AirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs) |
|||
(315 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Process of quality control review}} |
|||
{{Redirect3|WP:GAR|For the [[Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Guide to abuse reports|guide to abuse reports]] use [[WP:GTAR]]}} |
|||
{{PP|small=yes}}{{Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header}} |
|||
{| class="messagebox standard" style = "background-color:#ffe3e3; text-align: center" |
|||
<div style="padding:0em 0em 1em 0em">''[[#Articles needing possible reassessment|'''↓ Skip to table of contents and archives ↓''']]''</div> |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines}}<!--Full text of nearly entire page--> |
|||
|} |
|||
<!--{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/backlog}} |
|||
<!--Whether there is a backlog or not, the oldest GAR nominations stay listed on the WikiProjectGATasks template, and so the list needs to be kept up-to-date. When there is no backlog, the backlog template (placed just above this comment) can be moved inside this comment by adding "begin comment" mark-up immediately before the template. When there is a backlog, the begin comment mark-up can be removed. --> |
|||
[[Category:WikiProject Good articles|Good article reassessment]] |
|||
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines}} |
|||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
==Articles needing possible reassessment== |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/notices given}} |
|||
{{see also|Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023}} |
|||
The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{tl|GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page. |
|||
{{User:AnomieBOT/C/Good articles in need of review}} |
|||
*{{#time:H:i:s, d/m/Y}}: Current date for reference |
|||
The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a [[WP:FAC|featured article candidate]], please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. |
|||
==Articles needing reassessment (add new articles above the top article in the list)== |
|||
{{-}} |
|||
:'''Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to [[WP:GAR]] for reassessment and possible delisting of its [[WP:GA|Good article]] status. Include <nowiki>[[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]]</nowiki> in the section heading.''' |
|||
<!-- |
|||
Add new articles below this comment using {{subst:GAR|Article=ARTICLE.NAME|Reason=RATIONALE ~~~~}}. |
|||
But do not even think about adding a new article below this line until you have added a notice on the relevant article's talk page. See text above. |
|||
Discussions are archived once consensus, or lack there of, has been reached. Once archived, return to the original notice and detail the results with the link to the archive. |
|||
--> |
|||
===[[Finns]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Finns|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Finns|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Finns|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Finns|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Finns|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
==Articles listed for reassessment== |
|||
Too short lead. The "Swedish-speaking Finns" is tagged with <nowiki>{{contradicts}}</nowiki>. [[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- This page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add articles here. To list articles here, add {{subst:GAR}} to a new section on the article talk page and follow the link this generates to create an article reassessment page. Discussions are archived once consensus, or lack thereof, has been reached.--> |
|||
{{User:AnomieBOT/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment}} |
|||
'''Keep''' I've removed the <nowiki>{{contradicts}}</nowiki> tag, as I fail to see any contradiction here. Also expanded the lead to two paragraphs, as required by the GA guide. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<small>[[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/|Subpages]]{{*}}[[:Category:Good article reassessment nominees]]{{*}}[https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Good_articles.html Good article cleanup listing]</small> |
|||
[[Category:WikiProject Good articles|Good article reassessment]] |
|||
*'''Delist''' Lead still does not comply with WP: LEAD; adding a sentence to serve as a second paragraph does nothing to satisfy the conditions. Major sections (e.g. Etymology, History, Genetics and Theories of the origin of Finns) have no representation. An article this size should have a lead with two or three ''substantial'' paragraphs. Article is poorly written (both in style and grammar), Theories of the origin of Finns section has no references and existing references are not properly formatted. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="black">'''Ɛƚ'''</font><font color="red">'''ƈơƅƅ'''</font><font color="orange">'''ơƚɑ'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 20:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed]] |
|||
*'''Keep''' – the sections you mentioned are now mentioned in the lead section now. The article is not poorly written, although the sentences in the Definition-section are short due to the fact that the article refers to several main articles on specific groups. The contradict-tag was placed by the person who started this reassesment. To my view, there is no contradiction between [[Finns]] and [[Swedish people]]. Such disagreement would, should one exist, not burden this article but the article [[Swedish people]] which suffers badly from the lack of proper references. I added references to the section "Theories of the origin of Finns" which has lacked them. Now, there should not be any unaddressed points. --[[User:MPorciusCato|MPorciusCato]] ([[User talk:MPorciusCato|talk]]) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' - Just to set the record straight; [[User:Vuo]] placed the <nowiki>{{contradicts}}</nowiki> tag, not me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Finns&diff=182101601&oldid=181859353 See this diff]. --[[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm sorry for wrongly blaming you. BTW, are you satisfied with the lead section? --[[User:MPorciusCato|MPorciusCato]] ([[User talk:MPorciusCato|talk]]) 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, the lead looks quite okay now, in my view. --[[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' Article looks fine in its current state, it looks like all problems have been addressed. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 23:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment'''. Lead is indeed fixed, but article ''is'' poorly written per my previous assertion. For example, [[WP:WEASEL|weasel words]] include "In some texts", "there are ... some people who", "used in a few written texts", "A few studies", etc. [[WP:MOS]] violations abound, e.g. use of "Interestingly", [[WP:NOR]], e.g. "is a tricky matter" and that's to say nothing of the prose quality and grammar errors (editors really need to read the [[Comma (punctuation)]] article). [[User:elcobbola|<font color="black">'''Ɛƚ'''</font><font color="red">'''ƈơƅƅ'''</font><font color="orange">'''ơƚɑ'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Edmund the Martyr]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Edmund the Martyr|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Edmund the Martyr|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Edmund the Martyr|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Edmund the Martyr|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Edmund the Martyr|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
This article has had its status reviewed once previously. I have listed it here again as [[User:EdChampion]] unilaterally delisted it, despite being a major contributor, he also did not make his specifc concerns with GA status clear. I think he believes that it fails criterion 4, as he holds the view that Edmund is still a Patron of England, a view which has not acheived consensus (as a subsidiary of this, criteria 2 and 3 would also be called into doubt). In my own view, this is primarily a content dispute, and not really a reason for delisting the article at the current time, but since I have restored the status quo ante, I feel there should be at least a procedural listing here. [[User:David Underdown|David Underdown]] ([[User talk:David Underdown|talk]]) 10:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist'''. As [[User:David Underdown]] has mentioned, there is an outstanding dispute that has been on going since August 2007. The article is certainly not stable. One only has to compare the original GA version with the current one to see the vast number of changes that have been made. |
|||
:Other major contributors to the article have already highlighted problems and major changes that the article needs here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edmund_the_Martyr#Moving_forward] and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Edmund_the_Martyr]. |
|||
:The image of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not appropriate while the image of St. Edmund [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/d/d6/20070817131154%21EdmundMartyr.jpg] has been copied from here [http://anglicanhistory.org/dearmer/lives/edmund.jpg] and is a breach of copyright. Hence the article suffers from a lack of appropriate images. |
|||
:The article is poorly written. A couple of examples: the death of St. Edmund is given as 869 yet the article provides the date of 870 of his last battle! The online reference to Edmund’s patronage has not been checked and pandemics has wrongly been cited instead of epidemics. The article states: ''Other accounts state that his father was King Æthelweard'' but when you follow the reference here [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05295a.htm] there is no mention of King Æthelweard. |
|||
:The article has tried to be too clever. It tries to explain the date discrepancies in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. As a result it misinforms the reader. They are left with the impression that all dates are inaccurate in the Chronicle whereas the book referenced only lists 4 years. Similarly, it wrongly attributes the flag in the Radio Suffolk campaign to St. Edmund. |
|||
:The article is certainly not broad in its coverage. It fails to mention the translation of St. Edmunds's body, the building of his cult in England and abroad, miracles attributed to him, etc. As an example, Rev. Mackinlay's Saint Edmund King and Martyr two thirds of his book is given to events after the martyrdom of St. Edmund. There is a mass of information about St. Edmund that is missing from this article. |
|||
:The article fails on all the good article criteria. It needs a complete overhaul. [[User:EdChampion|EdChampion]] ([[User talk:EdChampion|talk]]) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:*On the allegation of copyright violation, see http://anglicanhistory.org/about.html documents hosted on the site are (unless otherwise stated) in the public domain. No such statement exists for the image concerned, so it is reasonable to presume that it is now free of copyright (Dearmer certainly died 1936, it is less easy to verify the date for the illustrator directly). |
|||
:*The dating issue is fully explained in the article. [[User:David Underdown|David Underdown]] ([[User talk:David Underdown|talk]]) 12:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[1920 Palestine riots]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:1920 Palestine riots|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:1920 Palestine riots|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:1920 Palestine riots|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:1920 Palestine riots|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:1920 Palestine riots|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
Reviewed for GA Sweeps. Neutrality is my concern here. My background tells me that something is off about this article, though I'm finding it difficult to put my finger on it. At the very least the lead, aside from being incomplete per [[WP:LEAD]], does not seem to reflect the article and could certainly be reworded to be more neutral than it currently is. It also lacks anything from the second half of the "Aftermath" section, which tries to balance the article a little more. Beyond that, however, I'd like to see what other think about the neutrality. In addition, another significant concern is that a lot of the key points lack citations and the prose gets very choppy at times, especially around the 1-2 sentence paragraphs. Overall, I fell that there are significant concerns, but I want to make sure I'm not being paranoid or holding it to too high standards. Cheers, [[User:Canadian Paul|CP]] 02:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Hi, |
|||
:I didn't collaborate on the redaction of this article (it has long been protected) but I am currently working on the fr version to make a GA/FA. (See : [[:fr:Émeutes de 1920 en Palestine mandataire]] if you understand French). |
|||
:I don't see major non-neutrality issue in the lead. Maybe the wordings could be changed and the casualities added. |
|||
:Most is based on [[Tom Segev]], ''One Palestine, Complete'', which is ''a reference'' on the period. |
|||
:It is true that the article is uncomplete or a little bit misleading but in comparison with its size, it gives all the main information. |
|||
:The main critic I would make are : |
|||
:* the lack of details on the context : 1. the nationalist conflict between Zionists and Arabs - 2. The struggle between Fayçal and French for [[Great Syria]] (ie, Syria and Palestine). The riots were instigated 15 days before [[San Remo conference]] to try to influence allied decisions. |
|||
:* the role of Jabotinsky "defense group" that initiated the creation of Haganah. |
|||
:[[User:Ceedjee|Ceedjee]] ([[User talk:Ceedjee|talk]]) 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Ron Paul]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Ron Paul|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Ron Paul|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Ron Paul|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Ron Paul|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Ron Paul|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
Fails criteria 4 (neutral) and 5 (stable); subject to constant re-editing by worshipful fans and cranky critics, full of trivia, POV pushing and fancruft [[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist'''. There's a lot of POV in this article; in particular, far too many of Paul's statements are taken at face value, which we should never do for a politician. Given how fringe a figure Paul is, there also needs to be a much larger criticism section. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<font color="#11A"><b><tt>*** Crotalus ***</tt></b></font>]] 05:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist''' An article that is the subject of currently evolving subject matter, like an ongoing election, should have been automatically quick-failed to begin with. The other factors are completely irrelevant if the article is going to be significantly altered with the day-to-day changes of a presidential election. You can renominate when it's over. [[User:VanTucky|'''Van<span style="color:#FF4F00">Tucky</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|talk]]</sup> 04:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist''' per VanTucky. -'''[[User:Oreo Priest|<span style="color:green">Oreo Priest</span>]]''' 20:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Tim Tebow]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Tim Tebow|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Tim Tebow|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Tim Tebow|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Tim Tebow|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Tim Tebow|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
Many sections of the article, including specific facts, are completely uncited. "2006" is a strong example of many uncited facts and paragraphs, but there are others as well. Large sections of "Early life" and "2007" suffer from this as well. Smaller parts of "Heisman Trophy" and "Effect on homeschooling movement"There are many [[WP:MoS]] concerns, but the biggest is that "2006," and definitely "2007" read like borderline [[WP:PROSELINE|Proseline]]. "On this date he did this and this date he did that." It's not the definition of proseline, I admit, but whatever it is it breaks up the flow to the point of distraction and does not read well at all. There are more smaller concerns as well, but these are the ones that leading to me to list this article. Cheers, [[User:Canadian Paul|CP]] 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Delist''' Seems kinda spotty in places. It reads like its been cobbled together by 100 different people, and only one of whom knows how to reference. Parts are well done, but those good parts are sliced with a bunch of unreferenced stuff that needs more cohesion and more referencing. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 05:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Delist''' When I saw this pass I thought about bringing it here, but wanted to make sure I would be justified doing so. Anyway, as said above there are definite style problems with the article, especially with the references. They need to be in the same format. Additionally, the 2006 and 2007 season sections should be written more as paragraphs and not as individual sentences, with each being condensed slightly. Finally, the awards section needs to be formatted better. It should be written as prose per [[Wikipedia:Embedded list|the guideline on embedded lists]]. The article is greatly improved from when last I saw it (probably back in November sometime), but I don't think it should have been passed in the state it was listed (a lot of sources were added after it passed) and I still don't feel that it is GA-quality. [[User:Phydend|Phydend]] ([[User talk:Phydend|talk]]) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Robbie Williams]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Robbie Williams|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Robbie Williams|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Robbie Williams|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Robbie Williams|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Robbie Williams|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
It contains many references. [[User:David Pro|David Pro]] ([[User talk:David Pro|talk]]) 12:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comment''' This was a quickfail that was quickfailed because there was a legitimate clean up tag in the article. Which is still there as of this comment. Quickfails (legitimate ones) are not eligible for good article reassessment because there was no assessment done in the first place. Once the issues are fixed, it needs to be renominated. And "fixed" means more than just removing the tag - it means addressing its concern. Cheers, [[User:Canadian Paul|CP]] 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support quick-fail''' Clean-up tag, and all the references need to give proper attribution. [[User:Drewcifer3000|Drewcifer]] ([[User talk:Drewcifer3000|talk]]) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse quick-fail''' The number of references means nothing. What matters is if they are properly used and formatted. An entire section is unreferenced, and most references are plain HTML links, which is NOT proper format at all. The refs need clean up, in the sense that they need full bibliographic details (authors, dates, publishers, accessdates). --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support quick-fail''' WP:GAR is not the proper venue; CP's reasoning that "there was no assessment done in the first place" is absolutely correct. Article has a clean-up banner and was (and is), therefore, eligible for quick-fail. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="black">'''Ɛƚ'''</font><font color="red">'''ƈơƅƅ'''</font><font color="orange">'''ơƚɑ'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 16:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Endorse quick-fail'''. Once cleaned up, the article can be renominated. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*The reviewer made the right call due to clean-up banner and referencing issues. '''Endorse quick-fail.''' [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] ([[User talk:Majoreditor|talk]]) 04:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Covering of the Senne]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Covering of the Senne|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Covering of the Senne|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Covering of the Senne|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Covering of the Senne|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Covering of the Senne|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
While the reviewer left many constructive suggestions which have been implemented, was overly pedantic and insisted on changes which would have been to the detriment of the article. '''[[User:Oreo Priest|<span style="color:green">Oreo Priest</span>]]''' 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment.''' Indeed, per my closing comment, “only minor changes are needed for a successful nomination”. Article remains in violation of <s>[[WP:ENGVAR]]</s> AND [[WP:TRITE]]. Nominator refused to make simplest of changes (e.g. characterized to characterised) or present cooperative alternatives to suggestions. The nonsense assertion that such changes are a "detriment of the article" would be true if, and only if, author is violating [[WP:OWN]]. I’d gladly vote to pass the article once the remaining policy – not pedantic - changes are made. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="black">'''Ɛƚ'''</font><font color="red">'''ƈơƅƅ'''</font><font color="orange">'''ơƚɑ'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Renominate''' at GAN, following a final copy edit. I see no blatant violations of [[WP:TRITE]], although I'll have to re-read the article to be certain. I can't comment on [[WP:ENGVAR]] issues other than to note that Canadian English is acceptable. The article needs minor wordsmithing. Example: ''"Delayed by war and the work being done on the North-South Junction, this was only finished in 1955"'' That's a passive gerundive construction better suited for [[Commentarii de Bello Gallico]]. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] ([[User talk:Majoreditor|talk]]) 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*::Having read Commentarii de Bello Gallico while studying Latin, that comment put a smile on my face. I've fixed the offending sentence. -'''[[User:Oreo Priest|<span style="color:green">Oreo Priest</span>]]''' 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Clarification'''. There's no issue with Canadian English (odd, though, that it’s used in an article about a Belgian public works project with predominately French sources). <s>The issue is consistency. For example, British English would always use “standardi'''s'''e”, American English would always use “standardi'''z'''e” and Canadian English would be allowed to use either. Canadian English, however, must use whichever one it chooses consistently in a given “document”, which is where WP:ENGVAR comes in. This article switches between spelling “systems”, which is where I have issue.</s> WP:TRITE says “Articles should use only necessary words”, which is where self-evident (and thus unnecessary) phrasing such as “was ''only'' finished” and “should ''finally'' be capable” is inappropriate. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="black">'''Ɛƚ'''</font><font color="red">'''ƈơƅƅ'''</font><font color="orange">'''ơƚɑ'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**: Aside: actually, even in England, the [[OED]] favours -ize in words such as "standardize" which are derived by adding the suffix to a noun. Even more incidentally, the term "British English" makes no sense. English is the language spoken in England. The variant of the language spoken in Scotland is called [[Scots language|Scots]]. There is no such thing as "British English". ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**::The semantics argument is unnecessary and inappropriate; phrasing of “British” English is per [[American and British English spelling differences|this article]] and seems less silly than, say, “Queen’s” English and it is still understood what is meant. That aside, the OED is a good point and one of which I had not been aware. Thank you for the articulation. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="black">'''Ɛƚ'''</font><font color="red">'''ƈơƅƅ'''</font><font color="orange">'''ơƚɑ'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**:::You're welcome. As for the double digression, I was being a bit provocative, I admit. The term "Queen's English" is certainly worse, and covers even less of the British Isles than the "English of England" does. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**::::It's unfortunate this discussion had to spill over to here. If you reread [[WP:TRITE]], you'll notice that it says ''This requires not that the writer ... avoid all detail ... but that every word tell'', not to remove adverbs. These words ''do'' tell, which is why I object to their removal. As for WP:OWN, the suggestion is unfair; I have made the vast majority of changes you requested and this is not an issue of control or authorship. -'''[[User:Oreo Priest|<span style="color:green">Oreo Priest</span>]]''' 12:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm glad you made that point. I commonly use the -ize endings everywhere else but when writing for wikipedia;, but apparently we Brits don't/shouldn't spell that way. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(undent) I'm not here. You didn't see me here, and I didn't say or do anything here. But I was surprised to see G-guy say there's no such thing as British English. You'll have to tell that to all my linguistics profs, Guy. Or go to your library for a copy of [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0883-2919 World Englishes]. ;-) I'm not leaving now, because I was never here. '''[[Sam Flagg|I have no home, I am the wind]]'''. [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] ([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]) 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Operation Gibraltar]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Operation Gibraltar|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Operation Gibraltar|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Operation Gibraltar|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Operation Gibraltar|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Operation Gibraltar|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
RATIONALE The Article is not neutral and presents a biased picture of the incident |
|||
*'''Keep''' I see nothing wrong with the article. I fail to see exactly what is non-nuetral/biased about the article. [[User:Drewcifer3000|Drewcifer]] ([[User talk:Drewcifer3000|talk]]) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist'''. I agree with the nominator. Statements like: "The Mujahids attempted to artificially create a sense of revolt by indulging in arson, murder, rape and robbery ... " need more reliable references than those that are provided. Plus I think it also fails on tbe well-written criteria. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Herpes zoster]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Herpes zoster|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Herpes zoster|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Herpes zoster|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Herpes zoster|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Herpes zoster|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
Not well written. I think it is particularly important that an article on a medical topic should be well written to minimize misunderstandings. The article failed a Featured Article Review earlier today. [[User:Snowmanradio|Snowman]] ([[User talk:Snowmanradio|talk]]) 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist'''. I agree with Snowmanradio, this article can't really be considered to be well-written. I'm not really qualified to judge its technical accuracy, but I was persuaded that the authors had a good understanding of their subject. With a really good copy edit ths article could be a GA I think, but as it stands, no. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 03:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Weak delist'''. The article is reasonably well-written, assuming that the audience is medical professionals. However, MoS guidelines for medical articles prescribe prose appropriate for a general audience. In its current form the article likely fails that standard due to [[WP:JARGON|medical jargon]]. For example, see the article's second sentence: |
|||
::''It results from the reactivation of latent varicella zoster virus (VZV) located in the dorsal root and cranial nerve ganglion, spreading from one or more ganglia to the nerves of the affected segment and its corresponding cutaneous dermatome'' |
|||
:Certainly the lead should discuss the mechanism (er, cause of the disease) in a non-technical manner. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] ([[User talk:Majoreditor|talk]]) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have made a small improvement. How does it read now? [[User:Snowmanradio|Snowman]] ([[User talk:Snowmanradio|talk]]) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Apple Inc.]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Apple Inc.|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Apple Inc.|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Apple Inc.|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Apple Inc.|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Apple Inc.|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
The article is full of tags and is of slightly low quality to be a GA [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 22:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
'''Question'''. What tags? I don't see any at present. Also, can you be more specific about the article's deficiencies? It's helpful if you can provide examples. Thanks, [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] ([[User talk:Majoreditor|talk]]) 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist'''. It's poorly written: "It is said that Jobs was immediately convinced that all future computers would use a GUI, and decided to turn over design of Apple's next project, the Apple Lisa, to produce such a device. The Lisa was named after Jobs' daughter (however, a bacronym,[18] Local Integrated Software Architecture, was coined). He was eventually pushed from the group due to infighting ..." as just one example. --[[User:Malleus Fatuarum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuarum|talk]]) 05:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist'''. Unencyclopedic and poorly written. The lead is tortuous, overlinked, and doesn't really summarize the article. Is there a reliable secondary source for the narrative of the article? It reads as original research by synthesis at the moment (e.g. with its section titles - "The Golden Age" and so on): this is the company equivalent of a new biography, rather than an encyclopedia article. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Abortion]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Abortion|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Abortion|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Abortion|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Abortion|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Abortion|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
Recent edits have thrown off the balance that was formerly achieved in the coverage of this contentious topic (compare the current version to an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&oldid=163728660 older one], particularly everything in the "Suggested effects" section, and it's clear how far the article has shifted to one side of the fence). I'm sad to bring this here, as I and a number of other editors worked for over a year to bring this article to GA status, but it no longer meets the guidelines on neutrality and stability. <font color="006400">S</font><font color="696969">e</font><font color="006400">v</font><font color="696969">e</font><font color="006400">r</font><font color="696969">a</font> (<small>[[User talk:Severa|!!!]]</small>) 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Delist'''. I agree with Severa that this article does not meet the guidelines on neutrality and stability. For example, the article cites studies without revealing the non-neutral affiliations of the authors. One such study was the subject of a full article in the ''New York Times'' about the non-neutrality of the authors, and yet this Wikipedia article does not even mention the non-neutrality in the footnotes. See [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/health/26pain.html "Study Authors Didn't Report Abortion Ties"] (August 26, 2005). In typically biased language, the Wikipedia abortion article refers to "medical researchers notably from the American Medical Association" when in fact the study was merely published in [[Journal_of_the_American_Medical_Association|JAMA]], and "AMA disclaims any liability to any party for the accuracy, completeness or availability of the material or for any damages arising out of the use or non-use of any of the material and any information contained therein."[http://pubs.ama-assn.org/misc/conditions.dtl] Click on another footnoted link in this Wikipedia article, and the first thing you see is an advertisement for "Abortion to 24 Weeks".[http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm] |
|||
:Another example of the non-neutrality of the present article involves the images. Susan Faludi, in her book "The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991) [http://bigtimegrownupstuff76.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html said]: "The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother." In contrast, this Wikipedia abortion article now features iconography of the mother but not of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:10_weeks_pregnant.jpg the fetus]. Note that the very pro-choice Faludi uses the term [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mother "mother"], as do pro-life groups, and yet this word has been deliberately removed from this article (giving the deliberate impression that [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mother motherhood] does not begin until birth or later). |
|||
:A further example of problems with this Wikipedia article involves jargon. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles) Wikipedia guidelines] say: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients. Explain medical jargon or use plain English instead if possible." There's no problem using jargon, which is sometimes more specific and less ambiguous, but this Wikipedia article avoids even parentheticals on first use saying something like "also commonly known as (non-jargon term)." For instance, in the lead paragraph, there is no explanation of what "viability" means, no explanation of the difference between the words "embryo" and "fetus", and no mention that the technical word "uterus" is also commonly known as a "womb." |
|||
:A related problem with the article is that it provides almost no information about what is being aborted (technically called the "abortus"). The average abortion occurs at the beginning of the fetal period, so a good article would summarize some of the info at the [[fetus]] article, or at least (as mentioned above) explain what the difference is between a fetus and an embryo. |
|||
:Moreover, the article contains POV statements like the following: "Early-term surgical abortion is a simple procedure which is safer than childbirth when performed before the 16th week." Two words could be inserted to remove the POV: "safer ''for women.''" As one admin [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=158121969&oldid=158120039 said], “Those two words don't push anything, but leaving them out does.” Nevertheless, those two words have been removed.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] ([[User talk:Ferrylodge|talk]]) 18:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=cur&oldid=163728660 diff] between the Oct 10th version and the current version isn't that different. Severa is correct that the biggest changes are in the suggested effects section. However, these changes were made to conform with changes to the parent articles. For example, the section the ABC hypothesis is (IIRC) currently verbatim the lead of that article. I feel that doing so conforms with wikipedia's summary style, and that it is a good thing to have a subsection of an article not contradict or say things that aren't found in the parent spinout article. Most of FL's suggestions have been discussed ''ad nauseum'' in the past on the talk page, and there hasn't been consensus for those changes (and maybe those are things to consider when it comes to FA status, but not GA status). This article is still a well written, well sourced, and almost unreasonable neutral article given the contentious nature of the topic. Not a whole lot has changed since it was promoted, and I feel it still meets the guidelines.-[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 15:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' Not sure how technical the term "uterus" is, unlike [[Anastomosis]] or [[Islets of Langerhans]] for example. Is it necessary to note that the "uterus" is also commonly known as the "womb"? While I agree that some of the points brought up might be valid issues for FA, I don't see how Ferrylodge's points argue for demoting the article from GA status. [[User:Phyesalis|Phyesalis]] ([[User talk:Phyesalis|talk]]) 09:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist''' as per Kerrylodge's argument. [[User:Daimanta|Daimanta]] ([[User talk:Daimanta|talk]]) 11:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. While there may be some inaccurate citations and other minor problems, this articles satisfies GA criteria. Good articles are not supposed to be ideal. They should only satisfy basic requirements of accuracy and verifibility. The requirements of some reviewers (see above) are more appropriate for a feartured article. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist'''. Fails [[WP:LEAD]]. Honestly, by getting embroiled in neutrality issues, editors are failing to address the basics. Maybe I have the advantage of living in a country in which the abortion debate has a low profile and is not accompanied by the same level of hysteria. From this perspective the fuss over the two words "safer [for women]" is just plain daft. Is any reader likely to believe that abortion is safe for the foetus? I don't think so. If you want to write this article well and stably, forget the whole pro-life, pro-choice propaganda, and write an encyclopedia article on abortion. Neutral point of view means global neutral point of view, which is not the same thing as neutrality from the point of view of the heated debates that take place in North America. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Pikachu]]=== |
|||
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Pikachu|action=edit}} Edit] · [[Talk:Pikachu|Talk]] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Pikachu|action=history}} History] · [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Pikachu|action=watch}} Watch]) |
|||
:<b>(De)listing</b>: [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment|action=edit}} Archive at GAR], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Wikipedia:Good articles|action=edit}} WP:GA], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:GA number|action=edit}} T:GA#], [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Talk:Pikachu|action=edit}} Article talk]. </span> |
|||
Speedy delisted with no notice on talk page, and edit summary of "lacks real world information". However, unlike most pokemon articles, this particular one does seem to have information about the real world, in the cultural impact section. Most of the article seems referenced, though a few of the links might be questionable. I'm on the fence about this because some of the references I just don't know about, but one thing I do know is that this article definently has real world information in it. [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] ([[User talk:Homestarmy|talk]]) 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment''' - does the real-world content in this article meet the updated [[WP:FICT]]? -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Updated? Man, nobody tells me these things anymore.... [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] ([[User talk:Homestarmy|talk]]) 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::But to answer the question, it does seem notable per that guideline, a float appeared in a Macy's day parade, and there's something about a plane. Of course, that's the first time i've read the "updated" WP:FICT, so I might not be understanding it right... [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] ([[User talk:Homestarmy|talk]]) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Or it might have been [[WP:WAF]] - I forget which one, but one of the fiction guidelines has been made more stringent of late. I note that the "biological characteristics" section is still very in-universe.-[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist''' - lede needs additional sourcing to support assertions about the character's notoriety and status as mascot and the source of the name. Sex differences in the bio-characteristics section needs a source. If there ''must'' be a pop culture section then the bit about the first balloon being retired and the new balloon need sources. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*I believe that "pop culture sections" are supposed to show the cultural impact/influence of Pikachu, and that's supposed to be the "meat" of the notability of the article?? -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 05:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::*Yeah, it would be nice if that's what they were used for, wouldn't it? But that's a conversation for another day... [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 14:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delist'''. Doesn't show the notoriety of the character, and written in a very in-universe style for the "Biological characteristics" section. '''''[[User:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="black">bibliomaniac</font>]][[User talk:Bibliomaniac15|<font color="red">1</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Bibliomaniac15|<font color="blue">5</font>]]''''' 06:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Relist until Sweeps come and do a detailed review'''. Read the whole article, and you'll see that it does relate to real-world (such as trading card game, parade mascot). Even an airplane featured pikachu ([[:Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg]], so do you think it's important? [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 08:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Ohana, this is the detailed review. The main problem is that text itself isn't hugely convincing. I know that puff phrases aren't allowed, but have you tried Google Scholar? As Pikachu featured in the anime there might be a few sources out there that examine Pikachu in particular. -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::The in-universeness of the "Biological characteristics" has been given a going over, and a scholarly source has been provided to say that Pikachu is the most popular Pokemon. Sex differences have been sourced, and the article has been tagged with fact tags at various places. The stricter [[WP:FICT]] is currently being disputed. -[[User:Malkinann|Malkinann]] ([[User talk:Malkinann|talk]]) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: Not to mention that [[WP:FICT]] is a guideline, not a policy. It should be "treated with [[Wikipedia:Use common sense|common sense]] and [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|occasional exception]]". Common sense tells us this article is important and in good quality, even though it was written slightly "in-universe". [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="#0000FF">OhanaUnited</font></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><font color="green"><sup>Talk page</sup></font></b>]] 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
'''Keep''' This same article was already reviewed in September ([[Wikipedia:Good_article_review/Archive_28#Pikachu|archived GAR]]) for exactly the same reasons. The article seemed fine to me then, and still does. [[User:Drewcifer3000|Drewcifer]] ([[User talk:Drewcifer3000|talk]]) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:11, 24 May 2024
Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | Backlog drives | Mentorship | Review circles | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
![Good article reassessment](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Symbol_unsupport_vote-green.svg/40px-Symbol_unsupport_vote-green.svg.png)
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.
Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.
![Good article reassessment](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Symbol_unsupport_vote-green.svg/40px-Symbol_unsupport_vote-green.svg.png)
Before opening a reassessment
- Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
- Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
- Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
- 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
- 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.
- 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). - Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
- Paste
{{subst:GAR}}
to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page. - Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
- Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
- The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
- Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}}
at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion. - Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing
{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~
on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
Reassessment process
- 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.
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).
- GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
- Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
- 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.
- 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.
- Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with
{{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~
. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page. - The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
- If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
- remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
- remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
- add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
- If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
- remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
- remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
- add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
- blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
- remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
- remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
- If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
- Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)
Disputing a reassessment
- 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.
- Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
- 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.
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 |
Articles needing possible reassessment
Talk notices given |
---|
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project |
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.
- 19:30:48, 21/08/2024: Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time
- 20:37:41, 21/08/2024: 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.
Articles listed for reassessment
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Article is incomplete. Nothing about the $12.6 million in donations raised or how it was spent? Nothing about the legacy of the film or the current whereabouts of Joseph Kony? Schierbecker (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result pending
Way too much uncited content. Schierbecker (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article is difficult to follow because it is written poorly. Every statement should answer the five Ws: who, what, when where and why. This article does not do this. For example: "NSG Commando Sergeant Gajender Singh Bisht, who was part of the team that fast-roped onto Nariman House, died after a long battle in which both perpetrators were also killed."
How did he die? He just died?? Poof, dead?
Here is another example of bad writing: "Before his execution in 2012, Ajmal Kasab,[25] the sole surviving attacker, disclosed that the attackers were members of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba,[26] and were controlled from Pakistan, corroborating initial claims from the Indian Government.[27] Pakistan later confirmed that the sole surviving perpetrator of the attacks was a Pakistani citizen."
We are neck deep in this article and we are confirming the identity of the terrorist group as if this were new information. Also Pakistan found out he was Pakistani after they executed him? Schierbecker (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article has a lot of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is also an "Introduction" section whose information I think should be redistributed to other sections of the article (like history) or removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment from KJP1
I think this, very Good, article is easily capable of the light wash-and-brush up required to bring it to present citation standards. I don't agree that the Introduction should be removed - it's basically a mis-labelled Lead and just needs to be repurposed as such. As to the para.s that don't end in cites, I don't see that many, and many/most could easily be addressed, merely by combining what are sometimes too-short para.s anyway.
I see the main editor has been notified. Obviously, if they're intending to pick it up, I'll step back. I'll Watchlist it and come back if required. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
This gives an idea of what I mean. I think there are about half a dozen [citation needed] tags that need addressing, and a sweep to make sure all the lead material is covered, and cited, in the body. I'd reckon it needs 2 hours work max. KJP1 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720 - Have moved the Intro to the lead, combined some short para.s, and addressed the [citation needed] tags, which meant finding about 3/4 cites. All paragraphs now end with a cite, and the citeless lead material is covered in the body. The result is here. Are there any outstanding concerns? KJP1 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- A separate point on titling - I find the current "Taliesin (studio)" a little odd. It implies the article is just looking at Wright's studio within the wider Taliesin complex, which it isn't. Personally, I would rename it "Taliesin East", which would bookend nicely with Taliesin West. I see the GAN Reviewer made the same point in 2014. KJP1 (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @KJP1: I would move the edits from your sandbox to the article so that other editors can see the changes on their watchlist and add comments. I have no opinion on a name change. The prose looks a lot better. The History.com sources should be removed. "Weekly Home News & August 20, 1914" does not point to a citation in the bibliography. "Storrer, William Allin (2006)" does not have any inline citations pointing to it. These are my only major concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720 - OK, moved the text back over, without experiencing the attribution issue I feared (phew!). Taken the History.com's out/re-sourced Weekly Home News as I couldn't access it/put Storrer in Further reading. I hope we are good? KJP1 (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: No further concerns. I hope that the source mentioned in the "Further reading" section is used in the article as inline citations, but that doesn't prevent me from declaring a keep. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: No further concerns. I hope that the source mentioned in the "Further reading" section is used in the article as inline citations, but that doesn't prevent me from declaring a keep. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720 - OK, moved the text back over, without experiencing the attribution issue I feared (phew!). Taken the History.com's out/re-sourced Weekly Home News as I couldn't access it/put Storrer in Further reading. I hope we are good? KJP1 (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @KJP1: I would move the edits from your sandbox to the article so that other editors can see the changes on their watchlist and add comments. I have no opinion on a name change. The prose looks a lot better. The History.com sources should be removed. "Weekly Home News & August 20, 1914" does not point to a citation in the bibliography. "Storrer, William Allin (2006)" does not have any inline citations pointing to it. These are my only major concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is a lot of uncited text, including multiple paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article contains many uncited statements and paragraphs. The lead should be reformatted into 3-4 paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
There are multiple uncited statements, particularily for the end for the later parts of her career. Short, 1-2 sentence paragraphs should be merged. The lede is too short and does not summarise all parts of the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article contains lots of uncited paragraphs. The "In popular culture" contains a lot of one-paragraph statements which could be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- The tension between payment and military seizure at the end of the lead should be explored in the body, which from what I can see only notes a proclamation by Lane. CMD (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
The article, at 12000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG. There is a lot of uncited prose, and an overreliance on block quotes. Unreliable sources are used as intext citations and the "Cultural representations" section is full of one-sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is uncited text throughout the article, and the reception section is too long and disorganised. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oof aye, this article has problems, definitely major enough that I don't think they can be easily fixed. The reception section, aside from being too long, consists largely of very confusing and contextless block quotes. The "themes" section might as well be written off as original research, as it is almost entirely cited to the comic itself, so it appears as though this is the editors own interpretations of the comic. It is severely lacking in citations to reliable, secondary sources, citing only a hand full. And as the nominator said, a lot of the text is entirely uncited, in sections you'd expect to be fully sourced. This is definitely a delist from me. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of the "unsourced" bits aren't really unsourced. Here's an example:
Cam Smith, Ray McCarthy, and Josef Rubinstein completed the ink work for "Anarky: Tomorrow Belongs to Us", "Anarky", and "Metamorphosis, respectively.
That might be false, but it's not unsourced - the front of each issue will say who inked it. If there are other parts that are a problem, can you point them out specifically? I've only just skimmed it, but it's things like that that I found, so they're fine. - I removed the disorganized part of the reception section and it already looks way better. I haven't followed up with any of those sources though, nor have I checked to see if there are major omissions in that section. -- asilvering (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: I have added cn tags to the article. If the article is citing the comic as its source, it will need an inline citation (with the exception of the comic's plot summary). I agree with Grnchst above that the Themes section should not be citing the comic, but rather what secondary sources have said about the comic. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: I have added cn tags to the article. If the article is citing the comic as its source, it will need an inline citation (with the exception of the comic's plot summary). I agree with Grnchst above that the Themes section should not be citing the comic, but rather what secondary sources have said about the comic. Z1720 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article falls well short of the standard for GA. There is way too much uncited text. Schierbecker (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delist due to the large number of "citation needed" tags. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it looks like WP:HALFLIFE has gotten this one. I'll try to work on the missing citations, but until then I will have to !vote to delist. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This 2007 listing that was last reviewed in the 2009 sweeps fails GACR 2a, having multiple unsourced areas and a largely unsourced crufty "pop culture" section. Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I got rid of the pop culture section. Not only was it unsourced but there were hardly any items that were notable on their own. The one thing I kept was a note on the mausoleum pieces being used in an exhibit (which is also unsourced). I will try to look at finding where the unsourced info came from but I don't know if I can find relevant information. Reconrabbit 04:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This older GA promotion is part of the new GA Sweeps initiative. There is significant uncited text (pretty much all of the post-promotion additions, which reflect more recent activities of the brigade). The article also cites Global Security, which is now considered to be unreliable. Hog Farm Talk 23:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Sending this article to GAR as part of the new GA Sweeps project as there is significant uncited text. I'm also not convinced that all of the MMA fan sites cited are reliable, such as Bloody Elbow. I raised concerns on the article talk page a week ago, but improvements have not been made. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging Ticelon who has done some work on this. For Ticelon's benefit - I have tagged some areas with CN tags that need sourced yet, and the lead needs updated with some of the more recent information. There's also a need for someone to assess if all of the sources are reliable enough or not (Bloody Elbow shows up as unreliable on the source quality highlighting tool, but I'm not certain what discussion that is pulling from). Hog Farm Talk 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This 2010 GA has not been updated adequately in a decade. There are also a few uncited paragraphs and subsections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
As original reviewer, it's definitely atrophied since the original GA so will need a fair bit of work to maintain GA status. Wizardman 22:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
An "additional citations needed" banner has been present since 2019 for his works. The "Death" section is uncited, and the lede could be expanded and reformatted into two paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Really? Fifteen minutes to add the citations is a little easier than the whole GAR thing. The lead could be expanded, but it currently contains the core information, and anything added would be adding just for the sake of adding, which doesn't do anyone any favours. - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pace SchroCat, I'm not sure MOS:LEAD is met -- I would put it a little more strongly and say that there's a great deal of key information in the body that isn't in the lead, meaning that the lead serves only as an introduction to, rather than as an abridged version of, the main article. However, I agree that this should be straightforward to fix. SC, do you plan to make some additions -- I'm happy to give it a go if not? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free, UndercoverClassicist! I have limited time this week, so your input would be valued. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I won't be able to before Thursday or so, but will give it a go then if nobody else has. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've now done this. It might be a bit long, but honestly I think that's mainly because the article itself is a little sparse: I would advise editors thinking that it is overweight to look at expanding the body rather than cutting it by too much. I know almost nothing about Gardner except what is in the article and easily accessible in its sources, so please read it accordingly! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SchroCat and Z1720: thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, looks fine. - SchroCat (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep looks fine, I do wonder if the article can be expanded with more sources, but I'm not willing to look for them at this time. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep looks fine, I do wonder if the article can be expanded with more sources, but I'm not willing to look for them at this time. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, looks fine. - SchroCat (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SchroCat and Z1720: thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've now done this. It might be a bit long, but honestly I think that's mainly because the article itself is a little sparse: I would advise editors thinking that it is overweight to look at expanding the body rather than cutting it by too much. I know almost nothing about Gardner except what is in the article and easily accessible in its sources, so please read it accordingly! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I won't be able to before Thursday or so, but will give it a go then if nobody else has. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free, UndercoverClassicist! I have limited time this week, so your input would be valued. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pace SchroCat, I'm not sure MOS:LEAD is met -- I would put it a little more strongly and say that there's a great deal of key information in the body that isn't in the lead, meaning that the lead serves only as an introduction to, rather than as an abridged version of, the main article. However, I agree that this should be straightforward to fix. SC, do you plan to make some additions -- I'm happy to give it a go if not? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article has a handful of unsourced statements and an unadressed maintenance template. lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can you provide examples of the unsourced statements please? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mid-2010s section, last sentence of first paragraph
- Beginnings section, first paragraph
- Final sentence in Name section.
- Thank you.
- I've added a source for the mid-2010s section.
- The Name section had a source already prior to the quote, I've moved the source down so it's clearer.
- The mid 2010s section I think was moved around a few times, the sources were there but further down than they should have been. The only sentence fully lacking a source was "By the late 2000s artists within the burgeoning scene were beginning to become stars across the continent", I've added one to accommodate this. I removed "The style of music had a variety of names which made it difficult to market outside of Africa." as I could not find the source for this edit.
- Would this resolve that particular point? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing those issues Harry. However, the article has gone through major edits since it was listed as GA, it has been through some traumatizing edit wars which led to ANI. Therefore, I do believe a careful and thorough reassessment is required before the article can be listed again. Prose, spot checks, references, plagiarism and so on must be reexamined
Thank you again, and you too for spotting this. dxneo (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if I agree with that (most of the article hasn't been changed all that much since then), but I am obviously bias so I guess I'll leave it up to consensus. But from my recollection, the edit conflicts where about whether "afro-fusion" could be listed as an alias, and the details of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrobeats#Nigerian_afro_house section, both of which are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. There was a side debate about whether it could be said "afro-rave" was created by Rema, but I believe that was settled. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's entirely true. See this revision, this, this and this just to mention a few, where the latter revision states that the information was incorrect and irrelevant. It was not only on one sub-section but throughout the entire article. I also noticed that the article is REFBOMBED which is not a good thing. I myself have previously removed wrong information cited to reliable sources here, they just write wrong some stuff that does not cross match with the sources and I truly believe that it has happened more than once. Another thing, some sub-genres are "user coined", to clarify, they just mix two genres and list them as sub-genres of Afrobeats, and if I'm not mistaken, even amapiano and Afropop were listed as such. The background of Afrobeats does not check out. Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where? And why is it referred to as the umbrella term? Last time I checked, there were no sources to support that statement. The lede/opening statement of this article needs to be rewritten to highlight important keys only (and maybe move all the cited parts of the lede to its background section and relevant sections so that it can comply with WP:CITELEAD). dxneo (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now that I am now looking into this, this is not just a matter of reassessment anymore but if whether the article pass the GA criteria/requirements at all. Here is the version of the article that passed GAC. However, its information does not check out. "
Afrobeats, also known as Afro-pop, Afro-fusion
," cited to this and this, this does not match the content in any of the cited sources and that's just the first line of the then-article, and the prose is also not good. - Question is, how did it pass its first GAN? dxneo (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely agree there's more citations than there perhaps needs to be, in some sections. This is the biggest issue with the article, if you were to ask me. I also agree that the Lede could perhaps be improved, it's maybe a little awkward after the first paragraph (the last paragraph is well suited there too, though, I think).
- The sources supporting "afro-pop" / "afro-fusion" being listed as /aliases/ were discussed previously here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afrobeats/Archive_1#Afropop_/_Afrofusion but I've accepted it's best to move on from trying to re-add that information. But, for the record, it was definitely supported by a number of sources.
- "Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where?"
- Why not all of the above? Abrantee (from the UK) coined the term and the UK played an important role with its popularisation outside of Africa, but it was an amalgamation of sounds flowing out of both Nigeria and Ghana that formed what we know of as Afrobeats. This is, in my opinion, covered thoroughly in the History section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrobeats#History (with regards to how all three countries played important roles in the development of Afrobeats). Afrobeats as a term was basically marketing (from the UK) to group all this stuff together (which included sounds/genres from both Ghana and Nigeria), hence the multi-national origin. Would you not agree that this is supported within the #Name and #History sections and if not, how could this be expanded on in your view?
- "why is it referred to as the umbrella term?"
- It originated as an umbrella for a fusion of sounds, see Abrantee's quote for example,
- " For years we've had amazing hiplife, highlife, Nigerbeats, juju music, and I thought: you know what, let's put it all back together as one thing again, and call it Afrobeats, as an umbrella term." https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jan/19/the-rise-of-afrobeats
- This is straight from the guy who named the sound.HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That was not a discussion but your POV, no one responded to that and beside, there was no consensus reached and again why were those sources not cited there? The intel still not check out even now because no sources support that claim in the article. I got multiple DYKs, GACs, and GAs I have to review, so I am lacking time to personally re-review this but I'll try. One thing we can all agree on is that a whole lot of cited information from the article was removed because it did not check out with the references, and what does that tell us? Sure we/you may try to rewrite the lede and cite a few source but this is a very big article, it needs a lot of time to be rewritten and for it's content to be cross matched with the sources. I'm sorry, but I do think delisting is the way to go here. I'll definitely help rebuild the article. dxneo (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- This archive is full discussions on blunders and inaccuracies. A lot has to be addressed here. Few days wouldn't be enough to solve all of this. dxneo (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus is implied unless otherwise debated WP:EDITCON. That was the original state of the article so it did not need an explicit consensus until that point. It's not my fault nobody responded to me when I provided more sources.
- Anyway we're side-tracking a bit but I do want to address this point. If we look at the last revision where this content was intact https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afrobeats&diff=prev&oldid=1187682282 - those two specific pieces are supported by sources at the end of the paragraph. For example,
- https://www.villagevoice.com/sound-culture-fests-afro-caribbean-rhythm-mission-this-goes-deep-into-roots/ "new Afropop is part of a family of club-friendly mainstream African music often packaged for export as Afrobeats."
- https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/the-evolution-of-afropop "But if Afrobeats as a term doesn't serve the style, what can we call it? With its constant genre-blending and reinvention, the most accurate term to describe the wave of music flowing out of Nigeria and Ghana is Afropop" and "While specific artists have chosen their own titles – Wizkid, Davido and Burna Boy have referred to their sound as Afrofusion"
- If you checked the version that passed GA, these sources are also there at the end of the paragraph. Hence, this information /was/ sourced, albeit the sources were perhaps placed later than they should have been (but, at the time, I felt like placing them at the end of the paragraph was apt as they covered the entire paragraph. If this was less than helpful, then I apologise, but I am just addressing the suggestion that this content was unsourced).
- In my opinion, this content should never have been removed from the article to begin with. It was (and is, if you google for more) always supported by sources (both originally and later on, via the talk page) and consensus should be built about why those sources were inadequate, if they are at all and if the content could be better sourced elsewhere, but ultimately I had to give way to revision or end up fighting an edit war over two words.
- Say what you want about later additions that you have removed, but when I wrote this article I meticulously made sure every single piece of it was sourced. I know, for certain, that the bulk of this article is well supported (and the stuff that has been added since then has been vetted by me, you, and other editors to ensure it is since then). I, and I do say this respectfully, do not agree with the characterisation that the article is in a poor state outside of (perhaps) an excessive use of sources in some areas. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- This archive is full discussions on blunders and inaccuracies. A lot has to be addressed here. Few days wouldn't be enough to solve all of this. dxneo (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That was not a discussion but your POV, no one responded to that and beside, there was no consensus reached and again why were those sources not cited there? The intel still not check out even now because no sources support that claim in the article. I got multiple DYKs, GACs, and GAs I have to review, so I am lacking time to personally re-review this but I'll try. One thing we can all agree on is that a whole lot of cited information from the article was removed because it did not check out with the references, and what does that tell us? Sure we/you may try to rewrite the lede and cite a few source but this is a very big article, it needs a lot of time to be rewritten and for it's content to be cross matched with the sources. I'm sorry, but I do think delisting is the way to go here. I'll definitely help rebuild the article. dxneo (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now that I am now looking into this, this is not just a matter of reassessment anymore but if whether the article pass the GA criteria/requirements at all. Here is the version of the article that passed GAC. However, its information does not check out. "
- I don't think that's entirely true. See this revision, this, this and this just to mention a few, where the latter revision states that the information was incorrect and irrelevant. It was not only on one sub-section but throughout the entire article. I also noticed that the article is REFBOMBED which is not a good thing. I myself have previously removed wrong information cited to reliable sources here, they just write wrong some stuff that does not cross match with the sources and I truly believe that it has happened more than once. Another thing, some sub-genres are "user coined", to clarify, they just mix two genres and list them as sub-genres of Afrobeats, and if I'm not mistaken, even amapiano and Afropop were listed as such. The background of Afrobeats does not check out. Was it founded in Nigeria, Ghana or where? And why is it referred to as the umbrella term? Last time I checked, there were no sources to support that statement. The lede/opening statement of this article needs to be rewritten to highlight important keys only (and maybe move all the cited parts of the lede to its background section and relevant sections so that it can comply with WP:CITELEAD). dxneo (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if I agree with that (most of the article hasn't been changed all that much since then), but I am obviously bias so I guess I'll leave it up to consensus. But from my recollection, the edit conflicts where about whether "afro-fusion" could be listed as an alias, and the details of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrobeats#Nigerian_afro_house section, both of which are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. There was a side debate about whether it could be said "afro-rave" was created by Rema, but I believe that was settled. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing those issues Harry. However, the article has gone through major edits since it was listed as GA, it has been through some traumatizing edit wars which led to ANI. Therefore, I do believe a careful and thorough reassessment is required before the article can be listed again. Prose, spot checks, references, plagiarism and so on must be reexamined
Yet again, another inaccuracy. Redbull was suggesting, that's not a fact. Not sure about Davido and Wizkid but Burna Boy never referred to Afrobeats as Afro-fusion, this is what he said in an interview with Billboard. Burna Boy is actually implying that he created the genre, not the other way around. By the way, every statement must be adequately sourced, if I don't find a reference after the punctuation then I'm safe assume that it is definitely original search. Meaning the article was actually never in "Good Article" state. In between the time of it's GA promotion and now, it has gone through major changes. Again, what worries me the most is the above-mentioned archive and the fact that cited content was removed because it was believed to be wrong. dxneo (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, goes without saying that we disagree on that - I think those sources are adequate (and it was not OR as the sources were there) , but regardless, I provided others on the talk page (linked above) which supported this. Burna Boy rejecting the afrobeats moniker mostly ties in with what's already discussed in the #Name section (it being a relatively common thing).
- Anyway moving on, which specific parts of the article do you feel like there's a concern (lede aside)? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said, I have DYKs, PRs, GAs, GACs and article splits to work on now. Therefore, I'll leave the reviewal process to someone else but I'll keep one eye open at all times. I'll be around to help where I can. dxneo (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said, I have DYKs, PRs, GAs, GACs and article splits to work on now. Therefore, I'll leave the reviewal process to someone else but I'll keep one eye open at all times. I'll be around to help where I can. dxneo (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is little post-2013 information in the article. There is uncited text, including entire sections. The lead, at 5 paragraphs, is more than what is recommended at WP:LEADLENGTH. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I shall return from my break momentarily to fix the lack of citations absent throughout the article. Please allow me some time to gather them. I won't be able to help with the lede nor the lack of content in the shootout era. Perhaps another editor would be willing to crack at that. Conyo14 (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm willing to help trim the lede. As for post-2013 - the article notes cup winners and notable outdoor games, as well as some tourneys. I'll add a little blurb on future award winners' debuts, perhaps, but besides that I'm not sure there's much we realistically can add that's not unnecessary bloat. The Kip (contribs) 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720: I believe the uncited sections are now complete. Please let me know if there is more on that front that needs to be addrssed. Conyo14 (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Conyo14: I added a cn tag. I do think the article needs more post-2012/13 lockout information. What were the ramifications of the lockout in terms of finances? What rule changes appeared because of the collective bargaining agreement? The article focuses a lot on the earlier years of this article's scope but neglects post 2012-ish, in my opinion. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed the cn tag. Conyo14 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I fixed spacing. Cos (X + Z) 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed the cn tag. Conyo14 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to see how the article holds up in terms of what has been accomplished in the GAR. I've trimmed the lede, added more fluff to the 2012–13 lockout, and included a section about the realignment and further expansion talks. Citations have been fixed throughout the article. Is there more to add on? Conyo14 (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added a sentence and paragraph about loss of revenue, and the bounce-back after the lockout. I don't know of rule changes due to the CBA change. Alaney2k (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2024 ::*I feel very confident about a Keep Cos (X + Z) 15:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Opinions Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added a cn tag. After that is resolved it should be OK to keep. Z1720 (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Resolved. Conyo14 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Conyo14: I added a cn tag. I do think the article needs more post-2012/13 lockout information. What were the ramifications of the lockout in terms of finances? What rule changes appeared because of the collective bargaining agreement? The article focuses a lot on the earlier years of this article's scope but neglects post 2012-ish, in my opinion. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
(UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result pending
This 2007 addition has 8 citation needed tags and might also contain questionable/unreliable sources and need cleanup. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- This seems interesting and there are two fully unused books in the further reading; please delist if I don't return within a week. Queen of Hearts talk 21:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Queen of Hearts do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 yes. I've made some edits but they've mainly been adding more things as opposed to fixing what's there. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 yes. I've made some edits but they've mainly been adding more things as opposed to fixing what's there. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Queen of Hearts do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
There are a lot of sources listed in the "Further reading" section, and the prose looks like it is underdeveloped. The lede does not summarise the impact/aftermath of the partition, and the Background section needs to be split up. There are other prose problems caused by small, one-or-two line sentences. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean by prose being underdeveloped. The article can certainly be expanded, and some references should be replaced by more reliable works (and copyedited). Lead can be expanded easily, and adding some headings to Background shouldn't be hard. Whether the article is more B-class or GA-class is pretty blurry; it would not pass in the current form a GA with an experienced reviewer, but it is relatively complete and reasonably referenced. Still, as our standards improve, it is shifting more towards B-class, yes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- PS. I'll ping some folks interested in Polish history who may have more time than I and perhaps could work on this: @Marcelus @Orczar @Merangs Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- This article writes very honestly about the Partitions of Poland it contains a good WP:NOTE, WP:RS is well written, the only thing missing that you can agree with is WP:LEAD which is too short, also the background, but in itself the article deserves to be good. Keep it Czekan pl (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Large chunks are cited to Encyclopædia Britannica, which is not in keeping with current expectations around sourcing. It also does read as oddly short given the topic, in addition to the prose issued mentioned. CMD (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: - The topic is brief as there are three related and continuous articles that are part of a series - Second Partition of Poland and Third Partition of Poland, not even mentioning the main one outlined by user Czekan pl above.
- The quality of the writing is good enough and the topic is brief due to the split between first, second and third partitions, however, the references are somewhat untidy. I think it is best to utilise the Harvard citation template for in-line citations and the Template:Cite book for a reflist. Merangs (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Article has degraded since its original review in 2010. Concerns about unsourced content have been expressed on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the un-sourced stuff, but I will read the whole article in a moment and maybe I will find more errors such as lack of sourcing or poor encyclopaedic content because yesterday I joined wikipedia and read the rules and instructions all the. Koncerz777 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have found a few not to tighten up already with the beginning missing a better sentence completion or missing something:
- The tribe of the Polans (Polanie, lit. "people of the fields") in what is now Greater Poland gave rise to a tribal predecessor of the Polish state in the early part of the 10th century, with the Polans settling in the flatlands around the emerging strongholds of Giecz, Poznań, Gniezno and Ostrów Lednicki. Accelerated rebuilding of old tribal fortified settlements, construction of massive new ones and territorial expansion took place during the period c. 920–950. The Polish state developed from these tribal roots in the second half of the centuryhere. Here there is a need to clarify for what reason it ceased to be a tribal state, because it is true that in the middle of this century it ceased to be but it had many factors that would be worth taking into account. According to the 12th-century chronicler Gallus Anonymus, the Polans were ruled at this time by the Piast dynasty. In existing sources from the 10th century, Piast ruler Mieszko I was first mentioned by Widukind of Corvey in his Res gestae saxonicae, a chronicle of events in Germany. Widukind reported that Mieszko's forces were twice defeated in 963 by the Veleti tribes acting in cooperation with the Saxon exile Wichmann the Younger. Under Mieszko's rule (c. 960 to 992), his tribal state accepted Christianity and became the Polish state. When? Koncerz777 (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please also compare with the last reviewed version linked at the top. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please also compare with the last reviewed version linked at the top. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • 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)
- I agree that this article has lots of deficiencies. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article has seen a flurry of activity since this GAR was opened. Could you provide additional feedback following recent edits? ZsinjTalk 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing