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

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

Before opening a reassessment

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

Opening a reassessment

1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.

Reassessment process

1. Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them.
2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
3. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion.
4. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

Closing a reassessment

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

1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
   • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.

Disputing a reassessment

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

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

• 03:57:17, 05/05/2024: Siege of Szigetvár
  

• 01:11:44, 18/07/2024: Stonyhurst College
  
• 18:11:19, 20/07/2024: Current date for reference

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

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

Result pending

This article contains multiple uncited paragraphs, and a talk page discussion indicates that this article needs to be updated to reflect its current use (or obsolete status). Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Unreferenced sections, orange "updated needed" banners, sections that need updating of recent elections and events, and at over 9000 words it is recommended that the article be split off and information be summarised. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Fails stability criterion due to massive number of edits (and users) playing around with the content over the last 30 days.[1] I have made a check user and sock puppet report, and discussed the issue with the primary editor,[2] but there is no sign of understanding the problem. As the original reviewer for the most recent review (2009), I recommend that the article be delisted because neither its stability, accuracy, or reliability can be guaranteed at this time. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per WP:GAR, "instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article." What is inaccurate or unreliable in the article Viriditas? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the community has been fairly good at reverting bad edits, so the article isn't in as bad shape as it could be. Earwig shows no copyvio, so that's good. The Accolades section shows awards attributed to the "Awards Circuit Community Awards" and "Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards", both of which are unsourced, and which can only be found on IMDb (Internet Movie Database), which is considered generally unreliable. Other than that, recent edits did violate criterion 1, but it's been reverted. The sock farm has not stopped creating accounts and its editing poses a continuing problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This 2010 nomination has 10 citation needed templates, as well as some prose issues (may not be encyclopedic, puffery and peacock words...). Also concerned on the quality of the sources; surely there must be more secondary sources instead of using primary ones, for example, one annual report is used in the entire business overview section. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Many of the sections are only one paragraph long and don't mention any of the storm's impacts. Additionally, there are several systems which are just empty. It's clear that this good article from 2008 doesn't meet the requirements today. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I was pinged, but yes, I agree this season probably doesn't meet GA criteria. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

"Production" section has lots of uncited text, and the "Cultural references" section feels like unrelated, random, uncited facts mostly in one-sentence paragraphs. Some additional sources might be discovered with an Internet search. Z1720 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article contains many uncited sections and a lede that does not summarise all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article contains numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, large block quotes that can be summarised instead, and too many one-sentence paragraphs that do not seem to follow NPOV. Z1720 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article has several uncited sentences, including entire sections, its references contain many deadlinks, and the lede does not summarise all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demote - it is clear from the nomination and the version as of today that there are a significant number of problems and it's not as comprehensively written as, e.g. 2015–16 York City F.C. season which was nominated many years later. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you can't declare "demote" right after the reassessment was nominated 750h+ 12:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Great Raid of 1840/1 which was (IMO appropriately) delisted within about 50 hours of being brought to GAR due to overwhelming consensus. Hog Farm _Talk 01:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article contains a 5-paragraph bloated lede, numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, and short, one sentence paragraphs in a very long "Legacy and honours" section. Z1720 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article has lots of deficiencies. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has seen a flurry of activity since this GAR was opened. Could you provide additional feedback following recent edits? Zsinj^Talk 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to keep working on this article to address the issues raised. Other editors are active and making improvements. I welcome further feedback, review, or support at the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zsinj and Firefangledfeathers: Since reviewer time is limited, please post below when the article fulfils the GA criteria and someone will conduct a more in-depth review. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

There's a few uncited sentences, but the biggest issue is statistics is mainly based on the time of the GA listing in 2013, and many statistics are quite outdated. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This 2007 GA reads extremely poorly, and the information is all over the place. None of it feels comprehensive or comfortable to read at all, not even the lead (which is pitifully short for such an important song). There's also numerous unsourced statements, deviations from what song articles usually have (primary the lack of a background section), and irrelevant appearances in media that read like the bad kind of an WP:INPOPULARCULTURE section. This article should not be GA. λ NegativeMP1 03:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

several unresolved cn tags. ltbdl (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I could get this done. What is your expected timeline? Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@matarisvan: don't have one. maybe 3 months. ltbdl (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that the Ludlum and Gibson quotations in the "Literature" section, as non-free content, probably do not meet the standards in MOS:QUOTE and WP:NFCCEG. I would recommend removing these. The Leung Ping-kwan quotation definately does not meet these standards and I will remove that myself. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Numerous uncited passages (including a section with an orange "citations needed" banner since 2019) and a lede that is too short to summarise all important aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "Benedit Buckeye" section as unsourced and undue detail. If I can get ahold of "The Gettysburg Cyclorama: The Turning Point of the Civil War on Canvas." the rest of this should be doable (it definitely needs further work), if I can't, I'll probably need to let this one go. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I could get this back to GA level. What is your expected timeline? I've done some preliminary work on the 10th CAB article, but currently am on a work trip so can't do anything more on both articles till the 23rd. Is that alright? Matarisvan (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: - I'm in process of this (I should be able to access the necessary book now). Do you have any objections if I try to take care of this myself, since I was involved at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Gettysburg/1 as well? Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections. Looking forward to your rewrite of this article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Many instances of statements which are not supported by the cited references. I marked up a bunch in Special:Diff/1232453072, but this is just a small sampling, and marking them all up would be more like vandalism than anything else. In many cases, entire paragraphs are cited to a single source, which is often just a DOT map showing major road alignments. I also described a bunch more sourcing problems in Special:Diff/1232450469. In short, this was a grossly defective GA review. RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I've fixed most of the issues described in the "citation needed" templates and even added citations in places where they also might have been needed. I feel that now the article is sufficiently sourced and in proper GA territory now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is go through the entire article and verify that every citation really does back up the statement that is supports. Here's a few more from Special:Permalink/1232539652:

• I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36] not supported by the map
• The landscape becomes more rural as I-85 reaches just outside of Lexington ... [37] the cited document does't say anything about the landscape becoming rural.
• I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians and crosses Abbotts Creek ... [38] that's a link to a map that says nothing about a "large forest" or "tree-lined medians".

I really need to emphasize this: don't just fix those three and come back and say, "fixed, it's ready for GA now". The problem is endemic. It's going to be a lot of work to go through and fix this up, but it's encumbant on the author(s) to do that work, not count on reviewers like me to find the problems one by one. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I expressed my opinions in this discussion on the nominator's talk page that this article was not ready for GA before the nomination was picked up. The biggest issues I raised were overreliance on maps for opening dates (when better sources such as Newspapers and DOT reports are available), the lack of information about notable post-construction projects, and formatting. Most of these issues still remain. In addition, I also recently quickfailed the nomination of Interstate 485 for many of the same reasons. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering... have there been any notable post-construction projects? I can't seem to find any online other than the Corridor Improvement Project. Maybe I'm not looking too sharply. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the interchange with I-77 was recently reconstructed in a pretty big project. That would definitely be worth including. While the article does provide a basic overview of the widening projects, I'm not sure it covers all of them. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sourcing problems:

• Because the previous exit is northbound-only, drivers going southbound must use NC 47 to access I-285.[39] I don't see anywhere in the cited source that talks about this.
• Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.[43] the cited map shows nothing approaching the level of detail which would justify making this statement.

Reading the thread noted by Bneu2013 above, I see you wrote: I'm usually more familiar with the I-85 article compared to I-40 since I've gone along I-85 more frequently and am living closer to that corridor. I suspect this is a core part of the problem. You have statement like restaurants, businesses, churches, and car dealerships lining the road.[16] and Businesses, restaurants, parks, and buildings can be seen lining the sides of the highway.[53] both of which are cited to sources which say absolutely nothing about these things. I'm guessing that you are relying on your personal knowledge obtained by driving the route yourself. Am I correct? If so, that is WP:OR and cannot be used. I apologize for my tone, but the requirement to use reliable published sources to establish verifiability is a core policy and it's astonishing to me that this level of non-sourcing got as far as passing a GA review. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, I've driven along I-85, but I usually look at Google Maps when I'm writing the route description for anything. Now I suppose you could consider that as original research. I do apologize for this, however, and Bneu himself has stated that he could find articles from Newspapers.com for it. The only problem is, I ahem... don't have a subscription. So clearly I don't even know what I'm going to do at this point. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you mentioned that you don't have a newspapers.com subscription. Free access to newspapers.com is available via WP:TWL. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. Just got back from a short errand. Where is it on the Library? I can't seem to find it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, never mind, I found it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you still have to have a subscription to view PDFs of pages and clip articles. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Wikipedia Library does let me access the articles for free. You're right about the clipping part, though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread about this at WT:The Wikipedia Library#Can't create clippings on newspapers.com. To be honest, I'm still struggling to figure out the dance you have to go through to generate clippings with the new system. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same. What makes it annoying is the fact that I did indeed log in through the library, but for some bizarre reason, it doesn't let me take the clippings. I have no idea if this is my problem or a problem on the site's end. That's also pretty tedious. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith, do you think the issues have been fixed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. I spot-checked on statement ("Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction") It's still cited to the same useless map, plus the addition of a blog, which not not a WP:RS. Somebody else needs to give this a proper evaluation. RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith @AirshipJungleman29 Now look, I reaaaaallly don't want to use Google Maps for this. But I did talk with Bneu on his talk page and he says that most road editors would agrees that it can be used as a last resort in case I can't find any other source to confirm it. Well, it turns out I indeed can't find the source, and I'm starting to get nervous. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went to the USGS website and everything is there. So now everything should be confirming to its source. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I've also put DeLorme as a source to help confirm everything in there. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoobThreePointOh you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to verify facts against a source. Looking at the Fair Grove Quad, I can see that I-85 crosses Johnsontown Rd. But none of these facts are verifiable:

• I-85 goes under Johnsontown Rd (if anything, it looks the opposite)
• Where mile marker 99 is.
• What direction traffic flows on each section of I-85.
• Which section of I-85 goes over the other when they cross 0.2 miles east of Johnsontown Rd.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to using maps as sources, but you can't just cite them and say whatever feels good. Just like with any other source, you need to carefully read the source and only say what the source says. This is crucial and non-negotiable. I hope whoever does the reassessment review will take the time to carefully check that the sources cited throughout this article do actually support the statements they are supposed to support. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I think at this point I'm going to have to use Google Maps as a source. I can't find anything else, and the official NCDOT maps don't help either. It's a last resort that I can only do since there's no other source to use. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here are my responses for each one of your points.

• I-85 goes under Johnsontown Rd: I've changed under to cross to make it sound more neutral and in place for the source.
• mile marker 99: TBH, I didn't think that this was even needed in the article, since it's almost unnecessary except for exits and major interchanges, so I removed it.
• I've added Google Maps as a source for the last two points you've made. As aforementioned, there's little to no information I can find about the statements online. Based on articles like Interstate 75 in Michigan, which are featured and use Google Maps as a source, I feel that it's a bit adequate to use it in this article as well. Let's hope that someone else who checks over the article says it's perfectly fine to do so.

NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article contains significant copying/close paraphrasing of non-free sources. I've removed some but more substantive rewriting appears warranted. Samples:

• Article: "The Center for Advanced Power Systems is a multidisciplinary research center organized to perform basic and applied research to advance the field of power systems technology. CAPS' emphasis is on application to electric utility, defense, and transportation, as well as, developing an education program to train the next generation of power systems engineers. The research focuses on electric power systems modeling and simulation, power electronics and machines, control systems, thermal management, cyber-security for power systems, high temperature superconductor characterization and electrical insulation research. With support from the U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the U.S. Department of Energy, CAPS has established a unique test and demonstration facility with one of the largest real-time digital power systems simulators along with 5 MW AC and DC test beds for hardware in the loop simulation. The center is supported by a research team composed of researchers, scientists, faculty, engineers, and students, recruited from across the globe, with strong representation from both the academic/research community and industry"
• Source: "The Center for Advanced Power Systems (CAPS) is a multidisciplinary research center organized to perform basic and applied research to advance the field of power systems technology. CAPS emphasis is on application to electric utility, defense, and transportation, as well as developing an education program to train the next generation of power systems engineers. The research focuses on electric power systems modeling and simulation, power electronics and machines, control systems, thermal management, cyber-security for power systems, high temperature superconductor characterization and electrical insulation research. With support from the U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the U.S. Department of Energy, CAPS has established a unique test and demonstration facility with one of the largest real-time digital power systems simulators along with 5 MW AC and DC test beds for hardware in the loop simulation. The center is supported by a research team comprised of dedicated and highly skilled researchers, scientists, faculty, engineers, and students, recruited from across the globe, with strong representation from both the academic/research community and industry."
• Article: "Other marine stations maintained by Florida State University until 1954 included one at Mayport, on the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, which conducted research related to the menhaden and shrimp fisheries and oceanographic problems of the Gulf Stream and the mouth of the St. John's River, and one on Mullet Key at the mouth of Tampa Bay, which studied red tide. "
• Source: "Other marine stations maintained by Florida State University until 1954 included one at Mayport, on the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, which conducted research related to the menhaden and shrimp fisheries and oceanographic problems of the Gulf Stream and the mouth of the St. John's River, and one on Mullet Key at the mouth of Tampa Bay which studied red tide."

The article also contains a number of other cleanup tags that should be addressed once the copying is fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain why you removed this material:

In 1819, the Florida Territory was ceded to the United States by Spain as an element of the Adams–Onís Treaty.^[1] The Territory was conventionally split by the Appalachicola or later the Suwannee rivers into East and West areas.

Since you appear to be from Canada and perhaps unaware (forgive me if this is incorrect), this material brings out important information about how and why the East and West Florida Seminaries came to be (these became the flagship universities of Florida State University and the University of Florida), and why Florida was divided by early leaders. This sentence accurately, referenced, and concisely illustrates the early view of Florida by both Federal and State leaders. Additionally, this historically relevant information is formative in Florida politics generally since higher education in Florida shows how Florida turned from a rough territory into what is now one of the fastest-growing states in the United States. Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am reviewing your changes and am generally fine with your revisions. You are making the article better - thank you! Wikipedia is a time suck, so it will take a while for me to make corrections and continue the review.Sirberus (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I rewrote the CAPS article. Kindly review and advise if more work is required.Sirberus (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I rewrote the marine research article. Kindly advise if more is required. I will wait a few days for your response. If I don't hear from you I will remove the tag you placed and replace the sentence of discussion. Thanks again for improving the article!Sirberus (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately the approach you're taking (in both cases) is not going to address the problem. The original was copied almost directly from an external source. Your revision creates a derivative work of that external content, which still can't be used. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Rewriting_content has some guidance on how to approach this instead. Note also that these are examples only, not a complete list. I've opened a CCI request concerning an editor who worked extensively on this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good, let's hope the other editor can help. What I did was to rewrite the text based on my interpretation of the original. It was not a mere paraphrase, the personality of the original author is gone. I don't see that as derivative, as I relied on my education and experience. However, let's see what results from the skilled editor.

  You seem to have skipped over my first question - can we resolve that small matter? Thank you!Sirberus (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed it because the details of what treaty accomplished this are misplaced in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Florida leaders of that era thought of Florida in east and west terms, resulting from the A-O Treaty. Congressional records show the desire for a "University of Florida" by reserving two townships in east and west Florida in 1836. The 1836 document was signed by Francis Eppes, among others, who later would be the mayor of Tallahassee and the first leader of the West Seminary, which evolved into what is known today as Florida State University, though it was also titled in state law the University of Florida in the post-Civil War period. This link may be a clearer to the origins of West-East Florida. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/florida. I think it makes sense to show why there were two seminaries and how the concept developed. The references to this are already in the history section of the article. Sirberus (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you removed “research university” from the first sentence of the page? This seems inconsistent with the style used on the pages for all other major research universities. TravelsWithCharley (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review (GAR) process - it appears we need to refresh ourselves with the GAR process:

Reassessment process Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

• I have requested help from other editors to protect the process while the GAR is underway. Sirberus (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • The delisting editor (Real4jyy) shows up and says the reason the delisting was made is that no additional edits were made in two weeks...while the two active editors were waiting for a subject matter expert in non-free material to contribute to the review. Pardon me, but I live in the real world, and Wikipedia is a low priority for me and others who want to make Wikipedia better. It may takes months to finish the work. Frankly, the pattern of this individual appears to be to move from one GA review to another and delist whatever falls under their cursor. That is absurd. It takes substantial work to bring an article to GA status. I suggest if any editor want the authority to delist a GA, they should at least bring an article to the GA standard first.Sirberus (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyright violations in articles are a GAN quickfail criterion, Sirberus. You will note that WP:COPYRIGHT, a policy with legal implications, is just as much a part of "the real world" as whatever you consider not "low priority". Sitting around "waiting for a non-free expert to contribute" is not acceptable (I don't know where you got that—Nikkimaria didn't say anything of the sort would happen), and if you truly want to make Wikipedia better you would let the article be delisted and take the months to finish the work yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • AirshipJungleman29, I suspect that was based on my mention of opening a CCI request - that request has now been opened but given the backlog it might take some time for it to be fully actioned. It covers considerable content in this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        I am looking through what SeminoleNation added, but what data specificailly is the problem? If you cannot be more specific, what percentage is of concern? Help me identify and eliminate problem text.Sirberus (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Nikkimaria Just to be clear, I see you are targeting a user's contributions, not this article. Your report to CCI covers many different additions and edits a single user made to perhaps as many as four or more different articles, related in some way to FSU. Let's simplify this to the article at hand - the other edits in other articles are beyond my concern at this time. Help me to identify what is a problem in the main FSU article. Then we can (or I can, your choice) correct the issues and AirshipJungleman29 can weigh in as I appreciate all the work he's done in Wikipedia (sans the snark). Sirberus (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      We should note that Good Article Nomination is not Good Article Reassessment. Once a Good Article, the effort is to preservation. Achieving GA status is not easy as you well know. I will not let it go if I can fix it.Sirberus (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • AirshipJungleman29 I will not sink the GA status of the article for the sake of the two questioned paragraphs. The two paragraphs can be deleted if indeed they are a violation of copyright, which I tend to doubt, absent some verification. And if we refer to GAR process we note that delisting is perhaps the last action to take, with emphasis first on correction and preservation. Out of respect for the process Nikkimaria started I was waiting for input.

      Nikkimaria, how are you determining the two questioned paragraphs are burdened? What process are you using? If I can corroborate that status, I will delete suspect material today. Or, shall we continue to wait? Sirberus (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm not sure what you mean by "burdened" here. I provided above sample comparisons showing copying between the article and external sources, and a link to a page that explains how to address that. I do want to emphasis though that these are samples only, not a comprehensive listing. Essentially at this point someone needs to go through the entire article to eliminate copied and closely paraphrased content, and unfortunately that's not a quick or easy process. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Being burdened means having a problem. Let's start with your first concern - the two paragraphs you identified. Who is to judge when it's not a derivative work? Let's then clear the article by section. Once the initial concern is resolved, we can move to the top (lede) and work down. Sirberus (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        • Again, I'm not sure what answer you're looking for here. Nobody is named as the arbiter - it's just that per Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Rewriting_content rewriting in situ continues rather than resolves the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          I am looking for a process we can agree to follow to achieve consensus. For some items I can approach the university directly and request they authenticate and submit permission for detail which cannot otherwise be included.Sirberus (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If rewriting is to occur, that might be a good opportunity to shift lead-exclusive information into the body and handle the unsourced text scattered here and there. I've removed an odd paragraph stating the university was building generic university facilities and trying to make campus look visually appealing. CMD (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I saw your edit and appreciate the culling. The article has accumulated much chaff over time and it is time to clean it up. Sirberus (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FTR I've now requested a CCI for a second editor involved in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the heads up. But that is not this article. I suspect copying and pasting text from other sources is common across Wikipedia especially among young editors, because it is easy. That's why preservation is important here, it took me a lot of work to collect sources and render referenced information for this work.Sirberus (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I found an online tool to detect plagiarism and tested it. In the last History section you deleted this text:

  By 1854 the City of Tallahassee had established a school for boys called the Florida Institute, with the hope that the State could be induced to take it over as a seminary. In 1856, Tallahassee Mayor Francis W. Eppes again offered the institute's land and building to the legislature. The bill to locate the Seminary in Tallahassee was signed by the Governor on January 1, 1857. On February 7, 1857, the first meeting of the Board of Education of the State Seminary West of the Suwannee River was held, and the institution began offering post-secondary instruction to male students. Francis Eppes served as the Seminary's Board of Education president for eight years.^[2] In 1858 the seminary absorbed the Tallahassee Female Academy, established in 1843, and became coeducational.^[3]

  The tool gives a percentage score to other sources. In the tool, it scores this as 43% matches an FSU source. I can seek permission of the university to use this and other material. But what percentage is acceptable? Can we agree to use this method to clean the work? Are you good with FSU giving permission in a fashion acceptable to Wikipedia?

  This as interesting history which I intend to correct and replace, however it evolves. Especially about the battle streamer earned by the cadets during the Civil War. What are your thoughts?Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  what percentage is acceptable? Unfortunately, there isn't one. Automated tools can be helpful for catching word-for-word copying of freely accessible English-language web sources. But they will frequently flag correctly marked appropriately sized direct quotes or proper names, and miss close paraphrasing or copying of less-accessible sources. This page has more details (focused on one such tool but generally applicable). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In refreshing myself in this area, Wikipedia has many helpful references. I see straightforward ways to cure suspected non-free material in this article.

  * Delete the material.

  * Reference the material.

  * Rewrite the material.

  * Get permission to use the material.

  * Use a combination of the above, especially in the History section, where the material is so old copyrights have expired. Sirberus (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Referencing the material is a solution only where the material is so old copyrights have expired. If all of the affected sources are willing to freely license the content, that might be another. But failing that, the solution is delete and start again (not rewrite from the existing content). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am rewriting some sections of the history. It may be the easiest to deal with due to the age of the material. Fortunately, I have many of the the references on hand.Sirberus (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The recent deletions of suspected non-free material is helpful. Now material may be vetted and added without concern for non-free taint.Sirberus (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nikkimaria are you good now with the non-free tag being removed?Sirberus (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately not at this point - while great progress has been made on one CCI, there's at least one more that impacts this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What user?Sirberus (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was thinking of this one, but even that might not be the end of the story - the piece I removed today was not from either of those two CCIs. I should also note that in doing spotchecks, I'm running into a lot of cases where the citations given are not copied but also don't support the material they are claimed to. I'm not sure whether that's because a different source was used originally (as was the case for at least some of the copying), or whether uncited material was interspersed with cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has picked up a lot of stuff over the years and was written mostly before Wikipedia copyvios were closely followed (before Wikipedia started trying to monetize things?). It has also been edited over time. The entire work should be checked. Back then, citations were manually entered, and citing material properly took a lot of work (remember Kate Turabian’s book? - lol). Today, there is an automated process that simplifies cites. I want to preserve GA status. It will be cleaned up one way or another. Sirberus (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirberus, as this article contains significant uncited material, many WP:GACR-relevant tags such as {{failed verification}}, {{clarification needed}} and {{cleanup gallery}}, not to mention the concerns about non-free material usage, it will be delisted as a GA unless significant improvement is made within the near future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 I have corrected a number of cites and added cites where tags were located. I think the non-free material has been removed, unless other editors think more culling is required. The gallery was a mess and I removed anyone not elected or fired into space at taxpayer expense. What else? Sirberus (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of additional edits, checks and rewrites. I scanned the article for additional copyvios and found none. Removed the Non-Free tag.Sirberus (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What other problems need to be addressed? I'll keep tweaking, but I need objective assistance.Sirberus (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created page for FSU College of Applied Studies - waiting for review. Sirberus (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove a failed verification tag when the paragraph is not verified by the citation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several FV and CN tags after I have addressed the assorted problems, like a page number problem. If you have a concern with the cite itself, please be more specific. What else needs to be done? Thanks for taking the time.Sirberus (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does any other editor have comments on this reassessment? I'd like to wrap this up.Sirberus (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there still seem to be verifiability issues. Couple of quick examples: "Doak Campbell Stadium is a unique venue for collegiate athletics. It is contained within the brick facade walls of University Center, the largest continuous brick structure in the world" - the given source states "Doak Campbell Stadium is the largest continuous brick structure in the United States"; "In 2008, the lower floor reopened as the graduate- and faculty-focused Scholars Commons. In 2010, the main floor was transformed into an undergraduate-focused Learning Commons. The most recent renovation added smart study rooms, an enlarged computer area, new circulation areas, a tutoring center, and the nation's first double-sided Starbucks" is cited to a source that verifies only "the nation's first double-sided Starbucks"; "The NSF denied the appeal, explaining that the superior enthusiasm for and commitment to the project demonstrated by Florida State led to the decision to relocate the lab" is cited to a source that confirms the appeal was denied but doesn't say anything about the NSF reasoning for why. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great - this is what I need. I will correct those issues. Thanks!Sirberus (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done - do you see anything else? I've been cleaning up a lot of the article as I see problems. Sirberus (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does any other editor see anything which is not GA level? I want to wrap this up. Sirberus (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cites added to things which could reasonably be challenged. Graphics added to improve presentation. Grammar and clarity checked fine. Any reasonably cognizable copyvio material has been removed. Old data and references deleted. Excess alumni graphics trimmed to elected officials and astronauts. Any tags placed by other editors have been addressed. Anything else? In my opinion, unless someone has an issue I don't see, GA status should be affirmed. Sirberus (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still failing verification on spotchecks. For example, "In 1992, Holton patented an improved process with an 80% yield" - don't see any of that at the given source. Also missing citations, particularly in the alumni section which seems to be largely unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out exactly where you find problems. The alumni section is of questionable value...Sirberus (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the Holton reference. That's been updated. The alumni section may have to be mostly offloaded to a non-good article page...do you have any suggestions? Sirberus (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking other Good Article major universities I find a similar situation - some aren't verifying all the vast claims allegedly made by their alumni. At least [one doesn't verify anything]. [| This university] has done a good job with alumni referencing. Note how short the section is. But this pattern is also common: [| BYU], [| MIT], [| Syracuse U.], [| U Miami], [| U No. Dakota]...

So what do you consider a problem in a Good Article university alumni/people section? Which way should I go with this? Sirberus (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start, poor-quality prose with missing or incorrect punctuation or clearly uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Let me see if I can make things better with organization and some trimming. Frankly, I'd like to delete this section. The other Good Article-rated universites retain it, but I question the value.Sirberus (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went radical and dumped the ever-growing list. Please take a look and see if this will work. The special pages set up for this list are a far better location to document all these people. Sirberus (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will pause work to see how this rework is received. Sirberus (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments on the "People" section? Any other problems to fix? I think it (People section) looks better, but I am not sure of the final configuration. I'll continue to tweak other aspects of the article, but can we pass this and wrap this up?Sirberus (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments generally? Do we have a Good Article? Sirberus (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again hitting verifiability issues on spotchecks. Examples: "A Mysterious Clarity. It debuted at the 621 Gallery in 2004 (Tallahassee, Florida), and by popular demand, quickly evolved into a traveling show" is cited to a source that confirms this show was at that gallery in 2004 but not that that was a debut or if/why that later became a traveling show; "the ROTC unit at Florida State University is one of four collegiate military units with permission to display a battle streamer" does not appear in the given source at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the battle streamer and one of four ROTC units here's the corroboration in the listed cite: 1861-65 – During the Civil War, formal military training began at the seminary and it was briefly renamed The Florida Military and Collegiate Institute. Cadets from the institute defeated Union forces at the Battle of Natural Bridge on March 6, 1865, and because of this victory, the FSU Army ROTC is one of four in the United States permitted to display a battle streamer. That is clear enough in my opinion. However, here is a more detailed reference from another school (The Citadel) authorized to display battle streamers: As a result of actions on the battlefield by The Battalion of State Cadets, The Citadel earned the right to post nine “institutional” battle streamers for “significant participation in a battle of historical importance.” Only VMI (one “institutional” streamer), Florida State, William & Mary and Univ. of Hawaii Army ROTC units (each with one) have also been authorized that right. The national service academies post the battle streamers of their respective services, but none for “institutional” participation by the cadet corps. I'll add the cite, but it's overkill.

I'll concede the art claim as being weakly supported by the cite and not worth trying to find a better one. I deleted it. I also found a tag which I fixed, about the MoFA.

Anything else? Sirberus (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to work through the references and update old material. Your primary assertion was copyvio material, which is now gone. Do you see any big stuff remaining? Sirberus (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged numerous uncited statements. I also notice excessive MOS:OVERSECTION and MOS:SANDWICHing (although I don't believe the latter is part of the GA criteria). There are many unreliable references in the article—I see Wordpress, Blogspot, and five Facebook citations. I also note that dozens of the citations are to non-independent references, which are obviously substandard compared to independent sources and may compromise WP:NPOV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the references - if needed. Perfect references are not required for a Good Article. I also don't see MOS standards mandated in a Good Article. There are no website standards in the Good Article criteria either, but while desirable, and I'll work towards better presentation and cite quality none of that should stop recertification as a Good Article. Great suggestions, though. Sirberus (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not suggestions... "I also don't see MOS standards mandated" it's literally on the second line! Criterion 1b) states quite clearly that a GA must comply with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT (in which you may find MOS:OVERSECTION), MOS:WTW, MOS:WAF, and MOS:EMBED. Criterion 2b) requires that all information in a GA is cited, and that reliable sources are used. Seriously, did you even bother to read the criteria Sirberus? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I did skip over the MOS part in the criteria, mea culpa. I'll take a look. Sirberus (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 I reworked the lede and checked the style and it was clunky. I reworked it and am open to suggestions about how it may be improved from here. However, this is still a reassessment, which has turned into a major rework. The assorted cites from lesser quality sources are going to have to be selected out carefully. Everything does not rate an article in the WSJ. Show me the ones you consider to be the worst of the lot and I will either delete the statement or replace the cite. Sirberus (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RSP, WP:SPS, and the sources I mentioned above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have the dubious cites removed. Let me know if you catch one I missed. Sirberus (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done? Sirberus (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article now substantially comports with GA standards and should be re-approved for GA status. No, it's not perfect, mainly because the cites for many salient details covered in the article come from FSU news articles. No one has shown me the FSU factual information in their news blasts is misleading or otherwise incorrect, so I say they are fine until a workaround is found for more independent citations. Sirberus (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with basing entire sections on only non-independent sources is that there is no way to tell if the information is WP:UNDUE—because the balance of the article is not based on reliable sources. As it stands, the entirety of the "Campus" section is sourced only to non-independent sources—the article currently does not justify why it is necessary! The {{third-party}} banner I have placed is unquestionably valid, and it would be eligible for quickfailing at a GAN per criterion 3. No, we are very far from done, as the article is very imperfect; every time I look at it I find something wrong, and it would greatly help if you bothered to go look for things to fix yourself. Otherwise, I'll probably just give up and !vote delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Information about later life (everything post-2010) uncited. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe I could get this done. What is your expected timeline for this? Matarisvan (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29, I believe this article is back at GA level. Wdyt, any comments you would like to add? Matarisvan (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thoughts below after a quick scan:

• Any images of Rice? If he was an elected official, there should be a portrait somewhere that can be added.
• Any additional information post-2010 about his life? Has he been involved with anything?
• There is an uncited statement at the end of a paragraph.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, I'm out of town for a week and don't have access to my computer. Is it ok if we wrap this up after I return, let's say on the 22nd or 23rd? Matarisvan (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm fine with that. I might add a more thorough review below so that it can be declared "Keep" sooner. Z1720 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

Numerous uncited passages, bloated lede, reliance on block quotes, and unused sources in the "Further reading" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to trim the lede by at least one paragraph and reincorporate into another section, cut down some of the block quotes and change them into regular prose, and look into some of the works found in the Further Reading section to determine if any of the unsourced claims can be found there. I was able to find a Los Angeles Times reference for one of the unsourced claims and I might be able to assist further with the article. Are you available or willing to clean up the article? If so, can you provide a timeframe? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: I am happy to provide a review after the article is fixed up, but I am not willing to clean up the article myself. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: That's fine. While I might not be able to heavily overhaul the article, I am willing to make various improvements. I have made a couple of changes in the interim, including the addition of references and the elimination of a few block quotes in favor of prose, but I'm hoping that I did not remove any necessary context in doing so.

Could you provide more specific examples on some of your grievances with the article? You mentioned that the lede is too lengthy, but are there any particular paragraphs that are worth trimming or removing? Which ones are absolutely necessary for the article and should be retained? I can address some of these requests once I have additional context, but I will also exercise some discretion when making these changes. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: According to WP:LEADLENGTH, it is suggested that an article of this length should be two to three paragraphs. Typically, the lede is a summary of the most important aspects of the article. I don't have enough knowledge of the prose to know what should be cut from the lede, and I don't have the time or desire to obtain that knowledge. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am unfortunately away from my computer and will not be able to make extensive edits until the end of the month. My apologies for the inconvenience. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This 2009 GA needs sourcing improvements - a good chunk of the article is sourced to Global Security, which is now considered unreliable - see WP:GLOBALSECURITY. Additionally, there is other uncited material in the article, including a couple CN tags. Additionally, if possible, it would be nice to get a little more detailed inforation about the 2017 Atlantic Resolve and 2019 Freedom's Sentinel deployments. Hog Farm _Talk 13:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hog Farm, I would like to work on this article. What is your expected timeline? 10-20 days? Matarisvan (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get it done in less than a month, that would be great. Hog Farm _Talk 13:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This 2008 promotion has 9 citation needed tags, as well as other untagged statements lacking citations. Real4jyy (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will work on this article. What is your expected timeline for this? 10-20 days? Matarisvan (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey, nice to see you're planning to work on this article. I'm not an expert on the period, but I was confused by the following: he came from a peasant family ... The name Iustinianus, which he took later, is indicative of adoption by his uncle Justin. ... His mother was Vigilantia, the sister of Justin. Justin, who was commander of one of the imperial guard units (the Excubitors) before he became emperor. I think it should be clarified - how it was possible that commander of the guard became an emperor? Was there a military coup? Or he was from the previous emperor's family? And were this commander and his nephew really from a peasant family? Artem.G (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Artem.G, I just concluded another GA reassessment and have started working on this one. Give me some time and I will resolve the queries you have. Matarisvan (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided many of the citations, and will continue looking for ones where they are still needed. Chronicler Frank (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This collection of randomly selected texts from several sources (including primary sources) could hardly be described as a coherent article. For instance, section "Legislative activities" contains sentences about elements of his legislation without explaining why they are emphasised, and section "Natural disasters" does not explain their effect on Justinian's reign. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Borsoka, good to see you here! I understand you are quite well read on Crusader and other nobility, so I hope you could help me out here. I have just started working on this article, with my sole edit yet only seeking to improve source formatting. I will work on the issues you have raised and hope I can get them resolved soon. Matarisvan (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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