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

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

Before opening a reassessment

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

Opening a reassessment

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

Reassessment process

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

Closing a reassessment

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

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

Disputing a reassessment

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

Archives

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

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

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

• 01:11:44, 18/07/2024: Stonyhurst College
  

• 06:13:05, 05/08/2024: Muammar Gaddafi
  

• 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

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

Result pending

Way too much uncited content. Schierbecker (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Result pending

There is a lot of uncited text, including multiple paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

This article contains many uncited statements and paragraphs. The lead should be reformatted into 3-4 paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]
  

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

• Delist due to the large number of "citation needed" tags. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feel free, UndercoverClassicist! I have limited time this week, so your input would be valued. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@SchroCat and Z1720: thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks fine. - SchroCat (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

Can you provide examples of the unsourced statements please? HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mid-2010s section, last sentence of first paragraph
• Beginnings section, first paragraph
• Final sentence in Name section.

— lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) 02:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

  Fixed the cn tag. Conyo14 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I fixed spacing. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• • Opinions Z1720? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a cn tag. After that is resolved it should be OK to keep. Z1720 (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolved. Conyo14 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • Hi Queen of Hearts do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
  

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please also compare with the last reviewed version linked at the top. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result pending

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

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

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

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

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

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

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