its failure was endorsed. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Also, on stability. A science article (or any academic type article) isn't unstable because of new discoveries, mainly because in the academic world, new discoveries don't just flood the publications. They are carefully reviewed as opposed to being released at a rate that someone documenting the topic and reviewing said documentation for certain criteria wouldn't be able to keep up with it. With Spore, above that was the case, it couldn't be kept up with because there was ever changing speculation about the release date. With an article about a future football season, its hard to say. They have a spring game of some sort, certainly, when do they start practice? July? What happens before that? Camps? Something to be sure. Like I say this is hard to judge but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibilities that an article mostly about a topic that hasn't really taken place or come together yet could be considered unstable. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::'''Reply''' - the spring practices and spring scrimmage is done. Nothing happens during the summer unless some unexpected event happens. Practices resume in August. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 01:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''endorse fail''' At issue here is the problem that the article is largely incomplete. It's not like 1 or 2 changes are expected in the future, as new information arises. The 2007 season has not even been played yet. This article can ONLY contain speculation and very little else. Give it 9 months. Wikipedia is in no rush. Look, the Longhorns have played HOW many seasons? If it is THAT important to the nom to get a Longhorn article to GA status, work on improving one for which the information IS complete. Looking at GA and FA, there are no other Longhorn season articles that have been elevated. Why not work on the 2006 season or any other? Give this one time, and in January, when the season is done, renominate it to GA status.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 17:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::Respectfully, the article contains NO speculation. The article contains only known, published, verifiable information about the scheduled games and historical information about these teams involved; such as their starting rankigns. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse fail''' Ordinarily, i'd probably support this kind of article because changes would likely come incrementally as the season progresses, however, in this case, the actual team itself isn't even known, since there's no roster. If the roster was extant, (Even just the names of the players, positions I could understand not being known yet until very close to game time) then I think it would be compleate enough to count as sufficiently broad, but otherwise, well, its not really your fault, but it just doesn't seem to cover everything that an article on a sports team should cover. Get that roster and reference it to the level of the rest of the article, and i'd support this for GA status, even if the season is upcoming. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::The roster is an interesting point. It is generally released very near to the start of the season so I do have to wait a bit on that. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[The Holocaust]]===
This article was delisted by [[User:Alexsanderson83|Alexsanderson83]] with the accompanying edit summary: ''removed 'The Holocaust' as article does not address Ownership of the Holocaust''. I found this insuffcient, notified the user, reverted the changes and listed the article here. I have invited Alex to explain why this article should be delisted here. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The article fails to address a key issue. Ownership of the Holocaust. The article in its present form does not address this issue at all. This fact means it to be in my opinion B Class with need of a major overhaul. It would be a good article to be featured were it brought up to standard due to the subject matter.

The article intimates the Holocaust to be a mainly Jewish event. Both the cultural and historical understanding can differ from this position. The article fails to address the two two key positions on the subject, deciding it to be a Jewish tradegy and acknowledging that others died. Motive versus mechanics argument not even addressed. [[User:Alexsanderson83|Alexsanderson83]] 12:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' [[User:Londo06]] had repeatedly made this claim on the talk page but when asked to provide sources, has failed to give any evidence whatever for a scholarly debate on Ownership (apparently it has to have a capital O). [[User:Alexsanderson83]] has not contributed to this debate, nor has he sought to add anything relevant. We need evidence that "Ownership" is a real issue of debate before adding it. Instant deletion from GA staus on a whim of a single editor is surely not acceptable. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 13:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep''': I don't know what you mean by ownership, that is definitely not the right terminology. Secondly the whole second paragraph of the lead is devoted to what you claim to be absent, Alex's assertions are requiring the citations from what I can see. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 13:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

**Ownership is the academic term referring to which mutually exclusive understanding of the term 'The Holocaust' to which one is referring. The motive to kill, or the executions themselves in simple terms. [[User:Alexsanderson83|Alexsanderson83]] 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you. I just finished reading the talk page. I was unfamiliar with the term, what a bizarre choice of word. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' - Debate over whether or not to include one concept (still somewhat poorly defined in the Talk page) does not negate the fact that the article is stable, neutral, well written, broad based, etc. I don't see how the aforementioned concept keeps this article from meeting [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?|good article criteria]], especially given the content that IvoShandor pointed out. [[User:MrZaius|<font color="Blue">'''MrZaius'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:MrZaius|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

***The second paragraph is there, but the assertion that 'The Holocaust' is ... the killing of approximately six million European Jews. This is offensive to many. The article not fully addressing that it is understood by many throughout the world both academically and culturally as the murders by the Nazis in the camps. (I don't include the likes of Iranian Presidents and other anti-semites). Following the opening up of Soviet files and British declassification of files, it is believed that the mechanics over the motives is the most prevalently held position in the academic community. [[User:Alexsanderson83|Alexsanderson83]] 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::But not by others. Personally, I lean towards a more inclusive definition, but, again, where does the article fall short under [[WP:WIAGA]]? [[User:MrZaius|<font color="Blue">'''MrZaius'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:MrZaius|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::*'''Comment''': This really sounds like a content dispute more than any reason it doesn't meet the [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]], GAs are not FAs and not subject to the stringent requirements there. The article does indeed consistently talk about other groups who were murdered. That is suffcient for GA, IMO. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::::[[User:Alexandserson83]] repeats almost word-for-word Londo06's bizarre assertions that this mysterious Ownership debate has emerged "following the opening up of Soviet files and British declassification of files". I fail to see the relevance of these uspecified files, which has never been explained by Londo06. I suspect sockpuppetry. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 13:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::I would think it would be more like the facts being out there in the real world. Themes being discussed by academics and social commentators alike. The ownership theme is perhaps the major debate of the recent past. I would suggest reading works by the likes of Laurence Rees on Auschwitz. Also accept that the Soviet Union is gone and that files allowed much work on the Nazi atrocities to be done and that the British declassify information in line with the law. This is common knowledge.[[User:Alexsanderson83|Alexsanderson83]] 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::The intricate details of specific 60 year old government documents of the former Soviet Union and the United Kingdom are hardly "common knowledge". Give links to the papers and explanations of why they make the current two paragraph def invalid on the article's talk page, not here. The article does include fairly extensive coverage of non-Jews killed during the Holocaust. That it lacks it in the opening sentence is not grounds for removing it from the Good Article list. [[User:MrZaius|<font color="Blue">'''MrZaius'''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:MrZaius|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> 13:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Some of the copyrighted images need fair use rationales or more detailed ones. --[[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' This is a small, fringe issue and its lack of inclusion does NOT make this delistable. If the person who is argueing that the information should be included, and they have references, ''they are invited to [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and add it themselves''. However, this small, fringe, accademic issue does not seem to make the article not a Good Article. There is nothing wrong with the article as-is. Keep it. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Peer Review needed''' The issue of where people were killed is an issue. If you were killed in camp, not being Jewish you are included, but are deemed a 2nd class victim. If you are a Jew killed outside the camps then there are people who say that murder is part of the Holocaust. And a Communist under the same circumstances is not.

**I thought this was the only argument about the Holocaust. Is it the Final Solution or the Holocaust. The article seems to be confusing the two. Could be me, I am neither Jewish or a Professor, but to me THE Holocaust was the organised killings in the camps. [[User:90.192.37.69|90.192.37.69]] 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

*[http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/adrian_hamilton/article341003.ece Adrian Hamilton: Keep the politicians out of Holocaust Day] Don't know if I'm allowed to include this on this page. [[User:90.192.37.69|90.192.37.69]] 19:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::*'''Comment''': Second class victim? Okay this discussion needs to relate to the GA review, not semantics or content disputes, this isn't a peer review process. We are here to decide if this article meets [[WP:WIAGA|the GA criteria]], no one yet has given any reason that it doesn't, please try to stay on topic. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[University of Illinois Observatory]]===
This was one of my first GAs, it was passed by [[User:Badlydrawnjeff|Badlydrawnjeff]] without a review, though he said he reviewed it and would post comments eventually. I wonder if it is up to GA, if you vote delist, please provide a rationale as I will attempt to fix any and all concerns raised during the review. Thanks. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Neutral''': per nom. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I see no problems, and although there's only six refs, all of them are highly reliable and inline cited clearly. Might want to wikilink that weird term in the intro about the main development this observatory helped with, that astronomical photowhatsit thing. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:*Wikilinked. Whosawhatsit. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' A fine article, meets all criteria. The refs should probably all have retrieval dates, but that is a small issue, and not worth delisting now. Just fix that. Looks fine to me. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:*References now properly formatted. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[Jeremy Clarkson]]===
I believe this article does meet the GA criteria. It lacks many citations, and the Lead has information that is not in the main body of the article. Clarkson's early years are limited to only ''two short sentences'', and many sentences like "Clarkson is most associated with the British motoring programme" without facts is POV. A lot of (short) paragraphs read like [[trivia]]. The references section should also be looked at for the right formatting style, and if they actually are references, or just filler. [[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] 11:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''<s>Speedy</s> Delist''': End is listy, badly structured (too many short sections). weak lead, one sentence paragraphs. Not very broad, bio section way too short, unless he was really young which he isn't. Numerous citation needed tags, not nearly referenced enough. Fails GA criteria #1, #2 and #3. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''': The article is comprehensively referenced, and even a cursory examination of the citation needed tags indicates that many of them are spurious (in several cases, a "citation needed" tag appears in the same paragraph as a citation for the relevant material). I see only minor issues here (eg, the laundry lists), which should be worked out on the talk page. Interestingly, a number of the short paragraphs were introduced by the nominator, immediately after he inappropriately replaced the article's free image with a fair use image. [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] 12:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Comment''':Nandesuka actually works on the article, so his opinion is biased. I did split the Lead into three sections (to show what was needed) moved a couple of references to the end of sentences, and I put a fair use image on the page, which was reverted (no problem at all). This review is supposed to be conducted by neutral editors. [[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::My rationale is a bit different but I stand by my original vote minus the speedy, it appears to be quite unstable at the moment. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Sort this out on the talk page and I'll change my vote to keep. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I am just not sure which version I should be reviewing, which is why I still say delist. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Weak Keep''' The version I see right now looks GA-like. The section on Engineering needs some clean-up, but on the balance this seems a fine article. If there are real stability problems (and not just minor fixes but real content disputes) than maybe a 1-month cool off period to see if it can be stabilized, but other than the non-encyclopedic tone of the Engineering section, it looks fine.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[Characters in Devil May Cry]]===
First of all as the lead says, this article is a list which is not accepted at GA. This list is also to in-universe and therefore fails [[WP:WAF]]. [[User:Tarret|Tarret]] 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*Few things from the reviewer to counter those points:
** I removed the outdated "list" sentence. It's not a list, and Wikipedia editors need to understand that articles with numerous sections aren't lists like "[[List of birds]]".
** This article is ''not'' completely from an in-universe perspective. I forced the writers to add a section on concept and creation before I'd pass the article. Second, many subsections contain out of universe information, such as voice actors and other related development information. Third, the lead clearly establishes the topic as fiction and introduces the characters and their designer. Fourth, the section often cites the title of each game in regard to summarizing plot points, instead of ingoring where it came from. As someone who has helped promote the concept and craft it, I can say with certainty that out of universe does not mean saying the word "fictional" every sentence; it means finding the most real-life material available for a topic and covering it in addition to the in-universe points.
** Although I'd prefer to see ''more'' details about cultural impact, the sources have been reaped enough to comply with the MoS subcriterion. If this were going for FA (which I don't recommend, given the limitations), I'd expect to see (a lot more) real-world information, better prose, and complete merges; however, this is GA level, and there ''is'' a difference.
&mdash; '''[[User:Deckiller|Deckill]][[User talk:Deckiller|er]]''' 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:The article '''was''' a list, the header just stayed there, now it's a profile pages for secondary characters. Second the article isn't in-universe, it always refers to the characters as such by addin lines such as "In Devil May Cry mythology...". -[[User:Dark Dragon Flame|<big>'''凶'''<big>]] 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Well the article looks okay, it has issues though starting with the opening sentence. The title wasn't bolded or wikilinked (fixed), and "set in the modern day" is just awkward. Even though I'm not going to vote as I don't really know the subject and did not read the whole thing, I looked it over enough to pick up a few points:
*"As the series progresses it is eventualy revealed that" eventually is redundant.
*I'm not an expert in wrting fictional entries but, when talking about voicing of the characters it might be wise to say "the character is voiced by [x]" instead of "Dante is voiced by [x]" or "she is voiced by" on occasion, this will help with the perspective and it also makes it more formal.
*A lot of people don't like IMDb as a ref.
*I don't know anything about Video games so maybe a little background about ''at least'' what years the games range from. Also would be a good way to expand to the lead, "Since 1999, there have been five games in the series..." etc.
*"Ref 16 is blank." [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I see an anon fixed most of these, thanks whoever you are. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:::*I get a lot of unnecessary white space between character sections, this should be addressed, and the images reformatted. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[Victoria Cross]]===
Many sections have either none or too few inline citations, especially for an article this length with so many assertions of fact, the few citation needed tags do not represent the number of citations needed here. In addition the structure is poor at best and confusing at worst. The Awards section is poorly composed, consisting of many short and once sentence paragraphs, also citation lacking. Three small sections, theft, annuity and forfeit are too stubby to be their own sections and would better be served by a blanket history section. The last part of the article is a list which should either be merged elsewhere, moved to its own page and summed up in the article or deleted. This is at a first look and if its not convincing enough I will delve further[[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:In addition, the Other section is too ambiguously titled to be useful. Just in case it wasn't obvious, '''Delist'''. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 08:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Delist''' per nomination concerns. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 09:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Delist''' per nom [[User:LordHarris|LordHarris]] 10:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::'''Comment''' These are valid concerns, I'll see if I can do anything to remedy the situation. --[[User:Xdamr|<b><span style="font-family: Times"><span style="font-size:140%">X</span><span style="font-size:110%">damr</span></span>]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Xdamr|talk]]</sup></b> 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Excellent, most of us here are willing to change our opinions if conditions merit such an action. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Delist''' per nom. Not enough done in four days. [[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Delist''', Not enough of the article appears to be referenced, while it could be argued that the awards section might possibly be referenced by one of those broad looking references at the bottom, several other sections besides that don't seem to be referenced either. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[Marquette Building (Chicago)]]===
Nominated for '''delisting'''. Poor structure, history section really is more than that, the restoration section and much of the history section is really just about architecture. Thus the actual history present is stubby at best and fails the broadness criteria as well. In addition the lead doesn't meet [[WP:LEAD]], several facts find their only mention within the lead. In general the article is far from broad and such a famous example of Chicago architecture surely has more information available than this. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:I see multiple other problems, I can note them here if others would like. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as-is. Looks fine to me. I think you should list the other problems. [[User:GreenJoe|GreenJoe]] 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I have done some minor rearrangements, which do make the article better (by addressing your concerns), but don't think much more is needed. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::I will list them when I get a shot, today or tomorrow or sometime soon. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are my issues and, for the most part, why I say delist:

*Several one sentence and short paragraphs/sections.
*Unencyclopedic exact address in the lead.
{{done}} moved. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*The lead doesn't really represent a good summary per [[WP:LEAD]], there are still several detailed facts that appear only in the lead.
{{done}} added some. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*The whole article needs a copy edit.
*Need citations:
:*''It is considered an exemplary model of the Chicago School of Architecture''
{{done}} [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:*''The building features several distinct elements that have earned it honors as a Chicago Landmark, a National Historic Landmark, and a National Register Historic Place.''
:: Not necessary IMO. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::*Can't tie these together without citation, it would represent unpublished synthesis, or [[WP:OR|OR]].
:*''Around 1950, the terra-cotta cornice was removed from the Marquette Building when an additional story was added.''
{{done}} cited. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:*''The preservation of this building was championed by the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.''
*Broadness
:*Surely the history section of a 112 year old building considered an exemplary model of the Chicago School cannot meet the broadness criteria if it is only six sentences long.
:*The architecture section isn't very thorough or broad either, on the interior it only describes the lobby on the exterior it only describes the sculpture and the windows.
:*Consider adding a section where you can discuss its landmarks statuses, its awards and why it is such a significant example of the Chicago style of architecture.
:*''The architect used trademark long horizontal bay "Chicago windows" on the Marquette Building''
::*The one and only ; ), Who is the architect?
*This part of the architecture section could use a rewrite, it is really choppy: ''The architect used trademark long horizontal bay "Chicago windows" on the Marquette Building.[4] These are large panes of glass flanked by narrow sash windows. The grid-like window frames and spandrels are facilitated by the steel structure which enables non-load-bearing masonry walls.[4] This was one of the first steel-framed skyscrapers.[3] The building is built around a central light court featuring an ornate lobby.[5] The lobby is decorated with mosaic panels made by the Tiffany firm and bronze heads of native Americans, animals, and early explorers. The two-story rotunda lobby contains panels of lustered Tiffany glass, mother-of-pearl and semi-precious stones that depict scenes of the early history of Illinois.[1] The hexagonal railing around the lobby atrium is decorated with a mosaic frieze by the Tiffany studio depicting events in the life of Jacques Marquette.''
*The Restoration section seems unfocused.
*At least one full date unlinked.
{{done}} linked. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*External links always go last.
{{done}} moved. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*The city of Chicago footer template seems like overkill and clutter, it doesn't even link to the article.
Most [[WP:WPChi]] articles should get this tag. Good navigational aid[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|cont]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*All of the images in the gallery ''should'' be moved to commmons and the gallery removed and replaced with a Commons link using {{Tl|Commons}}. If you don't want to move the images to Commons at least remove the gallery, per [[WP:NOT#REPOSITORY|WP:NOT]].
*Much of the sections outside of architecture (as noted above) are also choppy, thorough copy editing by unaffiliated eyes should help to resolve the flow problems.

This is all I have for now. Hope that helps. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': Just so everyone here knows, as should be obvious from my comments above, this is a serious, good faith GAR with no ill intent or previously implied retaliation involved. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::Good work on these things so far, the broadness notes are important in my opinion. We shall see what others think. I am not wedded to delisting this, it just needs to be better is all. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

*Most of these comments remain unaddressed. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[Washington streetcars]]===
Warned by me on the article's talk page in December 2006 regarding <s>lack of citations etc.</s> '''Delist'''. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I still think it should be delisted as the article is too listy. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delist''' Also has several "sections" which are just links to main articles on the subjects with no summary of the contents of the main articles.</s> [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 16:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)</s>
<s>*'''Delist''' [[User:Teemu08|Teemu08]] 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)<s>
**'''Keep''', nice to see such improvements of a GA/R article. [[User:Teemu08|Teemu08]] 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''<s>Speedy Delist</s>''': per four month warning. The article is also badly structured, listy in places, and the aforementioned stub sections aren't helpful either. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
* I've been working on a complete re-write. I'm not quite done, but I'm replacing the present version with what I have now. {{unsigned|Cranor}}
* '''Keep''' Following Cranor's work, the argument listed against in the nom is now addressed with 63 footnote numbers, and many of them are cited multiple times (one is even cited more than 30 times). [[User:Slambo|Slambo]] <small><font color="black">[[User talk:Slambo|(Speak)]]</font></small> 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' The massive improvements make it hard for me to see anything that stands out against GA status in this article. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''<s>Neutral</s>''': Can't see going from Speedy Delist to Keep, the article is still listy, and not just in the lists, there are so many section breaks and bolded words I lose track of what the article is about. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delist''' Yea it's well referenced but let's start with the problems.
**The article doesn't mention the title of the article - Washington, D.C. streetcars should be de-linked and bolded.
::{{done}} [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
**The lead is way too small for an article this size
**Table of contents is too big
**I see refs before punctuation, refs with spaces
** Dates are'nt formatted correctly - July 13, 1868 should be [[July 13]], [[1868]]
::{{done}} [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
** Only text in the lead should be bolded, there's text in almost every section bolded
** About 20 external jumps
** Article contains lots of one sentence paragraphs
** External links section should be at the end of the article
::{{done}} [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
** The See Also section comes before notes
::{{done}} [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
*So Yea, this article in no-way should ever become a good article unless something is done. [[User:M3tal H3ad|M3tal H3ad]] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Weak delist''' Solid article. I struck my above comment and changed to weak, still needs a little work. I just did some significant work on it to help out and checked off some of the above reviewers cocnerns. Metal Head was correct in most of his assessments, although I disagree with some. I would think it's alright to have portions of the title linked sometimes see [[Characters of Final Fantasy VIII]], so you don't have to be to repetitive and mention them again in the next sentence, I did fix that though anyway (I know what the MoS says no need to repeat it). Never had a problem with large TOC's, I went through and fixed the dates in the text (not in the references due to time/interest level), I think redirects are often bolded and everything bolded is in fact a redirect, although the redirects should go to the exact section and not to the top of the article, fixed the layout issues (although I was forced to tag the link farm of an EL section), the main problem remaining for me is the external jumps those really need to go. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
::Nice work but i still stand by my decision. This "Paragraph" 'Colorado Avenue Terminal on 14th Street, now a Metrobus stop' has no full-stop, as does 'The Median on Penn, built in 1903 [3]' And these sentences don't make much sense
**Public transportation began in Washington, D.C. almost as soon as the city was founded. When was this?
** Why is something so simple like 'day' wikilinked
** but service ended soon after it began. Why did it end?
**After the Herdic Company went under, awkward use of "went under" what about bankrupt or disbanded, whatever happened
** Much of the article reads like "Went along 10th street and U, but changed to U and 11 street soon after. When the new company came in it went to 13th street etc etc. I'm not sure what you mean by the title, but the example you provided had the title of the game bolded, this didn't. [[User:M3tal H3ad|M3tal H3ad]] 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
***The game is in effect the title portion of that article. It still needs work as I said change the external jumps to ref format and I'll support. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Weak Delist''' however, rework could bring this to GA. article has good breadth and depth of content, but needs widespread effort. prose is listy and rambling in places, excessive section breaks, bolded words, and general formatting problems occur throughout. top suggestion: you may want to consider creating stub articles for sections of low notability, and then place a see also section header/footer on the section. this would improve readability, particuarly for sections of individual companies or operations. single bullet lines in cars and barnshops needs complete rework, or creation of a stub article, or a list. [[User:ChicagoPimp|ChicagoPimp]] 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delist''': Struck neutral above, delist per Quadzilla, M3tal H3ad and Chicago Pimp. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 12:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[William Fuller (football player)]]===
I'm the main contributor to this article; I nominated and it passed two weeks ago. However, I just noticed while browsing around that the [[User:Lakers|user who passed it]] is a confirmed sockpuppet (see the discussion on GA/R talk page). So I thought it should put it up for review just to be safe. The two notes I'd like to make is that although the article is short it's comprehensive—the player did not have an article until a month ago and the Houston Chronicle's extensive online archives (which I've searched through thoroughly) don't really have much to add to the article (other than brief mentions like Fuller recorded two sacks, Fuller is expected to make the Pro Bowl, Fuller is looking forward to the season etc.). Also there are no pics available for the article on flickr or otherwise, as you can see [[commons:User:Quadzilla99|here]], I'm good at finding free pics so if there were some I'd have found them. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 10:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:The review is [[Talk:William Fuller (football player)#GA nomination|here]]. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 10:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Note''' I added a stats table to fill the article a little more. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
'''Keep''' This is the exact kind of article GA was intended for. It is well written, broad, and well referenced. I see no reason not to keep it. On fix, which I made myself, was to change NFL career to Pro Career. Otherwise, it looks fine. GAs cannot be held up for lack of pics, and it looks NPOV and stable enough. I say keep.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 17:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Neutral (for now)''': A few comments follow.
*I would say it is worth mentioning that he is tied for the 20th spot on the all time sack leaders list.
::Done, I put it down by his stats table.
*Any hall of fame consideration here? What are his chances, surely someone must have written something about that.
::No, the Hall of Fame is tough in football. Fuller made four Pro Bowls so he has no chance, [[Harry Carson]] made nine Pro Bowls and he wasn't elected until his thirteenth or fourteenth try.
*How did his stats compare with other players? Was he ever amongst league leaders in key statistics for defensive players?
::I'll try to find some info. Most of the best sites (databasefootball, pro-football-reference.com, NFL.com etc.) don't keep lists of season sack leaders.
*Is post '96 the only years with contract info available? Because as is it kind of reads like, "this guy got a big contract and then didn't perform," mostly due to the reast of the sentence.
:*''After the 1996 season Fuller signed a two year $5.6 million dollar contract with the San Diego Chargers, while there his production steeply declined.''
::*That's the sentence I singled out above, it seems to imply some sort of connection or seems to be trying to make a point of some sort.
::::I definitely didn't mean to imply that. I added a note about an earlier contract he signed. Now it should just appear as though I'm mentioning that contract to be consistent. I'll see if I can find some more info, he was never a highly publicized player for whatever reason. He seems to have played in several players shadows. Like I said he didn't have an article until a month ago. He replaced [[Reggie White]] in Philadelphia and followed [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2823763&type=story this guy] (the one in the pic) as a pass rusher at UNC so that probably didn't help either.
*Do we know anything about his other college seasons at all? Any bowl game appearances?
::Not really in terms of individual accomplishments. As I mentioned there's not much info on him I can find. I mentioned that the team made three bowl games.
*A couple things are mentioned in the lead but nowhere else in the main body of the text, as the lead should be a summary of the article they should appear elsewhere as well.
:*His All American honors
:*His position (This is in the infobox which I guess is probably ok.)
::'''Comment''' His All-America honors are mentioned in the college section, as is the fact that he was a defensive lineman I could be more specific I guess. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty much fine other than that, some of the above should definitely be addressed I think. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[ALCO FA]]===
Has zero citations and is stubby in places. '''Delist'''. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 01:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' per nom. [[User:LordHarris|LordHarris]] 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delist''': per nom. What are all those ridiculous templates in the middle of the article for? [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 16:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
**comment - those "ridiculous templates" are the lists of purchasers of this model of locomotive by model subclass. They were originally included in plain tables but the GA nomination was held until they were wrapped in the show/hide blocks that you see there now. [[User:Slambo|Slambo]] <small><font color="black">[[User talk:Slambo|(Speak)]]</font></small> 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
::Oh now I see the show/hide link, can you change their color, that was too hard to see, they didn't seem to do anything that's why I called them ridiculous, no offense intended, they're actually kind of neat. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:::That's what I thought might be the problem as it seemed to me to be a bit dark on dark to begin with. As I remember, the background color in those cells used to be a lighter color. I'll see about rectifying at least that much shortly... [[User:Slambo|Slambo]] <small><font color="black">[[User talk:Slambo|(Speak)]]</font></small> 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I can see them now btw. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' per nom. [[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] 12:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[School counselor]]===
This article is US based, almost completely ignoring what a school counselor is outside of the country (except for one run-on sentence section about Korea). The history section only deals with this and also has zero citations. Theoretical framework and services only has one citation, and the citations in the article are not properly formatted. [[User:Teemu08|Teemu08]] 07:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delist''' per nominator's reasoning. [[User:LuciferMorgan|LuciferMorgan]] 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' per nom. Obviously fails broadness criteria. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delist''', Most of the article seems dedicated to being advocacy for School councelors, almost like advertisment for an entire job.... [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delist with comment'''. I would've preferred to see the [[WP:GA/R]] notice have its own section w. section heading, so people can see it. :-) --[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 12:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
: Also, the weather forecast sees potential for [[WP:SNOW]]... --[[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', this article does cite references in APA format. Wikipedia contains many articles that are American. School counseling was invented in the United States.[[User:whicky1978|whicky1978]]<sup> [[User talk:whicky1978|talk]]</sup> 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and '''Update''', School Counseling was first developed in the United States, and is barely beginning to take root in other countries. It does have a large professional association [http://www.schoolcounselor.org/] and the grand majority of school counseling training programs in the world are located in the United States. It is quite ludicrous to consider deleting this article based on it being written from a predominantly American perspective. I would invite people who know more about it from the perspective of other nations to join in and update it to a more international perspective. I, personally, would be quite interested to learn about school counseling training programs in other countries. I believe they are sadly quite rare at the moment. [[User:Kukini|'''<font color="#885500">K<font color="#bb8800">u<font color="#eebb00">k</font>i</font>ni</font>''']] <sup> [[User talk:kukini|hablame aqui]]</sup> 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
**This is not an AfD..... [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
***Be that what it is...the rationale that this is only from an American perspective is a tad problematic as, to my knowledge, there are no (or very few, if any)school counseling associations outside the United States to date and that school counseling itself is an American-based profession. Thus, the argument that this article fails the broadness criteria is based on a pretty limited perspective of school counseling. [[User:Kukini|'''<font color="#885500">K<font color="#bb8800">u<font color="#eebb00">k</font>i</font>ni</font>''']] <sup> [[User talk:kukini|hablame aqui]]</sup> 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
****Be that as it may, i'm sticking with my different argument :/. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 23:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::'''Comment''': The article certainly presents the topic as if there were more than just the United States to consider, your argument seems flawed and if it's not the article's structure is. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 10:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I am considering archiving this discussion as '''Delist''', Keep and Update isn't really a position for keeping this as a GA as much as it is an admission that the article fails [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]] #3a. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Four to two is indeed a majority to delist, but its not an 80 percent majority, the last real new thing was Kukini's keep vote on the 19th from what i'm seeing, that's only five days. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' I would tag this for cleanup if I saw it while browsing. Look at this section of the prose: "This movement emphasized personal, social, moral development." That's actually a sentence, or this one:"Often counselors will coordinate outside groups that wish to help with student needs such as academics, or coordinate a state program that teaches about child abuse or drugs, through on-stage drama (Schmidt[1], 2003)" where's the period?—and what's with the wikilinking for [[Personal/social development]] later on? I doubt an article could ever be created for such a topic; it would certainly get nuked at any afd. Also, the see also section is beneath the reference section, the writing is informal ("For example,""Though not ideal,""Additionally, it has to have"). The following statements seriously need sources also:
**"Elementary professional school counselors also spend 35-40% of their time in classroom guidance."
**"A fully-implemented district-wide comprehensive school counseling program meets the needs of 100% of the students—just as the district's mathematics program is for 100% of the students."
**"" [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[Michael Jackson]]===
There seem to be NPOV problems, such as this line:
This raised concern as some perceived his actions as child endangerment, although Jackson has vehemently denied these tabloid rumours.
media attention that is negative being stated as "tabloid rumours" seems a bit biased. [[User:Strong fox|Strong fox]] 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:'''Delist''' Lead is far too long, surely some/most of the stuff about his accomplishments can be better said somewhere else in the body of the article? It seems like a bunch of overkill with so much in the lead. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 02:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Delist''' The lead definitely could be trimmed, you could almost make a whole new section with the information there. There are also many citation needed tags throughout the article, and I'm sure other areas could also use some more inline citations as well. --[[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' this needs to be re-set, Strong Fox never put a notice on the article's talk page. Editors should be given notice and time to address concerns. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Per my previous reasoning I moved this back to the top, now I'm going to go notify the article's editors on the talk page. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Done. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the lead the main problem? That can be fixed quite easily. Seems harsh to vote de-list just based on the lead. Some tags are still unaccounted for, but overall the article is teeming with citations.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 14:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:If the lead is fixed, we can of course change our votes, i've changed my vote plenty of times based on article improvements. These reviews can last quite awhile. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the lead, the first main paragraph is designed to explain the importance of the subject of the article, ie. to answer the question "Why is Michael Jackson relevant?" after "Who is Michael Jackson?" already being answered in the opening sentence. That's why the accomplishments are listed there. You'll notice a similar pattern for musical acts of equivalent stature, like [[Elvis Presley]] and [[The Beatles]]. There's a lot of talk about impact, achievement, sales, and so on. It's virtually impossible not to note down things like that for people like these. So far, I have removed the awards from the lead and placed them in another section. I have also mentioned the albums released after Thriller to give his musical career some sort of chronological perspective. Beyond that, the lead seems to be fairly all-right and of appropriate length.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:I have no problems with the first and fourth paragraph, but the second and third go into so many specifics, that it seems less of a summary and more of a compleate list of every important influence Michael Jackson has had on, well, a whole bunch of things. For instance, where the second one lists the artists he's influenced, that kind of thing can easily be generalized into something like "Has influenced a great number of modern singers" or something like that. Then the main part of the article should be where the elaboration on who the people he's influenced are, because then there's plenty of room to explain every influence as much as needed. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' Lead is still way too long as far I'm concerned. I don't really care for any rationalizations, it's too long and should be cut. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate that long articles should have leads of three to four paragraphs. This one is more like three paragraphs (the first part is two introductory sentences). Whether you care for rationalizations or not is irrelevant; you're getting some, and in this case they are justified. To Home: those two paragraphs highlight the significance of the subject. At their core they are fine, but we can discuss how much information needs to be modified so it's of acceptable length to you guys. Beyond that, there are precedents that I used in writing those parts of the lead, especially [[Bing Crosby]], whose influences in the lead are explained as follows:

''One of the first multi-media stars, from 1934 to 1954 Bing Crosby held a nearly unrivaled command of record sales, radio ratings and motion picture grosses. He is usually considered to be among the most popular musical acts in history and is currently the most electronically recorded human voice in history. Crosby is also credited as being the major inspiration for most of the male singers that followed him, including the likes of Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, and Dean Martin. Yank magazine recognized Crosby as the person who had done the most for American GI morale during World War II and, during his peak years, around 1948, polls declared him the "most admired man alive" ahead of Jackie Robinson and the Pope[1][3] Also during 1948, the Music Digest estimated that Crosby recordings filled more than half of the 80,000 weekly hours allocated to recorded radio music.''

The tone of the lead for that article is similar to the one for Michael Jackson, as are the details. This aside, however, I actually disagree with the assertion that the lead goes into specifics. It really doesn't, merely highlighting the major influences and aspects of Michael Jackson's career. The one part where it ''may'' is the third paragraph, although, again, there are tons of precedents with biographies of musicians that include sales figures and other chart accomplishments in the lead. If they are notable, ''they should be there''. And with Michael Jackson, clearly that information is notable.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' I'm the main contributor on the [[Michael Jordan]] article which was recently promoted to FA, so I don't need any instructions on how to write an article on a well known iconic figure. Quotes in the lead (specifically about the subject rather than from the subject) are a bad idea unless the quotes are tremendously famous. So for starters I would cut the lengthy quote. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 08:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
::::This whole thing can go:"heralding and displaying complicated physical techniques, like the robot and the moonwalk, that have redefined mainstream dance and entertainment. At his height, he was characterized as "an unstoppable juggernaut, possessed of all the tools to dominate the charts seemingly at will: an instantly identifiable voice, eye-popping dance moves, stunning musical versatility, and loads of sheer star power."[2]" The first half sentence is unencyclopedic hyperbole and can be lopped off, the previous sentence will be fine without it. The second sentence is a quote which is in general a bad idea for a lead, also contains hyperbole. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 08:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Although I didn't think it necessary, I've removed the quotation from the lead.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Not questioning your credentials, but it does not seem fair to refuse "rationalizations," as you put it. Quotations can sometimes do a good job of encapsulating a whole lot of information into one or two sentences. That's why this one was found and placed in the lead. It did an effective job at conveying the importance of the subject. The Michael Jordan lead is really not all that different from the Michael Jackson lead. You even talk about awards he's won, which is actually something I removed from the Michael Jackson lead as a response to this review. The Jordan lead, like the Michael Jackson lead with Vanity Fair, also mentions critical perceptions, like ESPN and the Associated Press. The language is somewhat comparable...."widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of all time"......"widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time"....."instrumental in popularizing the NBA around the world"....."redefined mainstread dance and entertainment"...and so on. Now I am beginning to challenge your implicit assertion that the leads of these two articles are notably different. Apart from the quotation, which is not a big deal at all, they are not. Both leads do a good job at highlighting the status and "magnitude," if you will, of the subject. And if you include just career achievements, then the two leads are actually of similar length. The only reason why the Michael Jackson lead is slightly longer is because it has to document his controversial personal life.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' for me on this one.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep:''' All raised concerns appear to have been addressed and fixed, the lead gives me a good summary of the article. '''--[[User:MPD01605|<font style="color: #000099">M</font><font style="color: #FF0000">PD</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:MPD01605|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/MPD01605|C]]</sup>''' 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' Lead is currently as long as it ever was (568 words), quotations were re-introduced, there's needless hyperbole and extra wording. Also the list of everybody he's ever influenced does not belong in the lead, it belongs in [[Michael Jordan#Legacy|this type of section]]. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
**"'''Comment''' As regards what MPD has said length of the lead has not been addressed. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 13:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The quotation was removed at one point, but I was reverted by another (far more persistent) user with whom I did not want to get into a big discussion or an edit war, especially over something so relatively insignificant. I am still officially supporting the removal of that quotation, but I can tell you right now it will not be an easy process getting it past some other users. There are plenty of precedents on articles about musical acts discussing specific and future artists that they have influenced. If the artists in question are notable, and clearly they are here, there's nothing wrong with mentioning them in the lead. The insinuation that the list represenets "everybody he's ever influenced" is ridiculous; that list really would deserve its own section. The people mentioned are meant to be representative of the various genres in which Jackson has had an impact....and, again, they are famous.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok the quotation has been removed once more from the lead and placed in another section. Beyond that, I truly believe the lead is fine. Again, take away Jackson's personal life and his career gets the same coverage length-wise as Michael Jordan does in his lead.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

:'''Delist''' From an outside view I find this article to be quite biased and in general badly written. It will never progress if the persistent fanboy gushing is not addressed promptly.--[[User:Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo|Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo]] 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::I ask the community to disregard the above "vote." The user has less than 50 edits and is clearly not well-positioned to make a call that requires some quasi-extensive experience with the articles and policies of Wikipedia.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:::It offends me very much that you would cross out my vote like it was nothing, not to mention that you didn't even tell me about it. I may not have have many edits but my opinions are as valid as the next persons. And anyway, just because I don't have many edits, it doesn't mention I haven't read the wikipedia policies or the edit history of the article I'm giving an opinion on - believe me I've done both. Its presumptuous and rude of you to think otherwise - act on - without any evidence. If you don't agree with my opinion fine, I can accept that, but removing it is another issue altogether and something I don't at all appreciate.--[[User:Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo|Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo]] 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Not sure if I agre with that. I guess if the user cares they can respond, but it's rather drastic to strike out a user's comments. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::As the user is not one that can participate in a consensus-building exercise on Wikipedia, then there is nothing wrong with just completely removing their statements (and votes), much less crossing them out. In fact, I've had personal experiences with this during my FA reviews. The votes cast by recent editors were promptly removed and discarded. Basically, their votes should be ignored, and I wanted to make it firmly clear to whoever is adjudicating whether there is consensus that the above person can be disregarded.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
::::And this actually gets funnier....I just checked the user's history again and I notice that this person has actually made "extensive," if I can use that word for someone with less than 50 edits, contributions in wikispace, particularly for FA reviews. I have no idea what this user had in mind, but obviously these actions on his or her part are inappropriate. I just hope they found out who it was during those reviews.....[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) I don't feel like arguing but usually newly created accounts get crossed out on FACs. Althought the edit count is low, the editor has been signed up for a while. Most voters crossed off on FACs are newly created accounts that are suspected duplicate voters, not low count voters who supposedly don't know the criteria, which is not that complicated especially now incidentally. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:Just so we're clear, do you believe that the user's vote should not count? If so, then I do not really care which part you cross out. If you want, you can go ahead and cross the username only. Makes no real difference to me. If you do believe that the user's vote should count, then we are going to have somewhat of a discussion on our hands, to put it mildly.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I have gone ahead and arbitrarily crossed out the "vote" as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I do think the user's vote should count, I've notified him/her and I'll let you two discuss it if he wishes to come here and comment. Usually users who appear to have registered just to vote on an FAC are discounted, that user registered 8 months ago. Hopefully he/she will come comment and I won't have to carry this on any further. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 18:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
How long they have been registered for is irrelevant. I've seen people who've been registered longer than this and they have like 20 or 30 edits. I believe the informal requirement for participating in these activities is something like registration for a month and at least 100 edits in mainspace, not wikispace. The edits that this person does have are all in areas that he or she should not have been involved in to begin with.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
:Furthermore, I don't see what notifying the user will accomplish. Obviously that person will claim that his or her vote is legitimate. But the whole point is that when it comes to matters like this, opinions from these users are trivial.[[User:UberCryxic|UberCryxic]] 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' There is a major problem with this article, and I'm now gonna tell you why. There is a lot of CRAP on that article. It's a breeding ground for people to dump trash about Michael, and then the SAME hypocrits go back and claim that there are ''fan boys gushing out''. I must say it's a convenient way to keep the article in its overly bias state. It's actually an extremely clever method. Of course, most people here are tabloid junkies who hate Michael so it makes it easy to just pile up hateful posts and ''dump 'em'' in the article. That's why this article is bias. Don't try flipping this around. This article still paints Michael as a molester and ''then'' an musician. It should be the other way around, but unfortunately it ain't, and it's sad to see these haters then try to accuse unknown ''fans'' of coming on and dumping out crud. Sad... really really sad. --[[User:Paaerduag|Paaerduag]] 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

'''keep''' since this delisting consensus was started because someone said that the article is full of ''fan gush'', which is totally ridiculous and acutally the REVERSE situation is occuring, I have decided to cast my vote to keep the article as a good article. I will not believe these ridiculous rants by haters claiming that the article is full of ''fan gush'', it is acutally full of ''haters gush'' which is disgusting and bias, and should be removed. --[[User:Paaerduag|Paaerduag]] 07:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[Alpha Phi Omega]]===
Too few references, other issues such as solo linked years.[[User:Sumoeagle179|Sumoeagle179]] 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Solo-linked years is actually permissible, and recommended in most cases, per [[WP:MOS]]. [[User:Derek.cashman|Dr. Cash]] 07:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' Solo linked years is generally not recommendable, see [[WP:DATE]]; specifically [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates|here]] there is considerable dispute though. In my experience in FAC's they're not well liked. Although that's an easy fix. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Does this review need any more attention, I see a 1 to 0, and although there's no rule against it, I don't really think its a good idea to act on a 1 to 0, its just one vote so to speak..... [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree, 1 to 0 is no consensus, default keep. I will look at the article if I have a chance. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 11:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Too few references in article, and source of references is narrowed primarily to APO references. Expanding references to a broader variety of sources would likely increase content and improve verifiability. Background of formation is sufficient, but article needs a section of significant contributions, expansion of charity events and/or community service. For having 300k members, a mention of notable alumni also would help. [[User:ChicagoPimp|ChicagoPimp]] 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

===[[Champagne (wine region)]]===
The objection I have to this article is that most of the information contained therin more properly belongs in a different article, that of [[Champagne (province)]]. The wine region article should be delisted, split and merged into the province article, and renamed something like "Wine making in Champagne", then each article could be renominated for GA as appropriate. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 06:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*Well [[Wine making in Champagne]] would not be an appropriate title since the ''wine history'' of the region is a vital component to [[terroir]] of the region. I'm not sure how familiar Jayron is with wine but there is much more to the creation of wine then just "wine making" with the people, places and history each adding profound elements that make wine like Champagne truly different from any other sparkling wine. For reference, similar articles along this line would be [[Napa Valley (wine)]] and [[Languedoc wine]].To that extent I do think [[Champagne (wine region)]] is the most appropriate title and place for this information. After looking over Dr. Cash's comment, I agreed with him that an article titled [[Champagne (province)]] should include more details on "the government and politics, demographics of the population, transportation, economy, sports team" etc like an article on a US state like [[Rhode Island]] or another French province like [[Lorraine (region)]]. As the majority contributor to the wine related history and info, I agreed with him that the wine related history and info overwhelmed the provincial article so I went ahead and split the two and renominated the wine region to be evaluated on its own merit. I hope this clarifies things for you. [[User:Agne27 |Agne]][[Special:Contributions/Agne27|<sup>Cheese</sup>]]/[[User Talk:Agne27|<sup>Wine</sup>]] 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:Also, as an FYI, if sections such as the "Military history" are what caught your eye as maybe belonging better in [[Champagne (province)]], I will direct your attention to the citation references at the bottom. They are all from wine books since those elements of Champagne history has had a profound affect on the wine industry in that region. Every item in the [[Champagne (wine region)]] article is tied back into its influence on the wine. [[User:Agne27 |Agne]][[Special:Contributions/Agne27|<sup>Cheese</sup>]]/[[User Talk:Agne27|<sup>Wine</sup>]] 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
*I tried to bring these concerns to light in my initial GA review, because the article was initially nominated as [[Champagne]], and dealt solely with the wine-making aspects and nothing about the political, geographical, and cultural aspects of the province. The article was then split and renominated, as [[Champagne (wine region)]], and I still have some doubts about GA status, but the article was passed by [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] before I could do anything, and I decided not to challenge at the time. [[User:Derek.cashman|Dr. Cash]] 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
:As I noted, everything in the article is specific and relevant to the wine region and wine. Is there another area that I should look at or improve to take care of these doubts? [[User:Agne27 |Agne]][[Special:Contributions/Agne27|<sup>Cheese</sup>]]/[[User Talk:Agne27|<sup>Wine</sup>]] 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::'''Neutral for now''': Weak lead, doesn't conform to [[WP:LEAD]] and includes one sentence paragraph. Some of the information in the History section is probably a bit too detailed for an article about the wine region. Is there a difference between the wine region and the whole of the province, that should be made explicitly clear. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Thank you for your comments IvoShandor. I worked on the lead to address some of your concerns. As for the history section, if you can point me in the right direction I'll see what I can do. The largest sub section is the "Rivalry with Burgundy" which is only relevant to an article about the wine region and wouldn't have a place in any other article. The "Military Conflict" is by far the smallest sub-section and gives context to the history of the area and the blood that is in soil. The only references in the "Military conflict" section come from wine books because they are pertinent to understanding the terroir. Is there something that you would recommend? [[User:Agne27 |Agne]][[Special:Contributions/Agne27|<sup>Cheese</sup>]]/[[User Talk:Agne27|<sup>Wine</sup>]] 07:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


==Articles listed for reassessment==
::The blood that is in the soil? Anyway, is there a difference between the wine region and the province? I will take another look at the article and come back with specifics. [[User:IvoShandor|IvoShandor]] 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
<!-- This page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add articles here. To list articles here, add {{subst:GAR}} to a new section on the article talk page and follow the link this generates to create an article reassessment page. Discussions are archived once consensus, or lack thereof, has been reached.-->
:::heh, pardon the literary device. :p But that is one aspect of the terroir that is often talked about in regard to the Champagne region. The wine from the area is so different from wines from other areas no matter how finely detailed that a wine producer would try to imitate the condition of the area and the wine making techniques. That innate difference is attributed to the "sense of place" that the Champagne region has and Champenois do talk about the blood that in their soil due to all the battles and conflicts that the area has saw. Terroir is fascinating in that regard. If you are an avid reader (or just the curious sort) a book you may want to consider is James Wilson ''Terroir''. Even if you're not into wine, it's a pretty good read. [[User:Agne27 |Agne]][[Special:Contributions/Agne27|<sup>Cheese</sup>]]/[[User Talk:Agne27|<sup>Wine</sup>]] 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
{{User:AnomieBOT/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment}}
:One sentence in this article catches my eye, "From the key market of Paris to the palace of Louis XIV of France at Versailles, proponents of Champagne and Burgundy would spar to get the upper hand.". This wasn't literally fighting, was it? Seems a bit unusual way to word it, its not very direct unless they're literally fighting. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
<small>[[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/|Subpages]]{{*}}[[:Category:Good article reassessment nominees]]{{*}}[https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Good_articles.html Good article cleanup listing]</small>
::Reworded. [[User:Agne27 |Agne]][[Special:Contributions/Agne27|<sup>Cheese</sup>]]/[[User Talk:Agne27|<sup>Wine</sup>]] 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:WikiProject Good articles|Good article reassessment]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed]]

Latest revision as of 18:11, 24 May 2024

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQJanuary backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport
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 not meeting the general notability guideline, 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 delist.

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.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 week.
  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 week, 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.
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. Crash Bandicoot (character) 2024-04-28
  2. Leeds Country Way 2024-06-27
  3. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  4. Pest control 2024-08-22
  5. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
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

Euro area crisis

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

There are uncited passages throughout the article, including a "citation needed" tag from 2018. The article is not concise in its information, and the yellow banner at the top of the page indicates that it might be WP:TOOBIG. There are some sources that might not be considered reliable, including "seekingalpha.com", "New Economic Perspectives" and "Jim Rogers Blog" Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SummerSlam (1988)

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

Many uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty Warriors 4

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

There are uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Gameplay" section has a "encyclopedic tone" banner at the top, placed in Dec 2023. I agree with this banner, as the tone of some of the prose in this section is promotional. The article uses IMDB as a source a couple times: this website is considered unreliable and should be replaced with with reliable sources. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Croatia

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

There are uncited statements, particularly in the first two paragraphs of "Climate". Many sections need to be updated with the latest figures, like the "Climate characteristics in major cities in Croatia" chart, the "Known and endemic taxa in Croatia" chart, the "Demographics" section, and the "Land use" section (which has an orange "update needed" banner underneath it since June 2021). Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Luthor

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

Old GA from 2008 or so, far from modern standards. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Luthor. This is likely going to be kept - arguments show good sources exist (tnx User:Daranios) - but they are not used in this. Instead, we have a lot of WP:OR or plot summary masquerading as analysis (as such, this fails GA criteria 2 and 3). This might be rescuable, but is certainly at GA level. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burn the Bastards

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

This article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Number of the Beast (album)

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, particularily in the "Commercial performance" section. The article uses many unreliable sources, including IMDB, Discogs, and rateyourmusic.com. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Perreault

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

The article has uncited text, including entire paragraphs, along with "Playing career" not having anything past 1976, which misses 11 years of his career, failing 3a. Kline • talk • contribs 22:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortinet

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

The article has unfortunately endured cycles of promotional editing and subsequent removals, and as a result, it no longer seems well-written or consistently verifiable. Brandon (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Structural alignment

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

There are several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There's also an "expansion needed" orange banner from 2012. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precipitation

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, particularly in the "Satellite data sets" section. There is an orange "update" banner from 2022 on top of the "Changes due to global warming" section: has this been resolved? Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Unfortunately no - so unless anyone has the time and energy to summarise IPCC AR6 section 4.2.1.1 Observed Changes in Precipitation from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-4/ I think the article is no longer good Chidgk1 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will get to it shortly. EF5 19:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: and @Chidgk1: I've removed all uncited (and some weirdly promotional WikiHow links), I'll get to the "need update" banner shortly. How does it look now? EF5 19:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Thanks for doing this: it looks a lot better. There was an unresolved citation needed tag, and I added a second one. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho

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

The article contains uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The "FUP/FP 25 de abril: imprisonment and release" section relies too much on quotes. The article requires a copyedit for translation concerns and formatting. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • A bit of a drive by; I reviewed this and promoted it seven years ago. Then it had 1,100 words, all of them cited and none of them quotes. The article has since more than tripled in size and quality control seems to have slipped a little. On a skim I would have thought that simply removing every quote and everything that is uncited would leave a reasonably full and balanced article needing minimal copy editing to be salvageable. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO no, 3a will be fine - but then, I promoted it when it was a third the size. It will leave some wobbley use of English, a dangling "However", some six and eight word paragraphs; but IMO nothing that would have caused it to be brought to GAR. I am loath to get pulled into fully fixing this article as I have more than enough on already. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I usually avoid bringing articles to GAR for copyedit issues (unless it is REALLY bad); I brought it up because there was also citation concerns, and I noticed the copyedit concerns at the same time. I am happy to take a closer look and do some copyediting if others want. Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Vostok

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. Some of these have been marked with "citation needed" since May 2023 or December 2020. The lead is extreamly long and overly detailed. I suggest that this be reduced to four paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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

This article has two orange "more citations needed" banners from 2021 and an "update needed" banner at the top of "Faculty and staff". Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ Magazine

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

The layout of the article is unusual, and it is hard to find the "History" of the magazine. There isn't much information post-2008, with no information post-2017. Z1720 (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Championship 1972

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

The article contains lots of uncited statements, including some marked with "citation needed" since September 2023. Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one "citation needed", something about the cold war context. Could probably refactor the statement to say that the match generated considerable international media interest or something to that effect, which is fairly self-evidently true, but could easily find cites from among our existing references. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added citation needed tags to the article to indicate other places where citations are needed. Some of these are necessary to support opinionated statements. about the matches. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of those are completely unnecessary. "Fischer won, putting him ahead 5-3". That's how scoring works in chess, this WP:BLUE stuff. The Alexander quote is obviously related to the book which is cited in the very same sentence. The fact that Spassky would have retained the title in the event of a tie is cited earlier in the article.... MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone thinks a citation is unnecessary, they can remove it. WP:BLUE is an essay, "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors...it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." It does not supercede WP:V. Regardless, I think statements like, "Fischer dominated the 1971 Candidates Tournament; his 6–0–0 defeats of both Mark Taimanov and Bent Larsen were, and as of 2024 still are, unparalleled at this level of chess", "Fischer won 19 games (plus 1 win on forfeit) without losing once, almost all against top grandmasters", and "Excitement grew as the match was postponed and people questioned whether Fischer would appear" need citations. If something is cited earlier in the article, the citation can be repeated. If the citation is earlier in the sentence, the citation can be moved to the end of the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like excessive and possibly reactionary WP:TAGBOMBING for earlier opposition in this thread. For example, how do you justify putting a citation-needed tag on an already cited quote:

According to C.H.O'D. Alexander:<ref>Alexander 1972, p. 96</ref> "This game was notable for two things. First, Fischer played the Queen's Gambit for the first time in his life in a serious game; second, he played it to perfection, the game indeed casting doubt on Black's whole opening system."[citation needed]

If the citation is earlier in the sentence, the citation can be moved to the end of the sentence. Z1720 (talk) Instead of tagging, why not just move it?! --IHTS (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ihardlythinkso: This article has multiple missing citations. It would take me hours to look at each uncited text, understand what the text is telling the reader and possibly find a reliable source that will verify the information. Fixing one missing citation will not allow this article to meet the GA criteria. If other editors are interested in fixing up the article, I am happy to provide another review once the work is complete and indicate where citations are missing, as I did above. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one asked you to go digging to source any missing refs, just move a ref in lieu of tagging it lacking. And am not sure it's required that a ref be located at the tail of a quotation instead of at the head. (Does it in any policy or guideline?) And whether a text requires a cited ref is afterall a judgment call (reasonably open to challenge), you seem to suggest it is more of an absolute requiring "fixing". Am in agreement w/ Max that you've added several unnecessary flags. --IHTS (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ihardlythinkso: Before moving a reference to the end of the sentence, I would have to check the reference to make sure it is verifying the information I am claiming it is verifying. If sources have been moved without this check being done, then the article will have to go through a source check before it can be declared "keep". Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PAIC says "All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies", which also applies to quotes. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:V, all text needs a reference to verify the information. An exception includes the lead (because the information is cited later in the article). Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lantern (film)

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

Hi, I believe the article and the review does not meet the quality standards outlined in WP:GAN/I and should be reassessed.

Here are some points I think need fixing. Sorry in advance if this ends up being too long.

1. Plot/Arrowverse sections

I don't think the plot section follows the guidelines (MOS:FILMPLOT).

It's almost 700 words, and some parts are too detailed, with "scene-by-scene breakdowns." It also talks about the characters' actions and events in a way that feels more like telling a story than giving a summary.

For the Arrowverse, I don't think it needs its own section. It could be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the plot summary that the movie is set on Earth-12, and then a note could be added maybe something like "Billions of years ago, on Earth-12 the Guardians of the Universe used the green essence of willpower to create an intergalactic police force called the Green Lantern Corps." [a]

  1. ^ The Arrowverse crossover event "Crisis on Infinite Earths" establishes that the 2011 film version of Green Lantern takes place on the world of Earth-12.

2. Music section

  • It's not that significant on its own; it should be a subsection under the production section. (MOS:FILMMUSIC)
  • I think the Green Lantern (soundtrack) page should be merged under the production section as a subsection because the soundtrack album is insufficient and fails WP:NALBUMS. So I don't think it's controversial to just merge it.(WP:SUBNOT).

3. Release section

  • I think the "Marketing" subsection should be the main section. Under it, the "Theatrical" and "Home Media" subsections should be merged into a single subsection titled "Release".
  • The other subsections, Animation, Comics, Roller Coaster, and Video Game, should be placed under their own section titled "Related Media." This makes more sense imo.
    • The Roller Coaster subsection has an unsourced paragraph. Either add sources or remove it.

4. Reception section

  • The Box Office subsection has an unsourced paragraph.
  • Many industry analysts felt that Green Lantern failed to perform to expectations. This should be expanded to include who made this statement, when it was said, and the reasons behind it.
  • Some publications listed the losses for the studio as high as $75 million could be better worded idk.
  • In the Critical Response section, more reviews should be added (check Rotten Tomatoes for missing reviews). Also, following WP:RECEPTION. Yes, it's not a guideline, but I'm sure it will improve the quality.
  • For Accolades, add another table for refs, also the Reelz Channel ref is broken.


5. Future/In popular culture sections

  • Maybe it's just me, but I think it could flow better similar to the "Cancelled DC Extended Universe Reboot" subsection. The other subsections might work better if they followed the same tone.
  • "Future" section could be re-titled to "Follow-up" or "Cancelled Projects." Idk, it just makes more sense than calling it "Future."

6. References

7. Infobox

8. Lead section

  • Relocate the references into the article body.
  • Add something about the Critical Response and Accolades. (MOS:FILMLEAD)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lililolol (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lililolol, can you not relocate references, fix CS1 errors, rename headers, merge sections, or remove unnecessary detail? Even if you can't add citations, you can do the other stuff, right? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AirshipJungleman29 I can, but I am not interested enough to do so :) Lililolol (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interested enough to start a GAR, and list out a series of easily-fixable things, but not interested enough to actually improve an encyclopedia article Lililolol? Alright then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 i know its weried lol Lililolol (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't have the time until at least the middle of next week, but I can try and work on this. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cú Chulainn

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

This article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good article though, would be shame to delete! Kellycrak88 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kellycrak88: WP:GAR is a discussion on whether the article meets the good article criteria. If it is delisted, the article will still remain on Wikipedia. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find citations. --Chronicler Frank (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wings (1927 film)

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

The article contains uncited statements. The "Music" section is underdeveloped. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provided link to Brown University Library's Digital Repository Feickus (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trondheim Airport

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

The article has two "update needed" banners to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electric vehicle warning sounds

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, particularly in the "SoundRacer EVS" section. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SoundRacer EVS content was originally added by a user whose userpage indicates that they are the founder of SoundRacer AB. I think that section can be safely binned unless someone comes up with a good, independent sourcing based, reason as to why that specific product needs that degree of coverage. Hog Farm Talk 22:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I proposed removing the entire SoundRacer EVS section. Other than that, is there something else that needs improvement? The rest of the article is properly backed by reliable sources. I think that just one small section does not justify demoting the article status. --Mariordo (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mariordo: Removing that section would go a long way to bringing this article back to meeting the good article criteria. The "American Council of the Blind Press Release" citation (currently ref 2) is a PR press release and its inclusion should be evaluated for the article. I added some citation needed tags for places that need citations. The "Volkswagen" section seems underdeveloped and might need some additional information. Z1720 (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you give me a couple of weeks I can work on the missing references and update key info. I let you know here when I finished and then you decide if the reassessment should continue or if it is unnecessary. Cheers -- Mariordo
Mariordo (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johor Bahru

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

Lead contravenes MOS on citation and filled with superlatives that have zero coverage in the main text. Possible COPYVIO for a night image (Johor Bahru Skyline 20171230.jpg). "Demographics" section is dated to 2010 and contains unsourced sentences. Chunks of "Transportation", "In popular culture" and "Notable people" sections lack citations. hundenvonPG (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a copyvio concern please raise it on Commons. CMD (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support delisting the article for the time being, given the abovementioned flaws in the article that has not been maintained consistently. I will try to improve the article accordingly based on the advices above. 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the enthusiasm, but I'm not sure simply stripping sources from the lead is an overall improvement. CMD (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just made several amendments, can you kindly suggest further improvements if any? 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the citations into the main text with further elaboration, so to match the MOS on citation and cover the leads' content in the main text. 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case my apologies for misreading the diff, carry on. I would suggest trimming down the superlatives in the lead a bit more, mostly by rewriting that second paragraph. Perhaps the economy info in the first paragraph should be combined with the economy info in the second paragraph. The history in the lead is also missing something at the start, "further development" from what? CMD (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rectified, thanks so much for the advice! 2001:D08:1A84:B07A:2148:36F7:3EE8:4065 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate citations have been suitably added to each of the mentioned parts of the articles with sentenced restructured and summarised, contents in leads are covered with details in the main content and COPYVIO images deleted and replaced. 2001:D08:1031:86BB:901B:14AD:9156:DFCF (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis are you satisfied with the changes? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked the edits myself, but the previously uncited text is now cited. The lead is also improved. CMD (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Badr

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

The "Battlefield" section has an orange "additional sources needed" banner at the top since March 2022. There are also uncited sections elsewhere in the article. The article relies too much upon long block quotes, particularily in the "Aftermath" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what is in the Battlefield is already covered in Battle. The last paragraph has a citation. We can just remove the uncited parts if need be. The aftermath section now has only one quote, and its an important quote. I've seen that particular quote from Muir being reproduced in several other works.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy Online

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

There has been an "update needed" orange banner at the top of the page since 2019, and few updates since 2015. There are also uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire folklore by region

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

There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire sections. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article came about after being excised from the (large) parent article. Been ages since I looked at it - will do so at some point this week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Horror Story

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

The "Title sequences" section is problematic: it quite long, might give undue weight on this aspect of the show compared to others, and is largely uncited. There are also uncited statements elsewhere in the article, and several sections are quite long with one-sentence paragraphs that can be written more efficiently with longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole title sequence section can be binned off wholesale as it's just WP:TRIVIA. Whilst there's definitely bits that need cleaning up other than that, I don't think it's not doable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Section removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII

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

There is uncited prose in the article, particularily in the "Succession" and "Style and arms" sections. I think redundant and off-topic text has crept into the article, and I think a copyedit would be useful to tighten up the prose and remove excess text. Particularly, I think the "Execution of Anne Boleyn" section focuses too much on Boleyn and much of this text can be moved to her article, with the section placing more emphasis on Henry's actions. Z1720 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll be able to fix the uncited issues. Can you identify the other text you think should be trimmed or removed? --Chronicler Frank (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chronicler Frank: I think a subject matter expert can go through the article and remove extra detail from the article, or try to state ideas more succinctly. Here's some specific places that I think can be trimmed or cut:
  • "Wives, mistresses, and children: What is the purpose of this blockquote? I think it can be removed as unencyclopedic and too focused on his personality, instead of what the section is about.
  • "Government": Lots of talk about Cromwell and Wolsey, perhaps this would be better in a spun out article about Henry's government.
  • The block quote in "Historiography": why does a person writing in the 1950s get a whole paragraph, instead of having their research summarised in the article?
While I would do this myself, often my ideas of where to trim are met with complaints that I cut too many important details. If others are interested, I am happy to do this work. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite inclined to agree on spinning out some government stuff (into what would surely be a quite interesting article in its own right) and using a more concise summary style. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Library

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. A large part of the article is a list of what is in their collections, which I think can be spun out and some highlights written in a couple paragraphs of prose. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless absolutely necessary for length reasons, I'd certainly disagree with spinning off the collection highlights, which are surely the main interest of the article. What's the readable prose length? Gutting an article like that is by itself an argument for removing GA status. Otherwise it's just a very big library with mostly the same printed books as other very big libraries. It's in the nature of the BL that "a couple paragraphs of prose" (sic) is nowhere near enough, and that short coverage would badly unbalance the article. You are completely ignoring the strong rejection of this suggestion in October (article talk) and just ploughing on with your personal view regardless, despite no one else supporting it. Why are you not showing the early part of the GA review, with all this? Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I think the "Periodicals and philatelic collections" section does an excellent job showcasing how the library's collection can be written as prose, instead of as a list. Discussion did take place on the article's talk page after I brought up my concerns there. My review in the introductions of this GAR concerns my issues with today's article version: the list of collections is included in my concerns and can be addressed by other editors below. Uncited text throughout the article would also have to be resolved before I recommend this article "keep" its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Discussion did take place on the article's talk page after I brought up my concerns there", at Talk:British_Library#GA_concerns. Two editors (I was one) stated their disagreement with you on the point of splitting-off the list; that was it. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a different problem, but I'm not a fan of the organisation here: loads of L2 headers, no real hierarchy or sense of coherency. For instance, we have an L2 header for the recent cyberattack (incidentally, the info here is now out of date, as things are back up and running), which is preceded by a few other sections that could loosely be termed "history"... except that we've then got "Using the library's reading rooms" slapped into the middle. The uncited text is a bigger problem, but I wouldn't pass this under 1b at the moment even if everything were cited. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly fell off my chair when I saw UC's comment "I'm not a fan of the organisation" until I realised this referred to the text of the article rather than to the BL itself. The organisation of the text doesn't greatly bother me at GA level, but having thirteen "citation needed" tags – all of them justified – decidedly does. I'm uneasy about the "Highlights of the collection" section, too. I'm with Johnbod rather than Z1720 on the continued presence of the list, but it contains well over 300 statements, fewer than 60 of which have their own citations. If the vague phrase at the head of the list "Highlights, some of which were selected by the British Library, include ..." purportedly covers all the others (and I doubt it) this needs to be explicit in every case. It would, in my view, take an enormous, not to say unreasonable, amount of effort to bring the citations in this article up to scratch. If anyone is willing to undertake that I take my hat off to him/her, but as things stand I think there is a strong prima facie case for removing the GA status. – Tim riley talk 09:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: I see the editor who promoted the article to GA in 2011 was me, but it was then only 2,217 words long and adequately cited. It has since grown to more than 12,000 words including the lists and that's where the lack of citations has crept in. Tim riley talk 09:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Work is being done on the text citations, by SchroCat and others. The majority of the manuscript "highlights" have their own articles, & I'm dubious about the necessity of doing the tedious work of bringing over the links there to the list. The list could be somewhat reduced, in the case of MS perhaps to only those with articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Johnbod. I'll suspend judgement until SchroCat has finished his work on the text. Tim riley talk 17:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for rearranging, UC. That makes a lot more sense now.
    The whole Highlights section is a barrel of OR, based on what people think looks interesting. There is no supporting citations that say each of the pieces is a highlight (there’s a citation at the start of the list (ref 106) to a BL page that lists just fifteen pieces, which is considerably less than the extensive lists. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Here are just 15 of our treasures, chosen to show the range of our unique collections...." I don't think this claims to show anything like all highlights, but concentrates on diversity. No doubt they have produced many such lists at times, for different purposes. Several of these ones are not in our list - at least two are printed books. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be in favour of spinning out an article on Collections of the British Library (especially as some sub-collections already seem to have their own article) and using that as a means to drastically reduce the volume of this parent article, but I'm not sure that would be a make-or-break matter for me as far as retaining GA status is concerned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the list is going to stay, it would probably need a whole bunch of citations. I think it would be easier and more beneficial for this article to follow UC's suggestion above to spin out this section of the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you keep saying. I repeat, I don't think it can be GA if that is done. Is it in fact necessary "to drastically reduce the volume of this parent article"? Yes, several parts of the collection have their own articles, mainly those that arrived from previously-existing collections. I don't really see how that affects the list in this article. Unless you know that something is in the rather haphazard group called Royal manuscripts, British Library, you won't be able to find it. I accept "highlights" may not be the right word. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a 'Collections' page would certainly be beneficial (after all, we have dedicated pages for things like the Philatelic Collections and the Cotton library, so why not) The Collections section on this page would then be whittled down to something more manageable and useful - and something that can be properly sourced, rather than the OR collection of 'Things that look interesting from a long time ago', which is what makes up the list at the moment. Trying to wade through the Maps, music, manuscripts and literature section is like being mugged by a gang of particularly aggressive blue links. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing citations

I've covered most of the citation needed tags, but there are four left. There's no info on the BL website (it's still a skeleton version because of the hacking problem), and the archive site isn't clear on these points. Some of the connections may not be valid any more and I've taken out some bits which are definitely out of date, but I've left those four in place as I can't confirm or deny if the BL is still actively involved. (TRILT, for example, has been renamed and the new website (https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/) makes no reference to the BL, nor does anyone from the BL sit on the executive committee, but I can't find anything that says the BL was previously connected, but no longer is). I suspect (pure guesswork) that some of the services may be suspended—or at least access to the services is suspended—while the IT problems are being sorted, but the skeleton site doesn't make it clear what's happening. - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these may help:
  • I found this chapter (preprint of the text here) which goes into some detail on the BL's web archiving system, and makes the comparison with the BNF (though doesn't explicitly say that the process is based on that of the BNF): some perhaps-useful posts from the BL blog here, here (with outlinks to reports from UK papers) and here, the last of which confirms that the process was ongoing into mid 2023.
  • On radio archiving, we have this BL blog. I know blogs aren't generally good sources, but here I think we have an exception to report the barest facts of what an institution announced it was doing. This BBC page suggests that Redux was practically dead by 2022.
  • There's some material in this report for JISC about the BL's role in archiving/allowing access to BBC materials. Again, not the world's best source, but the author is an academic and the company seems like a reputable enough quasi-academic institution.
  • This thesis talks a lot about BBC archiving, but doesn't mention the BL except at arm's length (e.g. specific senior people from the BL being involved in discussions). It does have a 2008 web page on the history of BBC redux in the biblio, but frustratingly the link is dead and not available on Internet Archive.
  • The section we currently have on the BL's digital resources is cribbed largely from this BL blog post from 2012. It says that the BL collaborated with the BBC on BBC Pilot, and recorded the stuff on Broadcast News, but doesn't take any credit for TRILT. In fact, looking at what's written there, it sounds much more like the BL simply bought a licence to use TRILT (like many schools do), which I wouldn't say is really notable (they probably have a JSTOR subscription as well, but we don't need to mention that in their article).
UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Gorbachev

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

The article is excessively long, about 17000 words. It also has some slight WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain, what are those WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, I don’t think there are any significant NPOV issues. However, in terms of MOS, sentences like 'On 10 March 1985, Chernenko died.' may convey an unnecessarily emphatic tone. Overall, the tone throughout could be improved to sound more encyclopedic. While I initially said there were no NPOV issues, some examples, such as 'He would stop to talk to civilians on the street, forbade the display of his portrait at the 1985 Red Square holiday celebrations, and encouraged frank and open discussions at Politburo meetings,' come across as slightly biased and could benefit from a more neutral phrasing. And yes I used ChatGPT to fix my own phrasing. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 07:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nom seems to be working on this, having spun out General secretaryship of Mikhail Gorbachev. There are also four citation needed tags that should be resolved (although I just added three of them and none seem particularly hard to rectify). charlotte 👸🎄 06:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNs fixed by @LastJabberwocky (and me). charlotte 👸🎄 01:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 World Series

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

Uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed three of them. The others can be addressed and I will soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu: Reminder about this. What's your timeline to complete this? Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, forgot about this. Should be done this week. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it. The "aftermath" section will need work that I should get to tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsonville, Oregon

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

The "History" section ends in 2007, and I think more recent information should be included. The "Demographics" section is largely uncited and contains a lot of information about the 2000 and 2010 censuses. I think this section can be reduced and should be cited more effectively. The lead needs to be updated with the latest demographic information. There are some uncited statements in other areas of the article not indicated above. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as all of the issues have now been addressed due to the hardwork of various editors. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I added cn tags to a couple places in the article that still need citations. I suggest that the "History" section be broken up with Level 3 headings for readability. Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like some slight issues remain with citing. I'm also curious why the voting history begins in 2014 and ends in 2018. I don't have any strong view for when the history should begin, but it feels like it should end in 2024, no? Happy to keep this open as work continues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aboutmovies: It looks like only two {{citation needed}} tags remain. I looked briefly but wasn't able to find a source to verify the following sentence in the history section: In 2007, the old city hall building was turned into a new public works and police department. The following sentences in the geography section could be verified with a map, but I couldn't find a good online source to verify: Coffee Lake Creek is on the west side of the city and includes Coffee Lake and the Coffee Lake Wetlands. The foothills of the Chehalem Mountains lie to the west of Wilsonville, with most land within the city on level ground. Have you searched for sources yet to verify these two claims? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lord Bolingbroke: I have provided a source for the city hall part, but I disagree that one beyond a map is really needed for simple geography. While long ago I thought everything that wasn't written (as in, actual text) was OR, but after a few years (and I know you are not a new editor either) I moved off that hill. My thoughts are similar to those in this essay, as it is not synthesis or original research to read a map for what a map says. Any contour map shows it is a flat area (hell most of it is in a floodplain) and a physical map shows were the geographic features are. Further, WP:CITE (a content guideline) does not require citations for everything, only per the lede: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Does anyone (besides perhaps flat earthers) actually challenge Wilsonville is to the east of those mountains and those features are where they are? Aboutmovies (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aboutmovies: For what it's worth, I agree with you about maps being acceptable to verify geographic features. However, it's probably better to use a text source for ease of verifiability (all else being equal), since not all maps use the same names for features or include exactly the same info. For example, I'm not able to find a "Coffee Lake" on Google Maps or the GNIS database, just Coffee Lake Creek and the adjacent wetlands. I will remove mention of the lake, which does not appear to exist, unless you have any objection. Everything else is easily verifiable through Google Maps and I'm happy to keep as is. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. Odd though that there is a creek and weylands named after a lake that GNIS says does not exist. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing concerns appear to be addressed. After cleanup work by myself and other editors, I think the article has been brought back up to GA standards. The one other concern is updating the voting history table, although I'm not even sure if it's necessary to be honest; not sure if it's typical to include this kind of table in city articles. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a citation needed tag to the article. The "Wilsonville vote by party in statewide elections" should be updated with more recent elections. Those are the only concerns I have right now. Z1720 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding Through

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

I have been aware of this article for some time, but have been reluctant to bring it forward to GAR. It is the last surviving music-related A-Class article, is a band I enjoy listening to, and for a while I believed I could save it. Alas, it has caught the attention of the community, and I believe that the time has come to restore it or delist.

When I was new to Wikipedia 10 years ago, this article was in good shape, and the band broke up only months into my time as a Wikipedian. Time has not treated the band's article kindly; they faded into obscurity while inactive, then regrouped and never really regained the spotlight, and consequently, proper care on Wikipedia. The GA nominator has been retired some 15 years.

The main concerns initially brought forward were lack of sourcing (2c), unreliable sourcing (2b), and a lead that's too short (1b). I personally that the article's breadth of coverage is suspect in its current state (3a), but the previous issues I would agree are the primary issues.

I believe this can be saved with some work, but I am probably too busy to do it alone in a reasonable amount of time, and would welcome any who are interested in assisting me. Also @Z1720: here we go. Sorry, been a very very very busy week. mftp dan oops 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the prose in this article is, at times, less than satisfactory, but I am up to the task. mftp dan oops 22:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a significant improvement to the lead. It is not quite what I'd consider ideal, as I need to read the rest of the article, but I took some notes from the original GA version (yes, believe it or not that old piece of 2007 junk helped) and it's certainly not as bad before. mftp dan oops 00:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Not a fan of the overlong and confusing prose, and that line in lead about being a "band to watch" in 2004 really makes them look like a former hype band. I think it has the groundworks to become a good article (you could try speedrunning??) and has plenty of citations to work with, but as it is now, it's pretty bad. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am OFF WORK tomorrow, and will dedicate that day to fixing this article. If I cannot get it to a satisfactory level by midnight EST on January 2, anyone is free to close this any time afterward. I fear this article may require print references for the smallest, but necessary, details, and I cannot acquire it in a timely fashion. mftp dan oops 14:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan: As a matter of principle, as long as work is actively being undertaken (and the present article isn't hideously malformed), I think a longer period of time to keep it open is more than acceptable. Our focus in reforming GAR was just to ensure that articles that no one had any desire to fix can be delisted, not to rush delisting articles that have interest. Other Coordinators are free to act as they see fit of course, but I would ask that some time be granted to finish off the fixes. Thank you for all your work! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thank you! I have some great news on the source front: the content in the ancient Prime Directive Records reference is salvageable! You have to inspect the page elements to see it, so I might include instructions inside to view them. This site runs on long-unsupported programming, so I'm afraid there's no other way to see it, but it can be seen. mftp dan oops 20:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another person has found a workaround for the MusicMight bio I thought was lost forever. This will be of great help. I think most of our remaining work is now from the time of the self-titled album on, and plenty of more contemporary sources exist to help us there. mftp dan oops 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Progress report: the style section, as well as everything on the band's history up to the end of Declaration, I believe I have completed. If anyone has any questions or feedback on those areas, I would encourage you to get ahold of me. I'm juggling an FAC for another article with this GAR, but I'm still confident I can do both. mftp dan oops 18:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
quick suggestion: remove the final paragraph of the lead. it is dated (again: 2004, hype band stuff). It is getting there. // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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