🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_88
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 88

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 87) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 89) →

Skopje

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Manhattan

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Evil Queen (Disney)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

+ Also, it's too long; it's over 11,400 words, which isn't an appropriate length (per WP:SIZERULE) Lililolol (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flaming Pie

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I volunteer to help fix this. The original nominator is a friend of mine, but he is on vacation and thus not willing to come out of retirement to fix it. mftp dan oops 16:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from this brief statement: "the critical reaction to Flaming Pie was strong, with McCartney achieving his best reviews since 1982's Tug of War", the article lacks actual critical reviews too (aside from scores). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also integrate "Album title" into another section, as per MOS:OVERSECTION. Additionally, the Personnel section there doesn't specify track duties (see WP:PERSONNEL), although I know for sure those are in the liner notes. I'll volunteer to help with that one, as it's something I routinely do anyway. The Keymaster (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of debate recently about whether or not the inclusion of deluxe editions and copious bonus tracks is warranted in most cases, so an argument could be made that that section should just be removed, which would fix that problem. The Keymaster (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up to everyone, I intend to fix this article tonight. When I'm finished, let me know if there's anything else I need to address or if I need additional refinement. mftp dan oops 20:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, are you fixing this article? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been busier than expected, but by morning it should be close, if not completely repaired. mftp dan oops 02:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a substantial amount to reception. There is a little more to be done, and some re-organizing, but that should not be difficult. I am going to get some sleep and will resume in the daylight. mftp dan oops 05:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, before I proceed with the Archive Collection heading, I need clarification. Are these tracklists even pertinent? I know how alternate tracklists, especially for reissues, have been covered on Wikipedia has recently come under scrutiny and some changes have been made, but I've not kept up and would like some explanation on just how much I have to source, or if there's any I ought to remove. mftp dan oops 05:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, could you please answer the query, thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MFTP Dan: Sorry that I did not respond to this sooner. This is a tough one for me to answer, as I think most albums have track listings and extra additions usually do not have so many extra songs. I think the information about the different editions might be too detailed and promotional. As for listing all the tracks, that might be a good question for WP:WPMUSIC or WP:ALBUM. Z1720 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

German submarine U-853

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've added cn tags where relevant, and gone ahead and removed most of the legacy section. It dealt with the post-war history of USS Atherton, which is completely irrelevant to U-853. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not easily verify the remaining statement, and it seemed to be of low importance to the article. If somebody wants to research the question of what happened to the propellers and write it up, they could. On balance, such low importance, unverified information is best removed. Jehochman Talk
Here's a source, that perhaps might be sufficient to restore that content about the propellers. [1] What do you all think? Jehochman Talk 20:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant NHHC article here covers the propeller point. As a 2020 publication, it might be useful in filling in other gaps in the article as well. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Although now that I look at it, the wording for U-853's part seems distressingly similar to your writing of twelve years earlier! What do you think? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uncited armament section was added in 2016, by an editor who hasn't edited in many years. It appears to be giving details of a rearmament carried out after completion of construction, but (1) doesn't really fit as a standalone section so should be integrated into the design section, and (2) badly needs sources that can pin this specific upgrade to the submarine in question - while U-853 will have been re-armed (an increased anti-aircraft armament was required for operational use) there appear to have been several different options for this upgunning.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the boat's AA armament was upgraded in July '44, when her schnorkel was installed, but I can't find any confirmation of that. After checking Rössler's The Uboat: The Evolution and Technical History of German Submarines and finding nothing to even mention an anti-aircraft upgrade for Type IXC/40 boats, I'm very much inclined to drop that whole section. Maybe some more knowlegeable editor can confirm it later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that for at least some of the book sources (i.e. Due to enemy action... and The greatest submarine stories ever told, the publisher claimed for the edition cited does not match that for the ISBN according to Worldcat - this may indicate a need to check sources more closely.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Jehochman, Nigel Ish, and Sturmvogel 66: where does this reassessment stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suharto

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Million Dollar Challenge (TV program)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delist - the second season is still being referred to in the future tense as of the writing of this despite having occurred in 2010. Hog Farm Talk 15:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boughton Monchelsea Place

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The primary source for the history is Hasted and the primary sources for the estate and for the building itself are the two main National Heritage List entries. The other National Heritage list entries are references for minor buildings within the estate. Along with unpublished information, the National Heritage List entry for the house references the Thomas Badeslade view of the house in the article and John Newman's Kent: West and the Weald from the Buildings of England series, which would be a primary source if not already condensed by the listing entry.
I have had a look at the suggested articles:
  • Aside from a single reference to Boughton Monchelsea Place being among the finest houses in the parish, there's nothing in the Sarah Pearson article about the house - it deals with smaller mediaeval hall houses and specifically excludes Boughton Monchelsea Place.
  • There's very little in the first Orlin article that can be used, as Alice Barnham whose portrait with her sons is discussed never lived at the house. It makes one reference to Francis Barnham being the son of Belknap Rudston's daughter (though that does not appear to correspond to the parentage of Francis Barnham given in his own article). The link to Boughton Monchelsea Place is that her portrait resided at the house for several hundred years.
  • The second Orlin source is a book which focuses on Alice Barnham and her husband Francis Barnham (not the one who owned the house, but an ancestor). The first chapter expands the article The Search for Lady Ingram from the previous source. There are references to the house in the same way as in the article and also in a a chapter on "closets" (private rooms), discussing a small room at the top of the stairs that may have been an office but nothing really worth adding.
DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swaminarayan Akshardham (Delhi)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@KnowDeath I'll have a look at this article and see where it needs tweaking to maintain its GA status and if not, we'll have to reconsider changing its status. Chilicave (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chilicave. I can try to help as well though I'm currently busy IRL but don't mind helping where I can. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've copy-edited for neutrality of tone, removed a few uncited passages, and cut down on excessive vacuous quotations by dignitaries. It's a good bit shorter and a lot more like an encyclopedia article. I've also marked all the BAPS refs as primary; there are quite a few, but they are used for basic facts, and outnumbered by reliable secondary sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ankita Bhakat

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • There is no information from 2019 to the 2025 Olympics. As the infobox indicates, she was very active during this time
  • The lead currently does not summarise the article
  • There is some reliance on the website Sportskeeda, which hosts primarily user-generated content
  • The end of the career section is too heavily reliant on primary sourcing IAWW (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely should lose GA status. JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wood Badge (Scouting America)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Decompression sickness

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just wondering what specific part of the GA criteria forbids bullet points for something like this. Sure it would probably look better as prose but I don’t think it is specifically apart of the criteria. I will look into the history section when I am able to. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IntentionallyDense: WP:GA? 1b states that articles should comply with Manual of Style guidelines for layout and list incorporation. MOS:PARA (part of layout) says "Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose" and "[Lists] may be used in the body to break up a mass of text". In the timeline section, there is no prose for a timeline list to break up. MOS:EMBED states "Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content." However, it is not supplementing prose because there is no prose in that section. Lists are not forbidden, but prose is preferred and in this case I do not think this section justifies having only a list and instead it should be written as paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, “forbid” was harsh wording, i was tired and not thinking much and just wanted to hear your reasoning. While I do agree that yes, prose would look better here, for the sake of narrowing down any of the articles issues to just things that are directly apart of the GA criteria, MOS:PARA also states “ Sometimes, it may be preferable to use bullet points instead of having a series of very short paragraphs.” If we were to change the timeline into prose I suspect (i would have to look at some sources first to verify) that it would be very broken up and all over the place as medical timelines tend to be a couple big discoveries broken up by years of research that can look like years of no developments.
    Im curious about your thoughts on my interpretation and if that’s something you’re willing to work with. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 15:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at the "Timeline" section, and I think the biggest problem with the bullet points is that the entries sometimes do not explain the significance of the events. For example, "Charles Pasley, who was involved in the recovery of the sunken warship HMS Royal George, commented that, of those having made frequent dives, "not a man escaped the repeated attacks of rheumatism and cold". No context for this event or quote is given to reader, or how this contributed to the research/discovery/humanity's understanding of decompression sickness. Why is this event important enough to be in the article? If this section is expanded out into prose, the entry's significance can also be explained. I think it's OK for the section to have years of no discoveries: that is the nature of research and articles should focus on notable events. Another option might be to split the Timeline prose into themes: have a paragraph discuss the sickness's discovery, another about the development of technology to prevent it, and another to describe various changes to laws concerning decompression sickness. I don't know what might be the best format: it really depends on what information editors want to have together in the same paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the timeline needs a review for what is worth including and what isn't. I'm going to get together some information first and then we can worry about how to format that later. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 18:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so I removed the banner at the top of the timeline section as I couldn't find anything that was obviously missing for that timeframe. I've found two pretty good sources for the timeline section but they mostly cover pre 2000's history. Based on those sources, I suspect that some information could be removed as it is more relevant to the history of diving and less so to the history of the disease itself. I still have to gather the main points together but I wanted to update you. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this reassessment, and as the original main authors are no longer editing, and I am familiar with the topic, I would like to offer my assistance where I can. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few refs, a section summary and a bit of copy editing. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood To be on the safe side, the summary if the timeline should probably have inline citations, as far as the history section goes, I found these two articles to be the most helpful: [3][4]. The 1872 part of the timeline needs another citation, the bullet list at the end of prognosis needs citations, The Henry's law part needs a citation, and the table "Signs and symptoms of decompression sickness" needs sources. Did you add the expansion needed tag in the epidemiology section? if so can you give me some more information as to why. Thanks for your help! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 23:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added explicit ref tags to list items in prognosis where they were previously implied.
Yes, I added the expansion needed tag to epidemiology as it currently does not mention altitude decompression sickness. I do not know of sources, but there may be some somewhere. I do not suggest that the expansion is necessary for GA, just that it is desirable for completeness of coverage. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 00:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing i would suggest is first confirming that there is sources regarding the epidemiology of altitude DCS before adding the tag as if there is no sources there is no way to really expand that section (unless we can get someone to write the sources for us!). Technically speaking any cleanup banner can prevent a GA from keeping its status as a GA, so while they should still be added if needed, i tend to be a bit more cautious when adding them. Thanks again for all the help. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fairly safe bet that sources exist. What is less certain is whether they are accessible to you or to me. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are a few:
· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:44, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first couple sources seem okay (obviously not ideal but probably the best we have) however the last two are not compliant with WP:MEDRS. The only things that need to be fixed up are the lack of citations for the first paragraph in epidemiology and timeline. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the list of sources directly above? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced Bend the truth with an FAA document already used in the article, and cited the lead to Timeline.
Dalebozik article is only used to support claim that high altitude parachutists and aircrew are at risk. Dalebozik is a technical expert on physiology relating to those exposures, so seems reasonable to cite. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think Dalebozik is appropriate for its use, but have added another source which mentions parachutists in passing. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph in epidemiology cited now · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I’m going to ping @Z1720 and ask them if they have any more concerns on the topic and we will see what they say! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 10:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no concerns or further comments about the Epidemiology section. Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering moving the last paragraph of Decompression sickness#Ascent to altitude or exposure to a low ambient pressure to Decompression sickness#Epidemiology, as it seems to be mostly about that aspect, but would like your opinion. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me a day or two I can probably get access to most of the sources. I’ll take a look at them later (probably tomorrow maybe tonight) and then get back to you. Other than that little bit that needs to be wrapped up, I think you’ve successfully saved this article from losing its GA status, congrats! IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 19:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, standing by. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added ref for rest of 1872 timeline item. Unsurprisingly, same ref as first part sufficed. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 00:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added ref to "the Henry's law part". · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added ref tag to table of symptoms. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 01:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological order can intrinsically provide context in that, for example, a treatment is normally sought after a condition has been identified and described, also frequently after a hypothesis for causation has been proposed. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rheumatism symptoms have significant overlap with DCS symptoms, and DCS was not recognised at the time. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list supplements prose in other sections. Is there reason to claim this is unacceptable? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now it has a prose summary of the gist of the timeline. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, timeline articles and sections quite commonly use a list format as the information tends to be presented in chronological order by date, which makes use of the content relatively easy when one is interested in sequential events. When historical content is laid out as a narrative in prose form, it is less likely to be titled a timeline. While I hold no strong opinion on which format is better in this case, I think that a list format ordered by date is quite appropriate. Perhaps a short introductory summary paragraph would help? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any more citations you feel are needed, please indicate which content you think needs them. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any further discussion or work required, or can this be closed? (last edited 13 August 2025) Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the nominator is satisfied and no other concerns have come forward I am going to close this as keep. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 16:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-harm

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 02:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also worth mentioning is that the History section has the original synthesis template. I've seen 6 instances of [medical citation needed] in the Pathophysiology section. But the more medical citations at the top seems to imply that more than 6 of those are needed, possibly throughout the entire article. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lahaina Gateway

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Think Like a Cat

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well seeing as how this is a single-program game show without information about contestants and winners, I'd say it's missing key information. Gonnym (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evansville tornado outbreak of November 2005

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Michael Wacha

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I will see what I can do here. It will probably take me a week or two. Hog Farm Talk 20:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - there is a lot of updating needed. I have gotten very busy with work IRL, a state which will probably continue until at least the beginning of October, and I just don't see myself having the time/energy the complete the needed work in a reasonable period of time. Hog Farm Talk 02:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boron nitride

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

James Naismith

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Empire: Total War

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delist as it stands, per nom. Fixable, but currently not up to snuff: there are lots of untagged, uncited statements, and a video game can't be a source for itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Station model

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Something, Something, Something, Dark Side

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I also feel the plot summary is way too long relative to the article, and the "popular culture" segment way too long and overly detailed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aerated chocolate

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 14:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To start off, the lead section starts with "Through processing, chocolate can turn into a foam." That sounds too much like a hook. Maybe it can start off with more "Aerated chocolate is a kind of chocolate," and so on. The largest selling point of this GA is that 16 (40%) of citations are all to one source (by Fitzgerald). Shouldn't there be anything else that talks about the chocolate? They also appear to be separate ones but they are all the same. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 01:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I recently passed this as GA so I'm probably biased, but I think there's no issue with having a lot of the citations pointing to one source, especially when that source is about as reliable as you can get. @Floating Orb please could you explain exactly how you think this doesn't meet the GA criteria? IAWW (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might meet the criteria but it does also meet the WP:SINGLESOURCE problem. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 15:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing that would make the page better would be to take the Fitzgeralds and put them into one citation. Then you can use the {{RP}} to put the page number. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 20:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SINGLESOURCE has nothing to do with this article, as this article has multiple sources. The current citation style using Template:Sfn is extremely common and used in many FAs. I vote keep for this as the nominator has not demonstrated any issues with this article meeting the criteria. IAWW (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Lee Vilenski @User:Iazyges @User:Trainsandotherthings @User:Chipmunkdavis

I've modified the first sentence to be read as less of a hook. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 15:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mobile, Alabama

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am going to take a stab at filling out the citations. I'll circle back to the sports and art issues you mention after inline citations are in place unless some kind soul hops in and takes it care of first, Rjjiii (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added citations while correcting errors and updating information. The only uncited things left are in the census sections. Next step will be to go through Mobile, Alabama#Demographics to update and cite the information there, Rjjiii (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Demographics" section is now cited and up to date, using census data. I'll look soon to see if secondary sources comment on the city's demographics. Then, I'll check through the "Arts and Culture" section. Rjjiii (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, I've been going through "Arts and Culture" and have trimmed much. What do you make of Mobile, Alabama#Historic architecture? I have not touched this part yet and hesitate to remove all of these historic buildings. Rjjiii (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii: I made some major cuts to the article, including removing non-notable list items (like names of schools and businesses), removed information about institutions not located in Mobile, and merged some sections per MOS:OVERSECTION. Please take a look and let me know if there's any concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, thanks, the cuts all seem like improvements. I had focused on the "Arts and Culture" section. Rjjiii (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would any of the photos in the article need to be updated to what the locations look like today? EulerianTrail (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EulerianTrail, which photos are you thinking should be replaced? Rjjiii (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Mobile Civic Center picture should be replaced (Renovations/construction of a new one is currently being done); hhowever, I would wait until it is done. Several photos are old but still represents the idea of the place, but may be nice to have a more modern look. Some places that would be nice to have is a photo of Langan park with the dinosaurs art exhibit, the new Amtrak station, USA Health Children's & Women's Hospital looks like a lighthouse, the Fairgrounds (which is basically like a second civic center, but with a focus on having an outdoors area), EulerianTrail (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I checked on Commons but don't see any recent photos. c:Category:Mobile, Alabama should have most of the photos of the city. File:Sunset Limited at Mobile station, August 1993.jpg is an older photo of the Amtrak station. You might post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alabama to see if someone in the area would be willing to take some pictures. It's also an option to write to the institution and see if they'll offer to license or upload a photo to the the Commons. Sometimes this works, but most places are too focused on their actual work to bother with that, tbh. Rjjiii (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to drop a {{ping}} to EulerianTrail, Rjjiii (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii I am actually offering to take photos. I was listing places that may need some photos. The building in Sunset Limited 1993 is actually torn down. A new building is in the works and they have a temporary platform as you can see from this Google photo. EulerianTrail (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EulerianTrail, oh, I misunderstood. That sounds excellent! Feel free to reach out if you run into any issues with uploading and licensing the images. I think the only issues related to GA status are that images should be freely licensed, relevant to the topic, and have a suitable caption (WP:GACR6). Rjjiii (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Healthcare section is a few years out of date:
  • new facilities built
  • hospital(s) sold
  • do we really need to mention Infirmary West, formerly Knollwood Hospital? There are other closed hospitals. I think this belongs more in the history or timeline of Mobile articles.
  • There should be better descriptions of the non-hospital resources. It currently reads as if the section should be named Hospitals, except for a few lines.
EulerianTrail (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Infirmary West. If you want to tackle the other updates, go for it. If not, I'll try to work my through them. Do you have any specific "non-hospital resources" in mind? Rjjiii (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is mobile county health department, the USA Health Strada Patient Care Center, and USA Health Freestanding Emergency Department. I also think it might be nice to list info about dental, vision, and hearing; however, I am not sure how to write this without sounding too promotional and spotlighting one company over another since there are several. I am not sure if it is appropriate, but since some people consider it to be health, maybe include alternative medicine resources. EulerianTrail (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some updates and expansion to this section. As far as alternative medicine, dental, vision, and so on, I'm not finding sources about Mobile that go into specifics. One exception is that there is a lot about chiropractors being prosecuted, but it's for some kind of scheme that seems WP:UNDUE for the city's article. Rjjiii (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EulerianTrail, just checking in, do you have more bits to update? Also, @Z1720 do you have any more notes? Also also, anyone reading this is welcome to {{ping}} me post-GAR on the article's talk page to continue to improve the article, Rjjiii (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing immediately obvious to edit, besides things that will be happening in the next few months: new train station, new mayor, and new city council. I wanted to get some photos while in town during a work trip, but by the time I had free time it was too dark to take photos. I will try again in October, but the current photos are good just a nice improvement to have newer ones. EulerianTrail (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citation concerns resolved. OVERSECTION concerns resolved. The article was over 9,000 words so I went through some sections and trimmed information that was off-topic or too much detail: I suggest that this work continue to ensure that the article remains focused on the most important information and to create space to add prose in the future if there are other significant events. I also noticed that many references are repeated in subsequent sentences, which can be removed to help with readability. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ian McKellen

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Lord Theoden: How do you feel about the article now? I see you've made some significant edits to the article since your comment here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: Hello. I have gathered 20-30 more references which should resolve all the remaining uncited issues, I'm just in the process of creating citations for all of them. I had hoped to have this done last week, but I should have it completed before the end of the month. Lord Theoden (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. Please don't feel rushed, as long as there is work ongoing I have no intention of closing this reassessment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: @Z1720: All concerns should now be addressed. Lord Theoden (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: I have added two cn tags to the article. There are lots of one-sentence paragraphs, especially in the "Personal life" section that should be formatted more effectively. Each section in "Career" is very large, especially towards the end of his career. I suggest that more headings be added so that each section is about 2-4 paragraphs. Suggest archiving the sources if IA Bot is working (other editors were having problems with it earlier this weekend). Z1720 (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you meant Lord Theoden? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The career sections seem appropriately subdivided already; there's no obvious way to split them down further without descending into absurdity (==2012–2015==, ==2016-2018==, ...), and no reason at all to attempt such a split, as the sections work well as they are. I've merged short paragraphs in 'Personal life', and removed two uncited claims not needed for this article. Lord Theoden seems to have done everything else that was necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citation concerns seem to be resolved. Minor source integrity concerns (Broadwayworld) which is not enough to be GAR worthy. I'm not thrilled with the quotations in "LGBT rights" and do not think they add to the article, but that's a personal opinion. Some formatting could be better (moving all the accolades from the career section into "Accolades and honours", trimming the "Career" section or dividing it more effectively,) but these are not worthy to delist on their own. No other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deep Impact (spacecraft)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Few uncited paragraphs is not that bad. I'll try to fix it all. I don't have enough time in the next ~week, so let's keep the GAR open for a bit longer. Artem.G (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem.G: Thanks for offering to do this. GARs remain open for at least month, and longer if an editor offers to make the necessary improvements (like you have indicated above). Feel free to ping me when this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Artem.G do you still intend to work on this article, or do you think it meets GA criteria? If neither, no worries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
completely forgot about this GAR. I added several sources and images, spot-checked several existing sources, etc - the article looks good enough for me. If you have any concerns, please add here and I'll try to fix it. Artem.G (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Artem.G, I have added just a couple of citation needed tags; once those are resolved, this GAR can be closed. Thanks for all your work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added references and fixed one number. Thanks for pointing me to the problematic sections. Artem.G (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shamrock Hotel

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • It does need some work, but I think it should be manageable without needing to look at a delisting. I have done a little work in the demolition section and reworked it more into a closure/demolition with some minor rephrasing, but some other stated facts would benefit from being cross-checked. I found a couple of period newspaper articles to support some of the prose here too. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citation concerns seem to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

F-41 (Michigan county highway)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Edit summary history indicates that other editors feel the revision is fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: The article was substantially expanded after this GAR was filed, but I don't want to close it yet as I feel the current form of the article should be checked to see that the expansions merit it staying GA. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diving cylinder

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initial dialog: Z1720 and Pbsouthwood

[edit]

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

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

Additional dialog: Fred Hsu and Pbsouthwood

[edit]

Sports but really about technology: Oh my deity, this article is just like inline skates which I've spent 8 months rewriting and expanding. I recently nominated it for GA review under sports. But found no takers. I just re-listed it under technology/engineering. I figured that I should look around for similar articles being reviewed, so I can reciprocate before others help me. The diving cylinder is so similar to my long article in so many ways... not the least of which is that the article has so much more to do with technology/engineering than "sports". No wonder mainstream sports-article enthusiasts find no interests in these. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree that sports is inappropriate. It was not my choice. However it was originally assessed for GA under that category, and it is now being reassessed after many changes over several years. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA says nothing about length: I am going to carefully read existing comments, and take a look at the article. I think I have many of the same problems, starting with the length of the article. Sigh. I had in fact split some content into new child articles. But I found it hard to trim further, because the main reason I rewrote it was to create a one-stop shop where all inline-related terms can be found and defined. These terms and concepts reference one another, forming a knowledge web. To scatter terms across many independent articles would be antithetical. BUT I NEED TO POINT OUT: Wikipedia:Good article criteria says nothing about the length of the article. We should simply re-assess it based on GA criteria. Am I missing something? Fred Hsu (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended TOC organization: I took an extensive reading of the article. I think the reason why a new reader feels that the article is too long isn't necessarily due to just the length of the article, and the existence of "bullet lists". One reason I felt that way was because of the TOC (table of content) didn't help me a lot in navigating article and finding what I wanted to see. This is especially true when the TOC is shown on the side navigation bar - long section names wrapped around causing the bar to be hard to read and use. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is, a slight re-org and a rephrasing of section names will enhance this article w.r.t to the first GA criterion: Well-written. The criterion does say 'the prose is clear, concise and understandable'. I am extrapolating to the organization and TOC navigation. Therefore, I propose this TOC structure with reduced section names, and a slight re-org. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you actually offer a considered suggestion that could improve the article. I have not studied your suggestions in detail yet, but I will. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Hsu's suggested alternative article layout

[edit]
Terminology
Parts
    Pressure vessel
    Cylinder valve
    Aluminium cylinder
    Steel cylinder
    Cylinder neck
    Permanent markings
Accessories
    Manifolds
    Valve cage
    Cylinder bands
    Cylinder boot
    Cylinder net
    Cylinder handle
    Dust caps and plugs
Pressure rating
    Working pressure
    Test pressure
    Developed pressure
    Pressure monitoring
Capacity
    Internal volume     (includes standard sizes list)
    Nominal volume      (includes standard sizes list)
Measurement
    Dimensions
    Mass
    Buoyancy
Types
    Open-circuit scuba  (merely define it)
    Rebreather
    Emergency supply    (both surface-supplied diver and diving bells)
    Suit inflation
    Above water
Configurations
    Multiple mixtures
    Single back cylinder
    Main and auxiliary
    Independent twins
    Plain manifolded twins
    Isolation manifolded twins
    Sling cylinders
    Side cylinders
    Hand-off and drop cylinders
Gas planning
    Capacity to store gas
    Diver gas consumption
    Breathing gas endurance
    Reserves
    Mass of gas consumed
Filling
    Pre-fill inspection
    Filling from compressor
    Cascade fill
    Heat from air compression
    Filling safety
    Gas purity and testing
    Handling of specialty gases
    Gas contamination
Safety and Standards
    Manufacturing standards
    Periodic inspection
    Intervals between tests
    Cleaning
    Service life
    Sustained load cracking
    Accidents
    Handling
    Long-term storage
Transportation
    International air
    Europe
    United States
Labels and colour-coding
    Worldwide
    European Union
    Offshore
    South Africa
(move MANUFACTURERS into a expandable template at the end)
(possibly consider moving standard sizes, OD dimension bullets, etc. to child articles)
Comments on suggested structure
[edit]

GA criteria checklist

[edit]

GA review. See WP:WIAGA for criteria. Also see WP:GAR for reassessment.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Discussion

[edit]
  • The lead summary paragraphs are concise and comprehensive. These have been expanded and refined compared to the 2016 GA version and the 2017 reviewed version. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reading the rest of the article now. The paragraphs flow well so far. I am just going to park minor observations for discussion. These do not present issues for the GA reassessment, unless explicitly stated. Here is the first observation: in the Aluminium section, this sentence "Most aluminum cylinders are flat bottomed..." in the first paragraph, and a similar one "Most aluminum cylinders are flat bottomed..." in the second paragraph made me look twice at the first read. I understand that the first one compares flat bottom to a round bottom. The second one is talking about making of a bottle, and how a flat bottom and a thick wall both contribute to added weight which is ironically preferred. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewritten to avoid repeat. This had bothered me for some time, and I think the revision flows better too. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bullet list of types "scuba cylinder neck threads" probably should be housed somewhere else. It's not clear to me where though. I don't think it impacts the GA-ness. But these are details a regular read (such as myself) will simply skip over. I like the discussion pointing out differences in tapered vs parallel. But that's all that a casual reader needs. The hatlink to "cylinder neck" isn't necessarily the right place to house the bullet list either, as the bullet list seems specific to scuba cylinders. Just an observation. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the neck threads are mostly relevant to portable cylinders for breathing apparatus - scuba, scba and first aid oxygen, which all use breathing gas regulators with specific connections different to industrial cylinders. Not sure about aviation applications. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In last paragraph of "cylinder neck" ends like this "... gas cylinders – Part 1: Specifications.[5]" - is the "Part 1: Specifications" referring to a chapter of the cited book? If so, that should be turned into a part of the reference, right? Fred Hsu (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is part of the title for ISO 11363-1: full title is "ISO 11363-1, Gas cylinders – 17E and 25E taper threads for connection of valves to gas cylinders – Part 1: Specifications". Maybe I should add the quotes in the text. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:TITLE does not seem to mention standards, so this is my best guess. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am ambivalent about the bullet list of things stamped on the cylinder. MOS:LIST seems to indicate a preference for prose in most cases. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I use a bulleted list because it makes it clear that they are separate items, and it is easy to see where each starts and finishes. MOS is guidance and gives suggestions that are usually helpful. It should not be ignored, but should also not always be followed when it is not the best solution. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the sources tend to list this type of information, presumably for similar reasons. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking more of the list of neck thread specifications when I wrote the above, as the stamped item are much simpler, and probably could be listed in a sentence or two, to look more like prose, but they would still be listed unless there was somewhat more to be said about each item. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Added clarification links to terms in the list. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that often a bullet list or a definition is more appropriate. But sometimes a list can be converted to prose without losing clarity. As I made minor copy editing of the article, I came across one such example. This is the "Diver gas consumption" subsection in a list format. I took the liberty of converting it to prose. Cheers :) Fred Hsu (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks fine. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "nominal volume" section, this last sentence in the first paragraph doesn't make senses to me: "The nominal gas content of these cylinders is based on the 10% higher pressure." The paragraph started by saying that "nominal" volume is the same as "free gas volume". The next paragraph shows an example tank with 80 cubic feet of "nominal free gas" pressurized to 3,000 psi which is presumably the stamped nominal working pressure, and NOT the +10% pressure. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not really very logical. I have tried to clarify with another example, so let me know if I have succeeded. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your enhanced example is very clear. So what was written before was right, and my understanding of it was right. It just wasn't very logical, because the word "nominal" appears to have opposite meaning when used with pressure vs volume. To wit... Fred Hsu (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    nominal working pressure == 2,400 psi
    actual (max) working pressure == nominal working pressure * 1.10 == 2,640 psi
    ??? volume == amount of gas held at nominal working pressure == 72.7 cubic feet
    nominal volume == amount of gas held at actual (max) working pressure == 80 cubic feet
    Yes. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "Mass" section: this section/paragraph feels incomplete, and the sentences are not quite right. Since I don't know how to expand it to first talk about normal mass of common tanks, I can't revise it. What is "to CE standards"? Is this EU standards perhaps? Fred Hsu (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CE standards are indeed EU standards. The CE mark on a product is the indication that it meets requirements for marketing in the EU. and complies with all relevant health, safety and environmental standards. I have copyedited the section to try to make it clearer. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When reading various gas types used for technical diving, in the "Open-circuit scuba" section, something bothered me about the bullet point on "stage cylinder". I couldn't pin down exactly what bothered me, until I looked at "Sling cylinders" under the "Configuration" section.
    • I now know what bothered me. "stage cylinder" is not a type of gas unlike all other bullets in the bullet list. It doesn't belong there. Elsewhere in the article "stage cylinder" is often mentioned, and one of those even links to that bullet by a visible anchor.
    • But "stage cylinder" isn't exactly a "configuration" unlike all other configuration subsections, including "sling cylinders". "Stage" is a function, or application. Stage cylinders can be "dropped", or it seems nowadays mostly carried "side-slung" - so "sling cylinders".
    • The aha moment was when I read a brief summary of all gas types under "sling cylinders" which is a short version of that gas bullet list. That's they I put two and two together.
    • While not perfect, I think it is best to place "stage cylinder" next to "sling cylinders", compare and contrast them. Both can now function as proper # anchors without the visible anchor template. And only one subsection needs to house a brief summary of all gas types. Following articles can provide further context on stage and sling cylinders: Scuba set, Scuba gas planning, and Decompression equipment. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stage cylinders can be dropped if you are sure to be coming back along the same route. If the route may change, it could be a fatal mistake to drop them. There is a book about one case with two fatalities, called "The Last Dive" where that happened.
    You are technically correct that staging cylinders is a function, but it is also common diver terminology to refer to a sling mounted cylinder as a stage cylinder, even if it is not used that way.
    I will look into your suggestion. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rewrote the paragraph, and added a note. I think it should be clearer now, but let me know. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to separate applications and configurations more cleanly. Also avoiding cross-commentary which could be confusing. Let me know if you spot anything I miss. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • preliminary assessment: this is still a good article: It took me a while to read through every sentence and make minor tweaks wherever necessary. See edit history of the article. I can say that as a non-diver I understood everything, and learned interesting info. The coverage is comprehensive, though as a casual reader I do think some lists can be further summarized, and then moved to child articles. Overall, I think this is a good article. I thus checked most of the criteria checklist items. Fred Hsu (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While revising every sentence, I cross-checked with relevant wiki articles. Often I wikilinked to them. By doing this I can confirm the accuracy of info in this article. I found usable archived PDF files for key references, and spot-checked a some of them. I can't always look into other book references. But from my long revision of the entire article, I am fairly confident about verification aspects. So I checked those assessment items. Fred Hsu (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I left only two items unchanged in neural for now: the "without unnecessary detail" one, and the "image copyright" one - the "detail" one because I do think some lists can be summarized, but I do think the current state is more than good enough for good article, and the "copyright" one because I haven't looked at images yet. Cheers. Fred Hsu (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyrights:
    File:USMC-100608-M-3740P-5234.jpg: this image is lacking an author, but it probably will never get one. I am not familiar with how "Slick-o-bot" works, but it seems that the image is perfectly fine, being auto-published from USDOD. Just a note. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am going to close this re-assessment. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article, especially in the "Aftermath" section. The "In history" and "In literature" sections are quite short and should be reformatted or developed more thoroughly. Z1720 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All uncited statements fixed. Maybe Jackyd101 wants to come back and take a look? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citation concerns resolved. While the literature section is short, if it can't be expanded at this time then it is fine at the current length. No other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rocket League

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has an "update needed" banner at the top, with more information on the article's talk page on what might be missing. It seems like there were features and updates added to the game since the article's GAN which editors feel need to be included in the article. There are also some uncited paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not think the article is really that "outdated". Yes, it is true that the game may have some updates here and there, but they aren't widely covered by our reliable sources. There aren't really significant changes to the overall gameplay formula, and most of the additions seems to be the introduction of new cosmetics/collaboration with other franchises and limited-time modes, both of which should be summarized in one or two sentences (otherwise we fall into WP:CATALOGUE). I honestly do not see anything that is urgently missing. OceanHok (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, and also, covering every single new type of game would be very exhaustive, likely impossible and mostly irrelevant, so could we remove the tag?. Earth605 (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

M-152 (Michigan highway)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The GA criterion 2B does not say that. The criterion only requires that sources be reliable, so unless they are going to advance an argument that they're not reliable, the article meets the requirement. Imzadi 1979 → 07:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: Yeah, I probably got a little trigger-happy after the recent Horse Eye's Back incident. Without saying too much, I should also point out that some of their messes still haven't been fully cleaned up. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ivalice

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Nominator has no further concerns about the article, so I'll consider this as effectively withdrawn. Gommeh 📖/🎮 01:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements. Some might be covered by MOS:PLOT, but others definately need citations. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know the exact timeframe for GARs, but I'm willing to take a stab at saving the article. I've done work on other games within the Ivalice world, so I should be able to pull something together that's less of a mess. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ProtoDrake: GARs will remain open as long as editors are working on the article. They stay open for a minimum of a month before delisted (although remain open for longer if work is continuing) or can be closed earlier if there is a consensus to keep the GA listing. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I've done some tidying, condensing and restructuring. The Reception's still the awkward one, but that should be doable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 I've done my best with the article, having done extensive source hunting. I think the article's about as good as it's going to get without some more specialized research. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: Thank you for your improvements to the article. Wegotthiscovered.com (currently ref 2) is flagged as an unreliable source. It is used twice in the article, so it might need to be replaced with another source. That is my only sourcing concern, and it seems like everything else is sourced in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Removed. And since it was the only bit confirming one part of the information, I've cut that too. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kolkata Metro

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Although instability in itself isn't a reason to delist, it doesn't help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I'm a delist from a look through the article. There are numerous spelling and grammar errors and straight up not very good writing (the fare section is a mess to read and needs to be reorganized, the "issues" section really doesn't seem to be justified at all, and there's a completely empty rolling stock section). This is in addition to the numerous paragraphs and entire sections lacking citations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720, thanks for the ping. The GA promotion was from a while ago (nearly 5 years to the day, as I write this). Since then, this article has undergone drastic changes - unfortunately, not all for the better. In addition to the issues mentioned above by TAOT, there are other issues I see:
  • Currently, the Network section lists the Yellow Line as one of the four operational lines, even though it's technically not yet operational. The four currently-operating lines are already listed.
  • Some text in the article (like the number of stations, and some of the names of the lines) is bolded in violation of MOS:BOLD.
  • This article unnecessarily capitalizes certain things like a Tunnel boring machine hit an Aquifer at Bowbazar. This wasn't the case when I originally reviewed the article, by the way; the inconsistent formatting and capitalization is more of a recent development.
  • The "Proposed expansions" section is from 2012. Since then, some of these expansions have been constructed, but it isn't clear which ones; this section is currently presented in present tense.
Unfortunately, I also have to !vote delist. However, I do hope @ArnabSaha will come back to remedy these issues, or that someone else will fix them in his place (as ArnabSaha hasn't edited for nearly 7 months now). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If folks aren't around, I could theoretically take a look over the weekend even though this isn't necessarily my area of expertise. Sohom (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, I can also work on it – though I am not sure what turn-around does a reassessment expect. For instance, if it's to be fixed in next 7 days, then it's unlikely that I'll be able to address everything in that span. Let me know! — WeWake (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeWake and @Sohom Datta, that would be appreciated. I didn't initiate the GAR, but from past experience, a GAR can be kept open for as long as someone is actively working on it, even it takes a few months. Epicgenius (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this article isn't very well-written. It looks like the nominator hasn't been online in a minute, either. Delist. OmegaAOL (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Protection of the article has resolved the edit-warring concern. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has numerous issues with uncited statements. Instances of overlinking are also present (the word green is wikilinked!) No improvements or commitments to improve the article have been forthcoming since I left a talk page message on July 27. Significant work would be needed to rescue this article from a delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings Just to let you know, I've removed the "media appearances" and the train numbers given that the sources didn't even support it. I've also removed some of the overlinking. Anyways, I think it needs to be delisted. An insurmountable of work needs to be done before it can aptly be GA. Icepinner 16:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Icepinner, and for Trainsandotherthings for bringing the issues with this article up. Will work on it and see if I can get it back up to GA status, so kindly give me some time. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 04:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may also work on it, though perhaps not to the same extent as actuall. This would also depend on how much time I have. Icepinner 05:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks substantially cleaned up, though I am not particularly satisfied in how some notable and sourced details were removed in a rush to rescue this. Obviously the article has been a victim of trivia stuffing by enthusiasts over the years. While I still have access to certain databases to locate sources, are there any particular lines that needs addressing? - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the edits were quite rushed, and have expanded on other aspects of the article to remedy this. I have also attempted to add back some other statements, although most of it is WP:FANCRUFT/WP:OR by rail enthusiasts and I couldn't find sources for them. Does it look better now? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 03:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned it up quite a bit. Which ones are still not sourced? - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: Could you kindly take a second look at the article to see if there are still any issues? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has definitely been significantly improved since it was nominated. Sourcing and overlinking issues have been addressed and the excess railfan trivia has also been pared back and properly sourced. I'm still catching issues, however. For instance, "As of 18 August 2025, 46 of them have been scrapped or preserved, 9 trains are laid up awaiting scrapping, and only 11 trains remain in service." is sourced to a news article from June 2025 which couldn't possibly support a claim from two days ago. This is clearly an example of enthusiasts engaging in original research because they are unwilling to wait for reliable sources to confirm this information. Similarly, "106 R151 trains would subsequently replace all 66 C151 trains along with the 19 C651 and 21 C751B trains from 2023 onwards, while the C151 trains would be decommissioned." is supported by a source from 2018 which again couldn't possibly support a claim from 2023 (and misuses the word "would").
    I admittedly didn't check much for text-source integrity due to the more blatant problems initially present. Considering I found these in less than 5 minutes of checking, I'm concerned about the state of the entire article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing these out, I have removed all the unreferenced mentions of specific names of C151s. Other editors have also helped in removing all the specific number of trains that violated WP:OR. I hope this resolves the issues that you have pointed out. Would it be better to give this article some page protection in the long run to solve these unreferenced additions by rail enthusiasts? – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 12:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with actuall on the protection proposal. This has been an issue for a long time. I know that they intend their contributions to be helpful but without prior reading of Wikipedia's policies, this leads to situations like this. Something similar could very well easily happen to North East MRT line or another FA. Icepinner 00:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming any further instances of failed verification for recent events have been addressed, I'd be ok with a retain for this assessment. The ongoing IP editors edit warring to add in unsourced information remains a problem, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New World Order conspiracy theory

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited text. Some sources that are full length books are cited upwards of 20 times with no pages specified. Many other maintenance tags as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erromintxela language

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who originally took it to GA. I understand the reqs have changed but since there aren't are sources beyond what's on the page, and since I don't have much time, the best thing is probably to remove the GA tag. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

King of Pop (album)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Lots of MOS:OVERSECTION. Discogs (an unreliable source) is used several times and should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Black Holes and Revelations

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and most of the "Tour" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done some work here and there over the years, so it's in better shape than I found it, but it still isn't GA-worthy. The uncited and lengthy tour section alone undoes that. There are also uncited statements in other sections and the critical reception section is not as rich as it should be. This was a widely reviewed album and the article doesn't reflect the depth of coverage in reliable sources. Popcornfud (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Popcornfud: I just removed a seemingly unrelated citation that you added in 2021. I assume this was a copy-paste error - do you happen to remember what citation was supposed to go there? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's pretty nuts. I have no idea whatsoever what that book I cited was! As you say, I can only guess it was a copy-paste error - perhaps I was working on multiple Wikipedia articles at the same and moved the wrong thing across somewhere. Thanks for catching and removing it. Popcornfud (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your question: I think it's very unlikely I would have found a citation to go there instead at the time. The statement as it stood in the article would be difficult to source and I would attempt to rewrite the information to match available sources instead. Popcornfud (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good album. I would normally be interested in fixing something like this but my hands are tied elsewhere at the moment. In fact, I'm not even sure that based on today's standards this article ever had enough depth to be a GA to begin with. mftp dan oops 04:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hero (Mariah Carey song)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" since Oct 2021. Z1720 (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Synth concerns expressed in an article tag. Z1720 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

173rd Airborne Brigade

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No improvements. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there is heavy use of non-RS Global Security. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looked to me like a lot of the GS stuff is either sandwiched between reasonable RS or could be replaced easily with RS (for the Vietnam-era bits just about anything by Shelby Stanton would work). I only saw a couple of uncited paragraphs in my quick look, but at least one of them (in the section on Dak To) probably was sourced from Murphy's book which is used extensively in the rest of the section. Intothatdarkness 12:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Astronomy

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This level-2 WP:Vital article was promoted back in 2006. It has since been through GAR in 2010 and 2023. The main issue in the latter was uncited material. Since then, the article has yet again accumulated a number of maintenance tags related to uncited material, and as such does not meet the WP:Good article criteria (in particular, 2b). Pinging editors involved in the previous GAR and some additional major contributors: @AirshipJungleman29, Onegreatjoke, XOR'easter, Iazyges, Vsmith, and Materialscientist:. TompaDompa (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added some refs, removed some uncited material, and done a little copy-editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The physical cosmology section had quite a few dubious bits which I worked on. I hope others will take a pass at other sections. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up several sections for you. The main issue I've addressed is the presence of descriptions of the findings of astronomy, rather than descriptions of the science itself. An analogy is describing what an animal is rather than saying what zoology is: obviously, we have articles of both kinds, but they're different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton and TompaDompa: are you satisfied with the edits? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a couple of spot-checks and added additional maintenance tags related to sourcing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed those to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. In the meantime, I have continued spot-checking a bit. I have found a number of additional issues and tagged them accordingly. I suspect that further spotchecking would reveal even more issues. If this were at WP:GAN rather than WP:GAR, I would at this point have probably gone for a WP:QUICKFAIL on the grounds of serious WP:Text–source integrity issues. This article has turned out to be in a much worse state than was apparent at the surface level. TompaDompa (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please tag the article and post when you feel that your review is complete. Multiple cycles of "all fixed" followed by "here's more" is discouraging. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I've removed the unneeded accretions, added several refs, and tagged "citation needed" for the useful bits. There are some "page needed" tags also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way of avoiding a WP:FIXLOOP, and probably the easiest way when there are only a handful of discrete issues. Another way, considering that this particular article pretty much needs to be rewritten to deal with the widespread issues, is to wait until the article has been rewritten before checking again. Resolving this much WP:Text–source integrity issues requires determining what needs to be sourced better and what can be removed entirely, which means that the overall WP:WEIGHT of the article is highly likely to shift. Adding sources to material that was originally added without any always runs the substantial risk of not reflecting the balance of different aspects in the overall literature on the overarching topic correctly. TompaDompa (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weight has indeed shifted. I've cut, as mentioned above, a large amount of material that concerned findings rather than the astronomical method, and I've restructured quite a bit to make this clear. The remaining text mainly concerns either history or types of astronomy, and those are certainly the correct subject-matter for this article, so I don't think we need worry too much on that front. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have clarified. You are right: a re-review after major changes is useful. The only reason to complain about drip-drip reviews is that once I located and loaded sources it much easier to get several fixes at once. So reviewing and reporting a section at a time is perfectly fine. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have spot-checked a sample of sources, and found serious issues in something like three quarters of my checks. Now this wasn't a random sample but a targeted spot-check where I deemed issues to be likely, so it very well may be non-representative, but it is still enough for me to say that fixing issues identified via spot-check is highly unlikely to be sufficient to bring this up to snuff. I believe this article needs to be overhauled basically from the ground up to ensure that there are no WP:Text–source integrity issues. Now I can always keep doing spot-checks for straightforward verification and WP:Close paraphrasing issues (as long as I'm able to access the sources, at least), but when it comes to the more subject-specific things (e.g. whether the sources used are appropriate for the material they support, ensuring that everything that should be covered in the article is covered, avoiding overemphasizing WP:Minor aspects, and so on), that's where more familiarity with the topic and sources is required. TompaDompa (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, I've overhauled the text, removing a large amount of off-topic description, including many "minor aspects", and restructuring; and I've asked Johnjbarton to check he's happy with that in terms of the science. He and I have added or replaced numerous references. We are thus doing quite a root-and-branch reform of the article: it's still in progress.
BTW You just found that Forbes 1909 had gone missing, flagging up multiple maintenance issues: I've reinstated it, and checked and documented each individual ref to it. That was a single small error (probably mine some while back), now fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I suppose I'll check back later. Forbes 1909 appears to be available at the Internet Archive with proper pagination (but different ones depending on the edition), by the way. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through the whole article, sorted all the citations you flagged and checked many others. The text is far tighter (and shorter). I've removed one or two images either for reasons of space or of relevance to their sections, and added one or two new ones. The remaining statements, which cover all the major areas of the science, will be seen as broad and obvious by astronomers; they are well attested by the sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjbarton - I've done all but 7 or so of the citations needed; if you can fix those and satisfy yourself that the reworked article, minus a lot of off-topic text, covers what it should, that'd be very useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completed a pass through the entire article with special attention to the History. That section still has too much early and not enough later history, but adequate for GA. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brett Hull

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements in the "Detroit Red Wings (2001–04)" and the "In other media" sections. Z1720 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 May this hopefully be the fastest reassessment. The two sections have been cited. Conyo14 (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Invasion of the Bane

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Procedural delisting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR. Article was redirected into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials per this discussion. Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Invasion of Isle de France

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including a paragraph in the "Background" section and citation needed templates from June 2020. Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph in the "Background" section had been moved from the lead; I moved it back as it was completely redundant to the paragraphs below. Citation needed templates fixed (one actually needed a citation and one was left unreferenced from a paragraph break). 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manor Hall, Bristol

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are primary sources to the university: the article needs to use more secondary sources to verify information. There are lots of uncited statements in the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This building seems to have a surprising lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. I guess that's why this article cites literally none. The following sources mention it not at all or only in passing:
  • The 2011 version of the "Pevsner Architectural Guide – Somerset: North and Bristol" does not mention it at all. For context this is an almost 900 page long dense book on buildings in Bristol
  • It is mentioned once in passing in the 2004 version of "Pevsner Architectural Guide – Bristol"
  • "T. H. B. Burrough, Bristol" mentions it only as one of the buildings George Oatley designed
  • Not mentioned in "Bristol: City on the Edge"
  • "A university for Bristol: an informal history in text and pictures" mentions it a few times in passing as one of the halls or residence
I was not able to access "Sir George Oatley: Architect of Bristol", which may have contain significant coverage. The most detailed sourcing I can find is the National Heritage England entry, where it is listed as a Grade II listed building. This may mean it's notable per WP:GEOFEAT, but it's hard to interpret that guideline (see this discussion). I'm curious what you make of that, and what you think of "The Manor Hall Association" as a source? It contains only university alumni, but it could be seen as an association outside of the university? The other potential source mine is the British Newspaper Archive: this search gives over 1000 results which would need to be sifted through for non-trivial mentions (it seems almost everything hit is about some event happening there). Unfortunately I don't have access to that site though, as it's not available through the Wikipedia Library anymore. IAWW (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @It is a wonderful world: Thanks for commenting. I dislike having notability discussions on GAR pages, as I think WP:AfD is a more appropriate place to discuss that. Primary sources can be used in good articles and are sometimes the only places where information has been published. However, WP:RSPRIMARY states "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". If the majority of the article is cited to primary sources, my opinion is that the article does not meet the GA criteria.
  • I don't think "The Manor Hall Association" is a secondary source, as university alumni have a clear conflict of interest with the school's reputation. I don't know if they are connected to the university, but I would only use them if a secondary source was not available.
  • I also do not have access to the British Newspaper Archive. Newspaper Archive might have some sources, as well as some other databases accessed through WP:LIBRARY or your local library system. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Z1720, I agree with all you said. I reached out to a fellow editor in the hopes they may be able to help with the British Newspaper Archive sifting. IAWW (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noswall59 kindly looked through the British Newspaper Archive results and found no significant coverage. I will probably bring this to AfD at some point but for now I vote delist as I can't find any available sourcing to bring this up to GA standards. IAWW (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pullman Square

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. No significant edits since the GAR was opened, and no indication that editor(s) would address concerns outlined in the initial statement. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2018, Esw01407alt (talk · contribs) re-assessed the article as "C" class when adding the {{WikiProject Shopping Centers}} template to the talk page, as seen here. When I asked them, they felt the article was no longer GA-class and was out of date. I pointed them to GAR and this was not followed up on.

  • None of the Herald-Dispatch sources have page numbers or access dates. While I did find an archive of the Herald-Dispatch, it's (as usual) paywalled, meaning I can't verify the accuracy of any sources. The formatting of the citations is also massively inconsistent.
  • No notable updates since 2019 on the condition of the mall. Was it affected by the pandemic?
  • Issues with WP:COATRACK, naming random businesses that existed prior to the mall and their condition after the fact.
  • Until very recently, the article didn't even have an infobox. I would think this would be expected of a shopping center to use {{infobox shopping mall}}, in the same way I would be surprised if a GA-class musician article didn't have {{infobox musical artist}} or at least {{infobox person}}.

Previous GAR was in 2009 during sweeps, was done solely on the talk page, and barely skimmed the surface of any possible issues with the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Esw01407:. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:27, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in participating, thanks. Esw01407 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Test Track

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. Consensus is to delist due to unsourced text, including entire sections, and a lack of critical commentary on the subject. No recent significant edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several sections of the article are missing citations. Joeykai (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeykai, I noticed you put [citation needed] tags after literally every sentence without a direct citation even if that sentence was cited at the end of the paragraph. Please don't do that, because it makes it much harder to determine which passages are actually uncited. This also goes against WP:REPCITE, which recommends using a citation once at the end of a passage, if multiple consecutive sentences are backed up by that source.
For example, the sentence "In August 1998, Disney announced that the opening of Test Track would be delayed once again" is tagged as unsourced even though there is a source for this (number [16]) that covers the three sentences before it. Since you tagged the entire article like this, making it unreadable, I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert all of these tags for now. You can re-tag the sentences that are actually unsourced, not just backed up by a reference further on in the paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I recommend delisting this article as a GA at this time. There is a lot of info about the ride description that is unsourced or unsourceable (essentially being original research). More to the point, however, it's missing any kind of commentary about critical reception or ridership, as would be expected of many major amusement rides (let alone this one), so I cannot say in good faith that this topic is covered broadly. I can probably work on that later, but can't make any promises. Epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion from a random Wikipedian related to the GA Reassessment: Archiving all the Newspapers.com clippings used as sources, and then including their archive links within their citations. That was a recommendation given to me when editing another article for GA status. (Actually, you'll want to archive every source.) Good luck with this article, and great work so far :) Afddiary (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Survival horror

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article peters off after the 2005 as an overview of the genre. The later parts of the article just list various new and popular games that are not really reflective of the genre in their sources (i.e: The Last of Us states it has "survival horror" elements, but does not elaborate. The article it cites does not even state this). It basically makes the last 15 years of the gerne vague and becomes a list of "Game: brief plot summary" instead of how it contributed to the genre or how the genre did or did not change. There are decent amount of unsourced statements, statements that are not backed up by their source, that make the article fail WP:GACR6 on it being Verifiable and broad in its coverage and not containing original research Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From The Last of Us down, the article is kind of a mess. But I think it's salvageable. There's some things mentioned there like asymmetrical horror games, FNF, and the RE remakes, that were landmarks in genre evolution. I don't think anything is really "missing". TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: Are you interested in resolving these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No TarkusABtalk/contrib 16:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

German invasion of the Netherlands

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a discussion on the article's talk page with @MWAK:, I am bringing this article to GAR to get more perspectives on if this article meets the GA criteria. My observations are:

  • There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, and
  • The article, at over 14,000 words, is WP:TOOBIG: information can be spun out with more detailed information moved to the spun out articles, and summary style deployed to various sections more effectively. This point has been the focus of discussion in the talk page notice.

The article also relies upon two sources: "Amersfoort, Herman" and "De Jong, Louis". I am not sure if this is covered in the GA criteria, as I do not think any major aspects of the topic are missing. However, I think if there are other sources that can be used for the article (perhaps already cited in wikilinked articles?) they can be cited in this article. This last point was not raised in my talk page notice, but I would also like perspectives on if this overreliance on two sources should be addressed if this article is to keep its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Delist. Splitting is an awful amount of work. I doubt people will know these standard sources well enough. And it will all be a waste of time, for then I'll take over and grumpily split it myself to safeguard the quality...--MWAK (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anna Wintour

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A significant portion of the article is dedicated to criticism and non-neutral content. The concerns raised at its 2010 FAC regarding the article's tone are still relevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:33, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've folded the essence of the old 'Criticism' and 'Race' chapters into the 'Personal life' chapter, and deleted the rest. The article is 37kbytes shorter and a lot more neutral. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts Thebiguglyalien? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further opinion and will accept whatever's decided. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Matangi

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including the entire "Temples" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look to find refs. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Think it should be fixed now. Thanks. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Narcissus (plant)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hmmm. I wandered over from WikiProject Plants to look at this, and it looks like the 3 issues identified were present when the article originally passed GA. I think I'd rank them in the following order of priority:
  • Uncited paragraphs. Our institutional culture has generally gotten increasing lax about what constitutes a "reasonable challenge" to material and more fascinated by blue clicky numbers, but I editorialize. Fixing these should not be too hard and is useful.
  • Spinning out the "Further reading" section. The original review noted "I'm not sure the system of subheadings in the bibliography is appropriate, but I wouldn't change it yet." Looking over Wikipedia:Further reading, it might be desirable to spin off a separate bibliographic list based on the existing references section (including subheadings), as I think just moving all the uncited materials there would create a somewhat arbitrary and overly-large "Further reading".
  • Article size. This is the real sticking point—spinning off articles and condensing to summary style requires a lot of labor and energy (especially given our communal drift towards "Anything that's not exactly, explicitly stated in a source is vile reprehensible OR!") I think there is some room to argue that Narcissus is a broad and important topic and is inevitably going to be a big article when (G/g)ood; looking at the sections, most of them already have spin-off articles. "Cultivation" and "Uses" are probably the two best targets for further summarization here, but I'm not sure how much improvement we can expect. Choess (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Choess: Regarding article size: If articles like Earth, Philosophy and Beyonce can get to the ~9,000 or less word count, I think this article can also reach for that goal. Most Wikipedia editors are looking for general knowledge and an introduction to the topic: more specific details can go into the spunout articles. A copy edit might also help with summarising the information more effectively and reducing the size of very large sections with more headings or by trimming words: the "Flowers" (under Description), "Bacteria" (under pests), "History" (under "Cultivation"), "Commercial uses" (under "Uses") and "Western culture" (under "Art") are all very large sections that might be good places to start.
There is also some MOS:OVERSECTION in the article with short, one or two sentence sections. Merging these sections together might help reduce the word count. Some OVERSECTIONs include some "Art" level 3 headings, the level 4 headings in "Commercial uses", and some headings under "Reproductive" (fruit, seeds, etc.) I usually recommend a target of 2-4 paragraphs per heading, though this is not a specific rule and there are always cases where shorter or longer sections are necessary. However, anything too long makes it hard for mobile users to navigate the text, and paragraphs that are too short make the article look like a list. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with this critique–I've been fixing individual tagged errors on some other broad-scope plant GAs recently, and they also have that sprawly, OVERSECTIONed feel. I would definitely feel that it was a blocker if the article was brought to FA, but I am not sure whether it warrants delisting as GA. I don't personally have a clear feeling for how stringently the community wants to interpret "unnecessary detail" in 3b. Broadly speaking, condensing and summarizing appropriately is definitely something that takes effort and helps separate good writing from mediocre, and it's not unreasonable to ask people to do that to achieve a hallmark of quality. On the other hand (to be a little less peevish than above), I do think our cultural drift towards increasingly high adhesion to "exactly what the secondary source said" (driven by worst-case scenarios like CTOP) makes this unusually hard to accomplish compared to our other markers of quality, and we ought to consider that when we set our thresholds. YMMV.
Another thing that caught my eye was the big illustrated table in Taxonomy. It's not clear why that particular system was selected, and while it won't change prose size, spinning that off would reduce the visual clutter and scrolling. I'm sure there are opportunities like that for spin-off, but I am not sure how much I will be able to accomplish. Hopefully we can get the primary author and their collection of sources involved. Choess (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is 10 years since the GA promotion, and at that time this was basically a rewrite by myself, so I might be a little biased. Obviously a number of people have "improved" it since, which is inevitable but sometimes destabilises the original concept, but the way Wikipedia is run continues to evolve necessitating some tweaking. At the time of review, one reviewer stated it was well beyond GA! I think there needs to be a very high bar for delisting GAs on important topics. I really can't see anything fatal in the article that would justify its delisting, but of course it can be continually revised to meet changing stylistic guidelines. I have never been too concerned about size in GA provided that there is a good lead and the contents are well organised so readers can read what they want to. Nor do I think it makes sense to insist every source used is explicitly cited in the text, provided the text is actually supported by reliable sources. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 23:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Goodyear: My biggest concern is the uncited text: I would not be able to recommend that this article keeps its GA status until that was resolved. The formatting concerns fall within MOS:LAYOUT, which is required for WP:GA? 1b. The "Further reading" concerns are of less importance, and I'm happy to help if requested. Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, thanks so much for stopping by. I've added some "citation needed" tags, not in the spirit of challenge but just to help keep track of where the uncited text occurs. There are a few cases where we might be best off just dropping the sentence. Choess (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as spin-offs go, we had already added multiple spin-offs. In my experience, "uncited" paragraphs largely occur when somebody splits a cited paragraph leaving sections "uncited" rather than implying text is unsupported. That is a cosmetic issue that is easily addressed. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 00:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bit surprised to find that we didn't cite the number of species from POWO (76 species and 93 named hybrids); I've added it now - MPF (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At GA we went with the World Checklist and spun off species to a separate list. You will note that the current POWO list contains a large number of hybrids, so one could make an argument for two numbers - with and without hybrids. This was originally discussed in the section dealing with historical difficulties in determining the number of species. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that small subsections should be merged. I also agree that the Taxonomy section should be drastically cut given the separate article – the present situation with taxonomy discussed in two places makes maintenance unnecessarily difficult. This is a genus with massive historical, horticultural and cultural significance, which the article reflects. It's always possible to split off some sections into separate articles, but the determining factor should be value to readers, not some arbitrary length limit. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the Taxonomy section should be drastically cut. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have a well-written subsidiary article, the coverage of Taxonomy here should be no longer than (and might be identical to) the lead section of the subsidiary article, with sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Footnote: The spelling in use for new section (or subsection) is Nevadensis rather than Nevadenses - I've made an inquiry to IPNI whether this is in accordance with ICNafp. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IPNI has now corrected sect. Nevadensis to sect. Nevadenses. I have also concluded that references to subsect. Nevadensis are errors for the section. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seventh generation of video game consoles

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 23:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many entries in the table are uncited, especially in the "Release dates", "Included accessories", "Accessories (retail)", "Controller", "System software features", "Online services", "I/O", and "Storage" rows. There is also uncited prose, including entire paragraphs, after the "Comparison" table. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Red-tailed hawk

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: I apologize for blowing past my self-imposed deadline, but real life has been the priority this week. If this were a traditional discussion like an AfD, I would clearly see a no consensus close here. I see two keep and two delist declarations. GAR is a binary, however. The only options available to me are keep or delist. Analyzing the discussion, I see that the chief concerns of length and excessive detail have been addressed, with a major cut in the length of the article. I cannot see any immediate failure of any of the good article criteria. While several editors continue to have concerns with the article, right now I see a weak consensus in favor of a keep bearing in mind the major changes and improvements to the article. If anyone disagrees with this close, please feel free to renominate after a few weeks, and to cite my close here as authorization to do so. There is such a major difference between the article's state at the start of the current review compared to its state now that I believe a fresh GAR is required to review the current version, should editors still believe a delist is merited. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I agree, but I worry that merging them all would overwhelm the main article, and even more so if other relevant details (taxonomic history, etymologies, conservation status and trends, number of breeding paris, photographs, etc.) are to be added for each of them, too. Already now we give a lot of room to the subspecies; making that section even longer might verge on WP:undue. If the subspecies list gets too long, we could maybe create a spin-off article Taxonomy of the red-tailed hawk, where we could have a proper section for each subspecies. This would also allow us to cover potential subspecies and those that are currently not accepted, as well as other taxonomic detail that does not fit the main article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subspecies articles are not part of this GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is minor compared to the other issues, but could someone more familiar with birds take a look at the external links section? At 10 links, it appears to have too many entries if I'm reading WP:EL correctly. I'm questioning why a Flickr group is included and why several of the other links cannot either be incorporated as citations or added as "further reading" instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed a good number of the bullet points in External Links just now. The All About Birds species account is already a reference in the text, the North American Falconers Association is not expressly relevant to red-tailed hawks, and the other four links I removed were guides on how to identify different morphs. Commons and Wikispecies can be accessed through the sidebar more easily than at the bottom of the page. -- Reconrabbit 18:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, the external links section looks a lot better now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been several weeks since there were significant edits to the article. It has also gone from being one of the longest GAs to being just over 3,000 words, which is pretty significant. There were many declarations made concerning a different version of the article, so can interested editors take a look at the current version and give comments on if the article is ready to be declared "keep", or if not what the next steps might be? Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to stick with "delist", per my comment above [6] --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GA does not ask for a perfect article, nor total coverage (both impossible anyway), but for a decent introduction to a large subject, which this is. I've added a bit on migration, restoring the old text to a subsidiary article; and mentions of parasites and its status (commonest hawk in N. America). Longevity is briefly mentioned. Wikipedia is not an identification how-to guide: not totally averse to a brief note on species it can be confused with, but further comparison is basically out of scope. I'm staying with "keep". Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Jens Lallensack - I seem to have taken over most of this by default. I've addressed all the issues you mentioned. Hope it's now ok. If not, say what else is needed, but we must be very close to the most that can be asked of a GA by now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap – Thank you, but unfortunately the issues are deep and the mentioned examples are just scratching the surface. As I said above, I spent an hour myself on this article and the issues were so numerous that I lost faith that it could be brought up to standard without a complete rewrite.
I disagree that distinguishing features are out of scope. This is arguably the most important thing that the average reader wants to have detailed information on (how do I identify this species?). The article cites at least three identification guides – on what basis can we argue that identification is out of scope when it is a major focus of a substantial part of the sources? The lead says that it "can be distinguished from other North American hawks by the eponymous tail", but not even this is mentioned in the body at all. Instead, most of the "Description" section is on size (which is WP:undue in my view). So why are details such as "the exposed culmen was reported to range from 21.7 to 30.2 mm" due weight while details on distinguishing features are not?
I now also looked on sourcing and that just confirmed my earlier impression that a re-write is needed and that point fixes are just not enough. A major source in this article is "Animal Diversity Web". The provided link is dead, but the site is here. From my experience, "Animal Diversity Web" is unreliable; after all, it is an encyclopedia written by students that sometimes cites it sources and sometimes not. But even if we accept this as a reliable source, there are major source-text integrity issues. For example, the last paragraph of "Reproduction" (which has 13 sentences) cites the Animal Diversity Web as the only source, but most of it is not supported by that source, and some of it is contradicting it. Just take the first sentence: A clutch of one to three eggs is laid in March or April, depending upon latitude. – The source says The female lays 1 to 5 eggs around the first week of April, and it doesn't mention the influence of latitude.
I am really not enjoying being the "bad guy" here, and I agree that the new "Migration" section is a very significant improvement (again, thanks for that), but this article is simply not a "Good Article" by our criteria for multiple reasons. The major sourcing issue pointed out above would have been reason enough to quick-fail on sources if this were new at GAN. "Animal Diversity Web" is the only source I checked so far because it is the most easy to access, and my confidence that such issues are absent in the remaining article is not high. I think that we only replaced a bad version of the article with another bad version. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel like that. Wikipedia however is Not a How-To Guide, and "how to identify" is definitely in how-to territory. And, you obviously can't argue from what is in an article what is a proper subject for the article: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'll leave it at that (and fix the dead link); let's see what other folks think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added some bits on identification. The main remaining issue is the text-source integrity, and that an entire long paragraph is mostly not supported by the provided source is not a good sign. Bad sourcing is the most time-intensive issue to fix that an article can have, and I don't even have access to many of those cited books. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked and rewritten the paragraph: most of it was supported, but I've trimmed it to the main facts. ADW is, whatever its authors, based thoroughly on scientific sources and it is not a deprecated source. On the other sources used, your lack of access to them is not germane to GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aa77zz, MPF, Reaper Eternal, Trainsandotherthings, and Reconrabbit: if any of you might venture an opinion on the above dispute, it would be a great help to the best improvement of the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My contribution to this GAR was not that substantial, but I will offer that much of the information that is cited to Animal Diversity Web (ADW) could be readily supplanted by Birds of the World Online, which uses some of the same sources (such as "The Birds of North America"). I see now that this site is used only once, and the more readily accessible but also less informative All About Birds is cited in two places. That's about as much as I can helpfully provide. My opinion on ADW is that it is a fine place to start but should be backed up by or replaced with better sources, such as those it cites, when possible. -- Reconrabbit 13:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a Birds of the World Online subscription, or is it available via the Wiki library? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time for Wikipedia right now, but I will drop by this discussion again by Friday. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lana Del Rey (EP)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After being heavily cut down since it got accepted, this article desperately needs a GAR. The writing feels weird IMO, and the lead certainly not suitable, almost being longer than the body itself and also having information not stated later. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 10:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article was massively cut in this revision, which seems to have a fair point about the background going slightly overboard with detail, but went about addressing it in an overly-aggressive manner. Given that this EP hasn't received much traction since its original release (i.e. little has changed), and that the version before this deletion seems suitable enough for GA status, would reverting the article back to this point be sufficient for bypassing GAR? This is more of a thought, I have little vested interest in this particular article. Leafy46 (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dentsinhere43: I've decided to boldly re-add the section, and gave the article an overall trim. It may not be perfect, but I think that it's of sufficient quality to retain its green badge. What do you think? Leafy46 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited it a bit, and it seems fine for a GA now. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 21:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I've also just re-vamped the 'Music and lyrics' section (after your copyedit), if you want to take a look at that too. Leafy46 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dentsinhere43: Have you concerns been resolved? Z1720 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a re-read and a spotcheck, I think it's fine now. - Dents (talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 08:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ann Dunham

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Lots of short, one-sentence paragraphs added after its GAN promotion that need to be formatted more effectively. Extensive use of block quotes which do not adhere to a summary style and might have copyright concerns. Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I haven't really been involved in this too much since the GAN, but I'm willing to take a look and see if there's anything I can do to help. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Making my way through 16 years of revisions isn't an easy task. Do you know if there's a way to use a WikiBlame-like tool that only shows me major deletions and additions? That's all I need to see really. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I'm not aware of any such tool, other than comparing diffs. Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just realized. The page statistics page basically does this in a compact form. I will start there. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the page statistics tool does all of this and more. Very handy. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: I'm looking through the article now and I see there are some minor issues with what newer sources have reported. I also don't like how the family life section is given precedence over her other achievements. If this was an article about a single father pursuing a career you can guarantee that the article wouldn't be structured this way. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Viriditas: Is there information from sources about her other accomplishments that can be added? I am fine with de-emphasizing her family life in favour of giving more information to her accomplishments. I suspect this happened because she is Obama's mother, so many sources give information in relation to him. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My overarching point is that the article needs a renewed effort at clarification and verification. I was browsing through Scott 2011, which I don't believe is used as a source since it was published years after the GAN. There's been a lot of new information and analysis since that time. For example, the opening line in the early life section says the subject was born at St. Francis Hospital, but this may not be true. It also doesn't mention anything about the Unitarian church they attended in Seattle. Lots of missing details like that. Further, the early life section skips over most of her formative years, which is detailed by Scott 2011. It then segues right into family life and marriages even though Scott 2011 makes it clear that this is not what Ann wanted or wanted to be define by, but I admit it is difficult to structure this otherwise. All I'm saying is that this GAR will need some extra time. My biggest concern is making sure there are no errors. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viriditas: Thanks for the update and the clarification. If editors are willing to work on the article, this GAR will remain open. I went through the "Family life" section and removed off-topic or TMI information. Feel free to revert anything you felt should not have been removed. I fully support expanding the article, and feel free to ping me with questions or if this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I just dived in. I had no idea this article had degraded to such an extent. Dunham's thesis is cited in four different types of citations and dozens of times from those four. It's like whoever was editing just didn't care and did whatever. This is going to take weeks to fix. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viriditas: Are you still interested in working on this article? Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: I made 60 edits to address the problems. If you think more are needed, let me know where. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viriditas: Ref 60 ("Gandhi, Vikram (December 16, 2016),") Should be replaced as it is an IMDB source. Upon a skim I don't see anything else that needs to be addressed. After this is resolved, is this article ready for a full review? Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not. You should just go ahead and fail it if you think it doesn't meet the criteria. It's been ten years and too many editors, and there's no way I can vouch for the article in its current state. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spider-Man in film

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Hog Farm:, taking a shot. Right now I'm collating book sources to verify the early history. Bear with me as I'm busy in my life off Wikipedia, but I'm confident I can improve the article enough to satisfy the GA criteria. DAP 💅 20:06, 11 August 2025

@Hog Farm:, largely finished save for a final touch up of the prose and inline citations. Please let me know what you think. DAP 💅 15:74, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the nominator, but I think you caught all the uncited instances and added necessary refs. However, some of the shortened cites are broken (e.g., there are two Shirrel-related sources published in 2008, so "Shirrel 2008" is confused; "Dunkin & Smith 2013" doesn't seem to point to a source). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, didn't even see that. Should be fixed now. DAP 💅 15:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Personnel section be sourced? Is this even standard in such articles? My first thought was that this could be assumed to be sourced to the movie credits, but there's a bunch of uncredited roles here. These whole tables feel like a potential original research trap. Hog Farm Talk 01:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This structure is indeed conventional for such articles (ie Captain America in film, a fairly recent good article I looked to as a template, and a featured article in Planet of the Apes). With that being said, I don't feel strongly about preserving the status quo and am amenable to any changes suggested if they aren't satisfactory. DAP 💅 04:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be kept Hog Farm Talk 15:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paris

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the talkpage, this is a very extensive article that includes within that extent unsourced text. Even within the apparently sourced text, there are issues, for example the Regional government source does not cover all its text. Other issues include the recent history section entering WP:PROSELINE, other areas having similar dated statements, and the overall article going into MOS:OVERSECTION. The WP:LEAD contains unique information rather than being a summary of the article. The length (>14,000 words) suggests this article does not "stay focused", and contributes to issues such as the unsourced text and the oversectioning. These issues would take significant work to fix. CMD (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was pretty lengthy when I last looked at it, and is now considerably lengthier. I don't mind that too much at GA level (quite another matter at FAC) but unsourced additions are another matter and decidedly a no-no. Tim riley talk 13:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CMD, Tim riley: I have tried to fix WP:PROSELINE and the lead (although it probably should be rewritten); I'll try to fix the other issues soon. The article is probably a bit too long, but not by a lot: Boston (FA) contains just under 10,000 words, while Paris contains just over 14,000. Some of the difference is probably because there are more things to write about (as the capital city of France); I have proposed the "Culture" and "Infrastructure" sections to be split. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Progress for cleanup by section (for my convenience):
Section Progress Comment
Lead  Not done Needs to be rewritten.
Etymology  Done Can't see any citation problem (if there is please tag it).
History  Not done Q few claims need citation, some claims probably need to be moved to History of Paris, a claim needs to be clarified.
Geography  Done Sourced and enough coverage.
Administration  Not done A paragraph without cite, there are probably more claims without reference.
Cityscape  Not done Several claims without cite.
Demographics question mark Maybe done It appears well sourced but haven't thoroughly checked yet.
Economics
Education
Culture  Not done Probably needs split and actually needs to address the culture of the city.
Sport  Mostly done Spin-off from the culture section, mostly sourced but the Rugby League part may need some more.
Infrastructure  Not done Probably needs a split, and if not OVERSECTION needs to be addressed. Also there are some claims without sources.
International relations  Not done Needs some sources and cleanup, but not an overhaul.
Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brick Community Stadium

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: There has been no improvement activity and no objections raised or commitments made to improve the article since this reassessment was opened on August 9. Therefore, I am closing this reassessment with a consensus to delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is quite large. I recommed that level 3 headings be used to break up the text and the later paragraphs be merged together. There is an orange "update needed" banner at the top of "Wigan Warriors R.L.F.C.". There is uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The "Surroundings" section is something I have never seen before in an article, and perhaps should be removed. I also think the "Robin Park Arena" is offtopic and potentially a WP:COATRACK. Z1720 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Consensus is to keep this article at GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entire "Debate" section is uncited, which includes block quotes. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the citations. They were there, but just one at the beginning of each section instead of the expected one for each paragraph. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I'm going to close this as a keep, unless there's anything else? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: Citation concerns have been resolved. I'm not thrilled about the use of block quotes, but that won't prevent me from making a delist declaration. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heinrich event

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the considerable uncited text, there is image jamming, which is often an indicator that no one is maintaining the article. Unless someone takes this on, it looks like a delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The massive bulleted list (13 items!) immediately stands out to me as a poor way to present information. There's poor layout and formatting with numerous one or two sentence paragraphs. I agree with all the concerns raised above as well. Therefore, I am a delist unless someone steps up to improve the article soon. This is too far outside of my area of expertise for me to be of any use. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no significant edits to address citation concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alcoholism

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please allow me some time to work on this article and the Asprin one as you’ve opened 3 medical GAR recently and these tend to be quite hard to track down citations for. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 07:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense: GARs tend to stay open as long as editors are working on them. Please provide periodic updates so that editors know that you are still making progress. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IntentionallyDense, do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i do really hope to, there’s about 5 (guessing, i’m not sure) medical GARs open right now and i’m currently dealing with my own medical issues so i’ve come to the conclusion that i won’t have time to improve all of them but i do want to at least work on this one. I will try to remember to pop by and update people in about a week but if i don’t please feel free to tag me as this will be my first priority as soon as i am well enough. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:02, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'm slowly trying to pick away at the unsourced bits of the article and I did attempt to trim the lead but I don't think there is much more I can do there for now. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i've done some more trimming. Thank you! Tom B (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People have added sources, e.g. for that section, so it looks like it's been brought up to standard, Tom B (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Toadspike: Sorry for the delay: I was reviewing another article. Citation concerns are resolved, no other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gloria Steinem

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agree that some sections could use a re-write to better organize instead of a dated list of factoids. There are no "citation needed" maintenance tags so if there are claims that need citations it would be good to identify these. It will be a couple of weeks until I can spend some time with this article. Nnev66 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nnev66: I have added citation needed tags per the above request. Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding these. I will look for citations and have already added a few. I notice there are sometimes details that may not need to be included in the article (too granular) that don't have sourcing. I'm tempted to remove these, e.g. "Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press" and "Frontline Women's Fund" - do you have thoughts about this? On the latter there is a non-independent web site for half of the claim, but I don't think every organization Steinem has been involve with needs to be listed, especially if it doesn't have WP:RS coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29: There's some unreliable sources in the article (tv.com, Zimbio) that should be removed. I would also like to see "Personal life" and "In media" sections fixed up more before doing a copyedit and several sections need more level 3 heading to split up the text. "Selected awards and honors" is too detailed and non-notable awards should probably be removed. Overall, the amount of work needed to fix up the formatting seems more than a simple copyedit that I won't be able to complete, and I wouldn't give a "keep" declaration at this time. @Nnev66: are you interested in addressing some of the above? No worries if not. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can work on these. Removed the tv.com, Zimbio refs. Nnev66 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720 and Nnev66: where does this reassessment stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My citation concerns have been resolved. Formatting concerns remain with too many short, one-sentence paragraphs, especially in the "In media" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the referencing issues was straightforward enough, but I've been a bit paralyzed about combining or removing various one-sentence factoids - it's on my list to clean-up, as well as look for anything more recently that could be worth adding. Nnev66 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nnev66: No concerns with the "In the media" section. I added a citation needed template to the article, and the short one-sentence paragraphs in "Personal life" and "Activism" still need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720 I re-worded and added refs to sentence about Hefner's response to "Bunny's Tale" where you had added citation needed tag (end of 2nd paragraph in "Journalism" section). Also re-organized "Activism" section. Regarding "Personal life", I did a bit of editing. There are a few random details that don't really go together but I think could be left. Removed a bunch of unnecessary references. Nnev66 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I wish the article gave more information about her recent work, I am not convinced that there are sources that will discuss this. If others find them, that information can be added to the article. Citation concerns resolved. No other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clevedon Court

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of botany

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took a look, and noted the following:
    • Engvar: was mixed, but majority UK English. I've done a copyedit to gravitate all the engvar differences I could find to UK English. I may not have found all of them of course. - MPF (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formatting: the page preview gave me 3x "Script warning: One or more {{cite book}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden". I couldn't find the messages (presumably hidden!); they need finding, and dealing with. - MPF (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs format - these are in a format style I'm not familiar with; the one ref I added (for the exact title translation of Mendel's work) needs reformatting to the page style, please! - MPF (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dirk Nowitzki

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited paragraphs. There are also lots of long sections that should be broken up with headings and short one-sentence paragraphs throughout. Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shriya Saran

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, some of which have been tagged with "citation needed" since 2024. The "Career" section stops at 2016, although the "Awards and nominations" section mentions several post-2016 awards she has won, so I think this section needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andy Harries

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography section is unsourced and is also not up-to-date based on his IMDb (which has a different birth date). Sahaib (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Climate of North Carolina

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the "Southern Oscillation" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ngoia Pollard Napaltjarri

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No information about her death in the article body as well as missing information about later aspects of her career. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added body text reference to her death year and an additional reliable source on that. A brief search of available online sources doesn't turn up anything from a non-commercvial gallery source to add to what's in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Quarrymen

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, especially entire paragraphs in the "Reformations: 1994–present" section. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rùm

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cheddar Gorge

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mermaid

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements throughout the article. There is an orange "expansion needed" banner from 2022 at the top of the "Myth interpretations" section. There are a lot of small, one sentence paragraphs, negatively affecting the readability of the article. These should be merged together or removed if the statement is not needed. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the citations point, the article already has over 400 of them plus around 50 entries in the bibliography. If anything, they need weeding out, perhaps seeing if the best sources have material that could be used instead of some of the weaker ones. I don't think that adding more references just to increase the density of citations/refs is a good idea. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Northernhenge: I do not think the GA criteria is concerned with the quality of the sources (as long as they are reliable) or if an article has too many. However, editors are encouraged to remove lower-quality sources if a higher-quality source can be used instead. However, all text in a good article should be sourced (with notable exceptions like the lead) which means the article will need additional inline citations and possibly additional sources. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a worthy thought but it concerns neither GA nor GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marmalade

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. Launchballer 15:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLOP identified at the DYK nom; courtesy ping to @RoySmith and AirshipJungleman29:. Launchballer 22:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had already fixed it. Is there anyone else who can help then? Floating Orb Talk! my edits 22:33, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer and @RoySmith? Floating Orb Talk! my edits 01:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? Is this Good article assessment still on? We don't have any consensus to change anything so I think we can close it now. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 00:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer? Floating Orb Talk! my edits 00:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, there remains close paraphrasing in this. I notice @EEng: removed two of the gnarlier instances but some still remains. For example:
  • "The most sold marmalade is bitter orange with the largest share of 55% of sales, 40% by sweet orange marmalade, and 5% in total for all other marmalades. The quickest-growing type is sweet orange marmalade, because of an increasing consumer preference for milder flavours." is still too close to "Among the different types of orange marmalade, Bitter Orange Marmalade held the largest share at 55%, followed by Sweet Orange Marmalade at 40%. The "Others" sub-segment, which includes mixed fruit marmalade, accounted for 5%. The fastest-growing sub-segment was Sweet Orange Marmalade, driven by increasing consumer preference for milder flavors."
  • "Asia Pacific is the fastest-growing region, from growing customer sales in countries like China and India." is too close to "Asia Pacific emerged as the fastest-growing region, driven by rising consumer demand in countries like China and India."
  • "The narrator mocks the mother and child “that she could taste no greater delight than in making a fillagree basket for a spoilt child”" is too close to "The narrator mocks mother and child as well as the fawning Lucy Steele, whose behavior implies “that she could taste no greater delight than in making a fillagree basket for a spoilt child”".
  • "The marmalade market lies in its versatility, cultural associations, and quality, making it a staple in households and gourmet menus around the world." is too close to "Its appeal lies in its versatility, premium quality, and cultural associations, making it a staple in households and gourmet menus worldwide."
  • I also think the phrases "Robertson's was founded in 1864 by Paisley, Renfrewshire, grocer James Robertson and his wife Marion." and "authorise the use of the term "marmalade" as an alternative for “jam”" could be reworded as well.
One solution to the first is "Most marmalade sold is bitter orange (55%), though the quickest growing type is sweet orange (40%) due to rising demand for milder flavors" (you could probably get away with leaving off "other flavours comprise 5%"); I'll leave you to think of how to deal with the others.--Launchballer 01:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving me the suggestions. I fixed a couple of them here. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 03:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer Floating Orb Talk! my edits 14:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Superficial modification I'm afraid, and only of some of them.--Launchballer 14:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Floating Orb: Please address the above.--Launchballer 15:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 15:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer, I did a little more. Floating Orb Talk! my edits 17:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see @Rollinginhisgrave: removed the section containing most of it. This leaves the third and fifth point, which both seem fine to me now.--Launchballer 14:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

P. G. T. Beauregard

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements, including the first two paragraphs in "Political views after the end of the Civil War" and a block quote in "Louisiana Unification Movement". Z1720 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have only skimmed this but "Political views after the war" grabbed my attention. It could almost be entirely deleted or in the alternative would need to be rewritten. Almost none of the section is about his views. The end of the final unreferenced sentence in the second, long paragraph "had the threat looming of being arrested, exiled, or executed by the Federal Government for having joined the Confederacy" is utter nonsense. No soldier who accepted the parole at the end of the war and took the oath of allegiance was under threat of punishment, much less execution, or had any looming threat of execution or any other serious punishment. True that Robert E. Lee was under threat and some action was started against him. However, Grant, the most popular man in the country, said he would resign if action were taken against Lee since Grant had paroled the entire Army of Northern Virginia, including Lee, who took the oath (although he waited until October 1865 to do so). That put an end to any notion of prosecuting Lee and presumably any other soldier in the same position. Even Jefferson Davis himself, after spending two years in prison, was released even though he never took the oath of allegiance. So, for me, that brings into question, not just the sourcing and relevance of the section, but even whether it is totally accurate.
I think that sentences in "Legacy" that cannot be sourced should just be eliminated as superfluous. That has been done in another article recently.
I have eight of the sources listed in the references, including the Williams biography. A few others appear to be available online. As I have time, I likely can provide some citations. There may be obscure additions in the non-military related sections that may be hard to source, but these perhaps could be omitted if so.
I have a busy schedule, in addition to any of my usual coordinator work, over the next three of four weeks, but I think at least some of the needed work may not take much time. I am rather sure this GAR will attract other editors who are interested in the American Civil War and may be able to fix problems sooner. Donner60 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a closer look, it seems that the problems occur after the military career sections. That will eliminate at least some, but probably not all, of the cited sources as useful references for citations. Donner60 (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Donner, please let me know if there's something you're struggling to source. I don't have a whole lot of time for a sustained project right now, but I do have the ability to make a library run now and then. Hog Farm Talk 02:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donner60 and Hog Farm: Are you still interested in fixing up this article? It seems like edits have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is still fixable. The main uncited content left is in the section about post-war political views; the sentence about him risking execution is dubious and I have removed it, along with a trivial unsourced statement about a movie from the legacy section. The other uncited text in that section is largely generic stuff about Reconstruction in Louisiana that shouldn't be overly hard to cite . I've made a gloss of what SCV camps are and have removed the further explanation tag. One source which is used three times is self-published and I have tagged it as so - of the uses two are also matched with citations to Williams and the other is the English translation of the poem. Donner or Z1720 - are there any objections to removing the long block quote poem? I'm not sure if quoting at that length is really warranted. Hog Farm Talk 21:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I'd remove it. It's not immediately evident why it is there, so it is better to remove as this is not wikiquote. Z1720 (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 and Hog Farm: I am still interested in fixing this article. I had to do considerable work in the past few weeks on a rather lengthy presentation about the end of World War II. It was for the 80th anniversary of Japan's formal surrender and I had some interesting items to show as well. I also had to be prepared for questions. I have had a few coordinator tasks and some real life to attend to as well. This week I should have time to see if I can add the needed citations. In fact, I had it up on my screen to refresh my memory on what is needed when I saw your message. I think that there is not much more needed other than citations and a little editing or deleting in later sections. I agree that it is best to remove the block quote. I do want to finish this as quickly as possible so I can work on the Siege of Yorktown article, which I believe is of top importance. It came up later than this one so I had placed in second in line for my attention. Donner60 (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As to the unreliable sources - if it can be confirmed that the pages in Williams also cited for those paragraphs support all that text, then the citations can just be removed. I don't own a copy of the Williams biography but I think I ought to be able to pick up a copy from a library later this week. Hog Farm Talk 23:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Williams biography and should be able to discover whether it includes the uncited material. That's not to say that any additional look would not be helpful - if not much time or trouble needs to be taken to do it. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got a 1955 copy of the Williams biography from the regional university library; the pagination is consistently different by 13 pages so the original author must have been using another edition. The content added from the non-RS source appears to have been added by Aearthrise, who was blocked from the articlespace in 2024 for disruption related to ethnic groups. I have removed what could not be found in Williams. This has resulted in removal of the blockquote and there is less content on this - the previously-existing text had some selective focus, as it did not mention the utter failure of the movement. Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 and Donner60: - I think the whole Views of Race section needs to be closely looked over. I will go ahead and ping Aearthrise to this discussion (previous mention was link but no ping) as I am quite concerned about this content. this edit by that user does not appear to have been accurate, as Infrogmation has pointed out, as noted at Talk:P. G. T. Beauregard#Streetcars, cable cars, and trams. The dubious content about execution was added here by the same user. There are other such things. For instance In the years following the beginning of Reconstruction, Beauregard's opinions changed. Unlike other ex-Confederates, his economic situation improved, and his native home of Louisiana seemed soon to be redeemed from the Reconstruction Period. Beauregard played a prominent vocal role in Louisiana during Reconstruction, and he began writing many letters, gave interviews, and made speeches about almost every issue of that time is cited to Williams p. 266. Comparing the copy I have, stuff lines up to what is on p. 266 except for there's no clear statement about his views changing. There is reference to a public letter in which Beauregard proposed accepting some of the outcomes of the war such as black suffrage, but then p. 267 calls this "completely pragmatic". So I think we'd want a clearer source to make this statement than what is available there. I really think that this section, which was added post-GA promotion, was added largely to promote certain POVs. I think it is worthwhile to note that the user who added that material has since been blocked from the articlespace for pushing POVs and being disruptive regarding ethnic groups, particularly Creole groups, of which Beauregard was a member. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking up the Williams book and noting the extent to which it supported the text. I am glad you highlighted the dubious information and found out more about its placement in the article. I think my approach probably would have just been to see whether or not the wording of the later sections could have been verified from Williams without realizing the background. Donner60 (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this are to take the Views on Race section, summarize down what can be supported in Williams or other RS, and then place a reasonably trimmed version of that content into the existing Post-bellum career section while dividing that other section into subsections. For instance, the Louisiana Unification section is already covered in a lesser degree of detail in the Post-bellum career section; verifiable material can be used to beef up the post-bellum coverage some. I'm not convinced that the current amount of detail regarding the Waukesha meeting, the Lincoln quote, or some of the other stuff. But I'm hesistant to conduct such a major rearranging and trimming without a consensus here to point to. Hog Farm Talk 15:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: The other edition is dated 1995. That is the edition that I have. I checked one citation's page number with the 1995 edition page number and it matches. I agree with your suggestions so I assume that is a consensus. I am confident that @Z1720: also would agree with changes that cut unnecessary or questionable detail or that summarize or reduce the wording of retained information. Donner60 (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - so my plan is to just verify that the information is somewhere reasonbly-located in the 1955 edition of Williams. And then trim/re-arrange as necessary. But with my work schedule it will be the end of the week before I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few changes by moving the "Personal life" information to the "Early life" section and adding citations to Williams. I will stop work on this until after you can work further on this later in the week and only return to it after that if anything remains to be done. I will move over to the Siege of Yorktown article in the interim. Donner60 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that I have found patches of close paraphrasing issues in the Aearthrise content, which is being rewritten or removed by the edits in this GAR, so I don't think that concern will remain after this is cleaned up. One of the worse instances is because he was a Creole Frenchman and seemed different, he was the victim of all kinds of rumors in the article compared to Because he was French and seemed different, he was the victim of all kinds of rumors from Williams. Hog Farm Talk 23:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the planned work on trimming/reducing the post-GA added content. There was definite POV and close-paraphrasing issues in that content, as well as a couple of paragraphs that were almost entirely just quotes from Williams earlier in the article that have been rewritten/reduced. I think this is in much better condition now, but I would prefer to see this GAR held open for at least several more days, as I left edit summaries pointing to this discussion for if the rather sizable removals were objected to. Hog Farm Talk 16:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me but I concur in your suggestion to leave this open for several days to see if anyone wishes to discuss the changes. Donner60 (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Longyearbyen

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements and an "update needed" orange banner at the top of the "History" section. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added missing refs, and updated history with mines' closure and recent geopolitical significance. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 17:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Yet - I'm not convinced that several of the sources in the article are actually RS. icepeople.net (used multiple times), johnnyjet.com, a substack page. This doesn't appear to be an overly pervasive issue, but given that this is the sort of article that tends to accumulate crufty stuff, I'd rather see this looked at a bit closer as regards existing content. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hog Farm:: I added better sources for Longyearbyen laws (instead of johnnyjet.com) and look for more cases of dubious sourcing. Regarding the other two sources you mentioned, I think I can justify substack page, because it's written by Joel Rabinowitz who made contributions to The Guardian, The Liverpool Echo and These Football Times. What would you say are the red flags of "icepeople.net"? It is powered by WordPress, but the article has an RS saying it's a local Longyearbyen newspaper, so it's not a blog. The only issue I see the two articles I checked don't have bylines. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

King Kong (2005 film)

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several uncited statements, especially in the "Accolades" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was gone completely rewrite this article with another user in the future, so this might force my hand. As the article stands, the accolades section should just be moved into its own article with a short paragraph summarizing it here. Apart from that, the article does pass muster for retaining GA status.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iftah Ya Simsim

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including the entire "Ahlan Simsim" section and other entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, the uncited statements were added by other editors since this article's GAN. The rest of the article is well-cited, with notable, high-quality sources. Would it be acceptable if I simply remove all uncited statements? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan: Would removing those sections also remove a major aspect of the topic? If yes, sources should be sought out. If no, then it can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, No I don't think it would. Will go ahead and remove uncited claims now. Thanks and best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, @Z1720. It took longer than I thought, mostly because I can't help being me, but this article has now been cleaned. I was honestly only going to remove the unsourced info, but I couldn't help myself, so I did a quicky copyedit and checked and updated the sources. I think it now fulfills the GA criteria. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prague Spring

[edit]

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including statements tagged with "citation needed" since 2021 and entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_88&oldid=1315048878"