Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jayron32 (talk | contribs)
Administrators
105,509 edits
→‎Ron Paul: keep. Don't see any issues here.
 
(309 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"
| ''[[#toc|'''↓ Skip to table of contents ↓''']]''
<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] &middot; [[Talk:Finns|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Finns|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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>]]&nbsp;<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>]]&nbsp;<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] &middot; [[Talk:Edmund the Martyr|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Edmund the Martyr|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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)

*'''Comment'''. At first blush the article seems up to par. Del-listing issues have been addressed, such as the date of death and last battle. It also appears to be stable, with fewer than a dozen edits in the last month. I'll need to take a closer look at the article to see if some of Ed's other allegations check out. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] ([[User talk:Majoreditor|talk]]) 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''. I would rather not put down "delist" or "keep", as I am not a regular here, but I'm interested in this topic and have written articles on other Anglo-Saxon kings, so I thought I would provide some comments about how I see the article. I hope this information will be useful to others here in deciding whether the article should be delisted.
:*My main concern is that there is too much reliance on sources that I would not regard as reliable for historical facts. For example, [[Our Sunday Visitor]], a Catholic publishing group, produces the ''Our Sunday Visitor's Encyclopedia of Saints'', which is the sole source for several assertions in the article, such as the king's age at birth, the possibility that Hoxne is the location of a battle, and Edmund's feast day. The last of these could be reasonably sourced from a book like this, but I would not use it for historical facts. There are certainly some reliable sources in the list -- Swanton, Keynes/Lapidge, Whitelock, the Blackwell Encyclopedia, and the British Library. A couple of the others are ones I don't know myself, but which look like they might be reliable. But the Channel 4 documentary shouldn't be used to source Edmund's interment, and the BBC shouldn't be used to source the statement that Edmund was originally the patron saint of England. I'm '''not''' asserting these statements are wrong, but the actual primary source data relating to Edmund is extremely scanty, and it is definitely possible to have incorrect statements in tertiary sources. (A recent error in the form of the name of a Gaelic ruler was pointed out to me recently in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is a very respected source; tertiary sources are not the best way to source this period in history.) I am also sceptical of other sources such as the 1904 ''Little Lives of the Saints''.
:*That leads to the other main concern I have, which is the focus on the hagiographic details. I don't know whether this sort of things matters at GAR, but if this were a FAC I would oppose on the basis that the article covers information such as a lengthy quote from [[Abbo of Fleury]], and many details of the miracles related to Edmund, and a long quote from ''The Little Lives of the Saints'' -- but we only get a paragraph in the body about the Danes and practically nothing about the political state of England at the time. Edmund is a historical figure, and we should write an article that presents him in a historical context. His subsequent canonization is certainly a fact about him, but I would expect more history and less miracles in the article. No doubt there are obscure saints for whom there is more to be said about their miracles than their historical lives, but Edmund, though his history is certainly obscure, could at least be placed in context a little better. The hagiographies themselves (i.e. early, near-contemporary lives of saints, usually written by monks of the time) can be valuable primary sources, but are not sources we can use directly unless a reliable source also does so.
:*I think the points EdChampion makes above in his argument to delist are generally wrong, however. The issue with 869 and 870 is certainly a point that needs explanation, and no doubt the prose at that point could be improved, but I was clear on the issue when I read it and felt no confusion. His point about the accuracy of the online references may be correct; because of my concern about reliable sources above I didn't go to the trouble of verifying his comments about Æthelweard. I didn't check image copyrights so Ed may be right there. The image of the chronicle page isn't totally apt, but the chronicle is mentioned and it does illustrate even if it doesn't illuminate very much. The point about the Chronicle's dating seems wrong, too, without more details on what the issue is, anyway. It is quite clear that the Chronicle's years did not start on January 1, although this certainly does not resolve every date issue. I did not verify Ed's comments about the flag of St. Edmund, though again I'd suggest that using the BBC as a source is a mistake. All the omissions in Ed's last paragraph seem minor to me; it would be harmless to rectify them, but I think without other changes they would lead the article into further imbalance. Hence I suspect that the article I would like to see here is one that EdChampion would not find acceptable as a GA.
:*For comparison purposes, here are two articles on Anglo-Saxon royal saints that are FA: [[Æthelberht of Kent]] and [[Eardwulf of Northumbria]]. (I wrote one and helped somewhat on the other.) These aren't strictly comparable, since in each case there is a fair amount of historical detail, and I believe the hagiographical writing on Edmund is more extensive than it is for Æthelberht or Eardwulf. But it gives an idea of what a historically oriented article about these figures can look like.
:I hope these are useful notes. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 04:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

===[[1920 Palestine riots]]===
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:1920 Palestine riots|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:1920 Palestine riots|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:1920 Palestine riots|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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] &middot; [[Talk:Ron Paul|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Ron Paul|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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>***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</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)
*'''Keep''' [[Barak Obama]] is an FA. [[Hillary Clinton]] is a GA. They are both also in the election. Clearly the election is not a reason to demote this article. For the most part, as I've looked at this article, editors have been largely able to work together on issues. If OrangeMike feels there is POV, he should bring it up on the talk page and get it fixed, which I've noticed he is trying to do. We should leave it to the editors of the article to decide the intricacies of NPOV, not hold GA over them as a stick to make them change. After all, they know the sources. We don't. I don't really see any trivia or fancruft in the article at all, either. [[User:Wrad|Wrad]] ([[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Stability is not much of a concern; the article has a daughter page to deal with the specific presidential campaign, not much more than a line or two looks to be changed in the main article. As a whole, it seems neutral in its coverage. I see little to raise any concerns as to its GA status. Its an actively edited article, but disputes seem to be constructively worked out on the talk page, and I don't see any obvious editwarring. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]]|[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 04:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

===[[Tim Tebow]]===
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Tim Tebow|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Tim Tebow|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Tim Tebow|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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)

*'''Delist'''. As CP mentioned, the article lacks references in places to back up assertions. Example from the 2006 section: ''After the game, some Gator fans suggested that Tebow could be named the starting quarterback over then starter Chris Leak.'' There's also MoS issues per CP and Jayron. The article could be brought up to par with a good copy edit and a few more citations. [[User:Majoreditor|Majoreditor]] ([[User talk:Majoreditor|talk]]) 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

===[[Robbie Williams]]===
:<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"> ([{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Robbie Williams|action=edit}} Edit] &middot; [[Talk:Robbie Williams|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Robbie Williams|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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>]]&nbsp;<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] &middot; [[Talk:Covering of the Senne|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Covering of the Senne|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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>]]&nbsp;<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>]]&nbsp;<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>]]&nbsp;<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] &middot; [[Talk:Operation Gibraltar|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Operation Gibraltar|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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] &middot; [[Talk:Herpes zoster|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Herpes zoster|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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] &middot; [[Talk:Apple Inc.|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Apple Inc.|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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] &middot; [[Talk:Abortion|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Abortion|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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&nbsp;c]]&nbsp;[[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] &middot; [[Talk:Pikachu|Talk]] &middot; [{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Pikachu|action=history}} History] &middot; [{{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

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsJuly Backlog DriveMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport
Shortcuts
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment

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

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

Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment
Good article reassessment instructions

Before opening a reassessment

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

Opening a reassessment

  1. To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  2. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment).
  3. Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
Manual opening steps
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
  3. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
  4. The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
  5. Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}} at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  6. Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.

Reassessment process

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

Closing a reassessment

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

  1. GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
  2. Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
  3. If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
  4. After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
    • If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
Manual closing steps
  1. Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page.
  2. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
      • remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
      • remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
      • add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
      • blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
      • remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
      • remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
  3. Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)

Disputing a reassessment

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

Articles needing possible reassessment

Good article reassessment

Talk notices given
  1. Treehouse of Horror VI 2024-04-10
  2. Siege of Szigetvár 2024-05-05
  3. Pokémon Red, Blue, and Yellow 2024-05-07
Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project
See also: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023

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

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

Articles listed for reassessment

Concurrent use registration

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

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

York

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

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

Big Fish

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

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

Note that per WP:GAR, "instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article." What is inaccurate or unreliable in the article Viriditas? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the community has been fairly good at reverting bad edits, so the article isn't in as bad shape as it could be. Earwig shows no copyvio, so that's good. The Accolades section shows awards attributed to the "Awards Circuit Community Awards" and "Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards", both of which are unsourced, and which can only be found on IMDb (Internet Movie Database), which is considered generally unreliable. Other than that, recent edits did violate criterion 1, but it's been reverted. The sock farm has not stopped creating accounts and its editing poses a continuing problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Witter Reynolds

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

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

1983 Pacific typhoon season

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

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

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

Road to Rupert

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

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

Long-term potentiation

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

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

TISM

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

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

2006–07 Bristol Rovers F.C. season

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

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

Demote - it is clear from the nomination and the version as of today that there are a significant number of problems and it's not as comprehensively written as, e.g. 2015–16 York City F.C. season which was nominated many years later. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you can't declare "demote" right after the reassessment was nominated 750h+ 12:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Great Raid of 1840/1 which was (IMO appropriately) delisted within about 50 hours of being brought to GAR due to overwhelming consensus. Hog Farm Talk 01:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary McLeod Bethune

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? ZsinjTalk 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]
Thumbs up icon Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia

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

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

Enter Sandman

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

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

Kowloon Walled City

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

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

Hi, I think I could get this done. What is your expected timeline? Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@matarisvan: don't have one. maybe 3 months. ltbdl (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gettysburg Cyclorama

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

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

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

I've removed the "Benedit Buckeye" section as unsourced and undue detail. If I can get ahold of "The Gettysburg Cyclorama: The Turning Point of the Civil War on Canvas." the rest of this should be doable (it definitely needs further work), if I can't, I'll probably need to let this one go. Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think I could get this back to GA level. What is your expected timeline? I've done some preliminary work on the 10th CAB article, but currently am on a work trip so can't do anything more on both articles till the 23rd. Is that alright? Matarisvan (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: - I'm in process of this (I should be able to access the necessary book now). Do you have any objections if I try to take care of this myself, since I was involved at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Gettysburg/1 as well? Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any objections. Looking forward to your rewrite of this article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 85 in North Carolina

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

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

@RoySmith I've fixed most of the issues described in the "citation needed" templates and even added citations in places where they also might have been needed. I feel that now the article is sufficiently sourced and in proper GA territory now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to do is go through the entire article and verify that every citation really does back up the statement that is supports. Here's a few more from Special:Permalink/1232539652:
  • I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36] not supported by the map
  • The landscape becomes more rural as I-85 reaches just outside of Lexington ... [37] the cited document does't say anything about the landscape becoming rural.
  • I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians and crosses Abbotts Creek ... [38] that's a link to a map that says nothing about a "large forest" or "tree-lined medians".
I really need to emphasize this: don't just fix those three and come back and say, "fixed, it's ready for GA now". The problem is endemic. It's going to be a lot of work to go through and fix this up, but it's encumbant on the author(s) to do that work, not count on reviewers like me to find the problems one by one. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've been wondering... have there been any notable post-construction projects? I can't seem to find any online other than the Corridor Improvement Project. Maybe I'm not looking too sharply. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the interchange with I-77 was recently reconstructed in a pretty big project. That would definitely be worth including. While the article does provide a basic overview of the widening projects, I'm not sure it covers all of them. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sourcing problems:

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

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

Why yes, I've driven along I-85, but I usually look at Google Maps when I'm writing the route description for anything. Now I suppose you could consider that as original research. I do apologize for this, however, and Bneu himself has stated that he could find articles from Newspapers.com for it. The only problem is, I ahem... don't have a subscription. So clearly I don't even know what I'm going to do at this point. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS, you mentioned that you don't have a newspapers.com subscription. Free access to newspapers.com is available via WP:TWL. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry. Just got back from a short errand. Where is it on the Library? I can't seem to find it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, never mind, I found it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure you still have to have a subscription to view PDFs of pages and clip articles. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Wikipedia Library does let me access the articles for free. You're right about the clipping part, though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a thread about this at WT:The Wikipedia Library#Can't create clippings on newspapers.com. To be honest, I'm still struggling to figure out the dance you have to go through to generate clippings with the new system. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same. What makes it annoying is the fact that I did indeed log in through the library, but for some bizarre reason, it doesn't let me take the clippings. I have no idea if this is my problem or a problem on the site's end. That's also pretty tedious. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RoySmith, do you think the issues have been fixed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: no. I spot-checked on statement ("Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction") It's still cited to the same useless map, plus the addition of a blog, which not not a WP:RS. Somebody else needs to give this a proper evaluation. RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith @AirshipJungleman29 Now look, I reaaaaallly don't want to use Google Maps for this. But I did talk with Bneu on his talk page and he says that most road editors would agrees that it can be used as a last resort in case I can't find any other source to confirm it. Well, it turns out I indeed can't find the source, and I'm starting to get nervous. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I went to the USGS website and everything is there. So now everything should be confirming to its source. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I've also put DeLorme as a source to help confirm everything in there. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoobThreePointOh you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to verify facts against a source. Looking at the Fair Grove Quad, I can see that I-85 crosses Johnsontown Rd. But none of these facts are verifiable:
  • I-85 goes under Johnsontown Rd (if anything, it looks the opposite)
  • Where mile marker 99 is.
  • What direction traffic flows on each section of I-85.
  • Which section of I-85 goes over the other when they cross 0.2 miles east of Johnsontown Rd.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to using maps as sources, but you can't just cite them and say whatever feels good. Just like with any other source, you need to carefully read the source and only say what the source says. This is crucial and non-negotiable. I hope whoever does the reassessment review will take the time to carefully check that the sources cited throughout this article do actually support the statements they are supposed to support. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I think at this point I'm going to have to use Google Maps as a source. I can't find anything else, and the official NCDOT maps don't help either. It's a last resort that I can only do since there's no other source to use. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here are my responses for each one of your points.
  • I-85 goes under Johnsontown Rd: I've changed under to cross to make it sound more neutral and in place for the source.
  • mile marker 99: TBH, I didn't think that this was even needed in the article, since it's almost unnecessary except for exits and major interchanges, so I removed it.
  • I've added Google Maps as a source for the last two points you've made. As aforementioned, there's little to no information I can find about the statements online. Based on articles like Interstate 75 in Michigan, which are featured and use Google Maps as a source, I feel that it's a bit adequate to use it in this article as well. Let's hope that someone else who checks over the article says it's perfectly fine to do so.
NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State University

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

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

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

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

Kindly explain why you removed this material:
In 1819, the Florida Territory was ceded to the United States by Spain as an element of the Adams–Onís Treaty.[1] The Territory was conventionally split by the Appalachicola or later the Suwannee rivers into East and West areas.
Since you appear to be from Canada and perhaps unaware (forgive me if this is incorrect), this material brings out important information about how and why the East and West Florida Seminaries came to be (these became the flagship universities of Florida State University and the University of Florida), and why Florida was divided by early leaders. This sentence accurately, referenced, and concisely illustrates the early view of Florida by both Federal and State leaders. Additionally, this historically relevant information is formative in Florida politics generally since higher education in Florida shows how Florida turned from a rough territory into what is now one of the fastest-growing states in the United States. Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reviewing your changes and am generally fine with your revisions. You are making the article better - thank you! Wikipedia is a time suck, so it will take a while for me to make corrections and continue the review.Sirberus (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the marine research article. Kindly advise if more is required. I will wait a few days for your response. If I don't hear from you I will remove the tag you placed and replace the sentence of discussion. Thanks again for improving the article!Sirberus (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the approach you're taking (in both cases) is not going to address the problem. The original was copied almost directly from an external source. Your revision creates a derivative work of that external content, which still can't be used. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Rewriting_content has some guidance on how to approach this instead. Note also that these are examples only, not a complete list. I've opened a CCI request concerning an editor who worked extensively on this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, let's hope the other editor can help. What I did was to rewrite the text based on my interpretation of the original. It was not a mere paraphrase, the personality of the original author is gone. I don't see that as derivative, as I relied on my education and experience. However, let's see what results from the skilled editor.
    You seem to have skipped over my first question - can we resolve that small matter? Thank you!Sirberus (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed it because the details of what treaty accomplished this are misplaced in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Florida leaders of that era thought of Florida in east and west terms, resulting from the A-O Treaty. Congressional records show the desire for a "University of Florida" by reserving two townships in east and west Florida in 1836. The 1836 document was signed by Francis Eppes, among others, who later would be the mayor of Tallahassee and the first leader of the West Seminary, which evolved into what is known today as Florida State University, though it was also titled in state law the University of Florida in the post-Civil War period. This link may be a clearer to the origins of West-East Florida. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/florida. I think it makes sense to show why there were two seminaries and how the concept developed. The references to this are already in the history section of the article. Sirberus (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you removed “research university” from the first sentence of the page? This seems inconsistent with the style used on the pages for all other major research universities. TravelsWithCharley (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • The delisting editor (Real4jyy) shows up and says the reason the delisting was made is that no additional edits were made in two weeks...while the two active editors were waiting for a subject matter expert in non-free material to contribute to the review. Pardon me, but I live in the real world, and Wikipedia is a low priority for me and others who want to make Wikipedia better. It may takes months to finish the work. Frankly, the pattern of this individual appears to be to move from one GA review to another and delist whatever falls under their cursor. That is absurd. It takes substantial work to bring an article to GA status. I suggest if any editor want the authority to delist a GA, they should at least bring an article to the GA standard first.Sirberus (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copyright violations in articles are a GAN quickfail criterion, Sirberus. You will note that WP:COPYRIGHT, a policy with legal implications, is just as much a part of "the real world" as whatever you consider not "low priority". Sitting around "waiting for a non-free expert to contribute" is not acceptable (I don't know where you got that—Nikkimaria didn't say anything of the sort would happen), and if you truly want to make Wikipedia better you would let the article be delisted and take the months to finish the work yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • AirshipJungleman29, I suspect that was based on my mention of opening a CCI request - that request has now been opened but given the backlog it might take some time for it to be fully actioned. It covers considerable content in this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I am looking through what SeminoleNation added, but what data specificailly is the problem? If you cannot be more specific, what percentage is of concern? Help me identify and eliminate problem text.Sirberus (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Nikkimaria Just to be clear, I see you are targeting a user's contributions, not this article. Your report to CCI covers many different additions and edits a single user made to perhaps as many as four or more different articles, related in some way to FSU. Let's simplify this to the article at hand - the other edits in other articles are beyond my concern at this time. Help me to identify what is a problem in the main FSU article. Then we can (or I can, your choice) correct the issues and AirshipJungleman29 can weigh in as I appreciate all the work he's done in Wikipedia (sans the snark). Sirberus (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        We should note that Good Article Nomination is not Good Article Reassessment. Once a Good Article, the effort is to preservation. Achieving GA status is not easy as you well know. I will not let it go if I can fix it.Sirberus (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • AirshipJungleman29 I will not sink the GA status of the article for the sake of the two questioned paragraphs. The two paragraphs can be deleted if indeed they are a violation of copyright, which I tend to doubt, absent some verification. And if we refer to GAR process we note that delisting is perhaps the last action to take, with emphasis first on correction and preservation. Out of respect for the process Nikkimaria started I was waiting for input.
        Nikkimaria, how are you determining the two questioned paragraphs are burdened? What process are you using? If I can corroborate that status, I will delete suspect material today. Or, shall we continue to wait? Sirberus (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what you mean by "burdened" here. I provided above sample comparisons showing copying between the article and external sources, and a link to a page that explains how to address that. I do want to emphasis though that these are samples only, not a comprehensive listing. Essentially at this point someone needs to go through the entire article to eliminate copied and closely paraphrased content, and unfortunately that's not a quick or easy process. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Being burdened means having a problem. Let's start with your first concern - the two paragraphs you identified. Who is to judge when it's not a derivative work? Let's then clear the article by section. Once the initial concern is resolved, we can move to the top (lede) and work down. Sirberus (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If rewriting is to occur, that might be a good opportunity to shift lead-exclusive information into the body and handle the unsourced text scattered here and there. I've removed an odd paragraph stating the university was building generic university facilities and trying to make campus look visually appealing. CMD (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I saw your edit and appreciate the culling. The article has accumulated much chaff over time and it is time to clean it up. Sirberus (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FTR I've now requested a CCI for a second editor involved in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up. But that is not this article. I suspect copying and pasting text from other sources is common across Wikipedia especially among young editors, because it is easy. That's why preservation is important here, it took me a lot of work to collect sources and render referenced information for this work.Sirberus (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found an online tool to detect plagiarism and tested it. In the last History section you deleted this text:
    By 1854 the City of Tallahassee had established a school for boys called the Florida Institute, with the hope that the State could be induced to take it over as a seminary. In 1856, Tallahassee Mayor Francis W. Eppes again offered the institute's land and building to the legislature. The bill to locate the Seminary in Tallahassee was signed by the Governor on January 1, 1857. On February 7, 1857, the first meeting of the Board of Education of the State Seminary West of the Suwannee River was held, and the institution began offering post-secondary instruction to male students. Francis Eppes served as the Seminary's Board of Education president for eight years.[2] In 1858 the seminary absorbed the Tallahassee Female Academy, established in 1843, and became coeducational.[3]
    The tool gives a percentage score to other sources. In the tool, it scores this as 43% matches an FSU source. I can seek permission of the university to use this and other material. But what percentage is acceptable? Can we agree to use this method to clean the work? Are you good with FSU giving permission in a fashion acceptable to Wikipedia?
    This as interesting history which I intend to correct and replace, however it evolves. Especially about the battle streamer earned by the cadets during the Civil War. What are your thoughts?Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what percentage is acceptable? Unfortunately, there isn't one. Automated tools can be helpful for catching word-for-word copying of freely accessible English-language web sources. But they will frequently flag correctly marked appropriately sized direct quotes or proper names, and miss close paraphrasing or copying of less-accessible sources. This page has more details (focused on one such tool but generally applicable). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In refreshing myself in this area, Wikipedia has many helpful references. I see straightforward ways to cure suspected non-free material in this article.
    * Delete the material.
    * Reference the material.
    * Rewrite the material.
    * Get permission to use the material.
    * Use a combination of the above, especially in the History section, where the material is so old copyrights have expired. Sirberus (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Referencing the material is a solution only where the material is so old copyrights have expired. If all of the affected sources are willing to freely license the content, that might be another. But failing that, the solution is delete and start again (not rewrite from the existing content). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am rewriting some sections of the history. It may be the easiest to deal with due to the age of the material. Fortunately, I have many of the the references on hand.Sirberus (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately not at this point - while great progress has been made on one CCI, there's at least one more that impacts this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What user?Sirberus (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was thinking of this one, but even that might not be the end of the story - the piece I removed today was not from either of those two CCIs. I should also note that in doing spotchecks, I'm running into a lot of cases where the citations given are not copied but also don't support the material they are claimed to. I'm not sure whether that's because a different source was used originally (as was the case for at least some of the copying), or whether uncited material was interspersed with cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This article has picked up a lot of stuff over the years and was written mostly before Wikipedia copyvios were closely followed (before Wikipedia started trying to monetize things?). It has also been edited over time. The entire work should be checked. Back then, citations were manually entered, and citing material properly took a lot of work (remember Kate Turabian’s book? - lol). Today, there is an automated process that simplifies cites. I want to preserve GA status. It will be cleaned up one way or another. Sirberus (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

AirshipJungleman29 I have corrected a number of cites and added cites where tags were located. I think the non-free material has been removed, unless other editors think more culling is required. The gallery was a mess and I removed anyone not elected or fired into space at taxpayer expense. What else? Sirberus (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of additional edits, checks and rewrites. I scanned the article for additional copyvios and found none. Removed the Non-Free tag.Sirberus (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other problems need to be addressed? I'll keep tweaking, but I need objective assistance.Sirberus (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created page for FSU College of Applied Studies - waiting for review. Sirberus (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove a failed verification tag when the paragraph is not verified by the citation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed several FV and CN tags after I have addressed the assorted problems, like a page number problem. If you have a concern with the cite itself, please be more specific. What else needs to be done? Thanks for taking the time.Sirberus (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does any other editor have comments on this reassessment? I'd like to wrap this up.Sirberus (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there still seem to be verifiability issues. Couple of quick examples: "Doak Campbell Stadium is a unique venue for collegiate athletics. It is contained within the brick facade walls of University Center, the largest continuous brick structure in the world" - the given source states "Doak Campbell Stadium is the largest continuous brick structure in the United States"; "In 2008, the lower floor reopened as the graduate- and faculty-focused Scholars Commons. In 2010, the main floor was transformed into an undergraduate-focused Learning Commons. The most recent renovation added smart study rooms, an enlarged computer area, new circulation areas, a tutoring center, and the nation's first double-sided Starbucks" is cited to a source that verifies only "the nation's first double-sided Starbucks"; "The NSF denied the appeal, explaining that the superior enthusiasm for and commitment to the project demonstrated by Florida State led to the decision to relocate the lab" is cited to a source that confirms the appeal was denied but doesn't say anything about the NSF reasoning for why. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great - this is what I need. I will correct those issues. Thanks!Sirberus (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done - do you see anything else? I've been cleaning up a lot of the article as I see problems. Sirberus (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does any other editor see anything which is not GA level? I want to wrap this up. Sirberus (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cites added to things which could reasonably be challenged. Graphics added to improve presentation. Grammar and clarity checked fine. Any reasonably cognizable copyvio material has been removed. Old data and references deleted. Excess alumni graphics trimmed to elected officials and astronauts. Any tags placed by other editors have been addressed. Anything else? In my opinion, unless someone has an issue I don't see, GA status should be affirmed. Sirberus (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still failing verification on spotchecks. For example, "In 1992, Holton patented an improved process with an 80% yield" - don't see any of that at the given source. Also missing citations, particularly in the alumni section which seems to be largely unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out exactly where you find problems. The alumni section is of questionable value...Sirberus (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the Holton reference. That's been updated. The alumni section may have to be mostly offloaded to a non-good article page...do you have any suggestions? Sirberus (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking other Good Article major universities I find a similar situation - some aren't verifying all the vast claims allegedly made by their alumni. At least [one doesn't verify anything]. [| This university] has done a good job with alumni referencing. Note how short the section is. But this pattern is also common: [| BYU], [| MIT], [| Syracuse U.], [| U Miami], [| U No. Dakota]...
So what do you consider a problem in a Good Article university alumni/people section? Which way should I go with this? Sirberus (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a start, poor-quality prose with missing or incorrect punctuation or clearly uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Let me see if I can make things better with organization and some trimming. Frankly, I'd like to delete this section. The other Good Article-rated universites retain it, but I question the value.Sirberus (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went radical and dumped the ever-growing list. Please take a look and see if this will work. The special pages set up for this list are a far better location to document all these people. Sirberus (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will pause work to see how this rework is received. Sirberus (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comments on the "People" section? Any other problems to fix? I think it (People section) looks better, but I am not sure of the final configuration. I'll continue to tweak other aspects of the article, but can we pass this and wrap this up?Sirberus (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comments generally? Do we have a Good Article? Sirberus (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again hitting verifiability issues on spotchecks. Examples: "A Mysterious Clarity. It debuted at the 621 Gallery in 2004 (Tallahassee, Florida), and by popular demand, quickly evolved into a traveling show" is cited to a source that confirms this show was at that gallery in 2004 but not that that was a debut or if/why that later became a traveling show; "the ROTC unit at Florida State University is one of four collegiate military units with permission to display a battle streamer" does not appear in the given source at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the battle streamer and one of four ROTC units here's the corroboration in the listed cite: 1861-65 – During the Civil War, formal military training began at the seminary and it was briefly renamed The Florida Military and Collegiate Institute. Cadets from the institute defeated Union forces at the Battle of Natural Bridge on March 6, 1865, and because of this victory, the FSU Army ROTC is one of four in the United States permitted to display a battle streamer. That is clear enough in my opinion. However, here is a more detailed reference from another school (The Citadel) authorized to display battle streamers: As a result of actions on the battlefield by The Battalion of State Cadets, The Citadel earned the right to post nine “institutional” battle streamers for “significant participation in a battle of historical importance.” Only VMI (one “institutional” streamer), Florida State, William & Mary and Univ. of Hawaii Army ROTC units (each with one) have also been authorized that right. The national service academies post the battle streamers of their respective services, but none for “institutional” participation by the cadet corps. I'll add the cite, but it's overkill.
I'll concede the art claim as being weakly supported by the cite and not worth trying to find a better one. I deleted it. I also found a tag which I fixed, about the MoFA.
Anything else? Sirberus (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue to work through the references and update old material. Your primary assertion was copyvio material, which is now gone. Do you see any big stuff remaining? Sirberus (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'll address the references - if needed. Perfect references are not required for a Good Article. I also don't see MOS standards mandated in a Good Article. There are no website standards in the Good Article criteria either, but while desirable, and I'll work towards better presentation and cite quality none of that should stop recertification as a Good Article. Great suggestions, though. Sirberus (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not suggestions... "I also don't see MOS standards mandated" it's literally on the second line! Criterion 1b) states quite clearly that a GA must comply with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT (in which you may find MOS:OVERSECTION), MOS:WTW, MOS:WAF, and MOS:EMBED. Criterion 2b) requires that all information in a GA is cited, and that reliable sources are used. Seriously, did you even bother to read the criteria Sirberus? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I did skip over the MOS part in the criteria, mea culpa. I'll take a look. Sirberus (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I reworked the lede and checked the style and it was clunky. I reworked it and am open to suggestions about how it may be improved from here. However, this is still a reassessment, which has turned into a major rework. The assorted cites from lesser quality sources are going to have to be selected out carefully. Everything does not rate an article in the WSJ. Show me the ones you consider to be the worst of the lot and I will either delete the statement or replace the cite. Sirberus (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RSP, WP:SPS, and the sources I mentioned above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have the dubious cites removed. Let me know if you catch one I missed. Sirberus (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we done? Sirberus (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article now substantially comports with GA standards and should be re-approved for GA status. No, it's not perfect, mainly because the cites for many salient details covered in the article come from FSU news articles. No one has shown me the FSU factual information in their news blasts is misleading or otherwise incorrect, so I say they are fine until a workaround is found for more independent citations. Sirberus (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Serial Set 4478 57th Congress, 2d session House Document 15, Part 2 map 14". 1820. p. 377. Archived from the original on December 13, 2013. Retrieved December 13, 2013.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Official History of Florida State University was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Book Review: Gone with the Hickory Stick: School Days in Marion County 1845-1960" (PDF). The Florida Historical Quarterly. LV (3): 122. January 1977. Retrieved July 12, 2010.


Joe Rice

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

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

Hi, I believe I could get this done. What is your expected timeline for this? Matarisvan (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29, I believe this article is back at GA level. Wdyt, any comments you would like to add? Matarisvan (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thoughts below after a quick scan:

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

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

Hi @Z1720, I'm out of town for a week and don't have access to my computer. Is it ok if we wrap this up after I return, let's say on the 22nd or 23rd? Matarisvan (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm fine with that. I might add a more thorough review below so that it can be declared "Keep" sooner. Z1720 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Campbell

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

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

My advice is to trim the lede by at least one paragraph and reincorporate into another section, cut down some of the block quotes and change them into regular prose, and look into some of the works found in the Further Reading section to determine if any of the unsourced claims can be found there. I was able to find a Los Angeles Times reference for one of the unsourced claims and I might be able to assist further with the article. Are you available or willing to clean up the article? If so, can you provide a timeframe? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dobbyelf62: I am happy to provide a review after the article is fixed up, but I am not willing to clean up the article myself. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: That's fine. While I might not be able to heavily overhaul the article, I am willing to make various improvements. I have made a couple of changes in the interim, including the addition of references and the elimination of a few block quotes in favor of prose, but I'm hoping that I did not remove any necessary context in doing so.

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

@Dobbyelf62: According to WP:LEADLENGTH, it is suggested that an article of this length should be two to three paragraphs. Typically, the lede is a summary of the most important aspects of the article. I don't have enough knowledge of the prose to know what should be cut from the lede, and I don't have the time or desire to obtain that knowledge. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dobbyelf62: do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am unfortunately away from my computer and will not be able to make extensive edits until the end of the month. My apologies for the inconvenience. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division

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

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

Hi @Hog Farm, I would like to work on this article. What is your expected timeline? 10-20 days? Matarisvan (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get it done in less than a month, that would be great. Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justinian I

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

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

Hi, I will work on this article. What is your expected timeline for this? 10-20 days? Matarisvan (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hey, nice to see you're planning to work on this article. I'm not an expert on the period, but I was confused by the following: he came from a peasant family ... The name Iustinianus, which he took later, is indicative of adoption by his uncle Justin. ... His mother was Vigilantia, the sister of Justin. Justin, who was commander of one of the imperial guard units (the Excubitors) before he became emperor. I think it should be clarified - how it was possible that commander of the guard became an emperor? Was there a military coup? Or he was from the previous emperor's family? And were this commander and his nephew really from a peasant family? Artem.G (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Artem.G, I just concluded another GA reassessment and have started working on this one. Give me some time and I will resolve the queries you have. Matarisvan (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided many of the citations, and will continue looking for ones where they are still needed. Chronicler Frank (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This collection of randomly selected texts from several sources (including primary sources) could hardly be described as a coherent article. For instance, section "Legislative activities" contains sentences about elements of his legislation without explaining why they are emphasised, and section "Natural disasters" does not explain their effect on Justinian's reign. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Borsoka, good to see you here! I understand you are quite well read on Crusader and other nobility, so I hope you could help me out here. I have just started working on this article, with my sole edit yet only seeking to improve source formatting. I will work on the issues you have raised and hope I can get them resolved soon. Matarisvan (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&diff=1225482527&oldid=183116242

Leave a Reply