Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQBacklog drivesMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport
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 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 delisting.

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. Comments should focus on the article's contents and adherence to the good article criteria.
  2. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible.
  3. Interested editors can indicate their intention to fix the article and give updates on their progress in the GAR. Commentators should periodically check the GAR and give additional comments when necessary. Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 month.
  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.
    • If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
  4. After at least one month, 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.
  5. If the article has been kept, consider awarding the Good Article Rescue Barnstar to the editor(s) who contributed significantly to bringing it up to standard.
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. Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States 2024-08-11
  2. Pest control 2024-08-22
  3. New England Patriots 2024-08-28
  4. The Chariot (band) 2025-02-12
  5. Dragon Quest 2025-03-13
  6. 18th Military Police Brigade (United States) 2025-05-01
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

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

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

Lots of uncited statements and a "more sources needed" orange banner in the "Legacy" section. Z1720 (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abergil crime family

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

The lead is quite large, especially for such a short article. The "Case 512" section is completely uncited. Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Boot

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

There's a "sources are too closely associated with the subject" orange banner at the top of the article since October 2023. Has this been addressed? The lead contains new publications written by Boot, but these are not mentioned in the "Career" section. The "Career" and "Political beliefs" sections are too long and have too many small paragraphs. I suggest that these use level 3 headings to break up the text and be reformatted into larger, fewer paragraphs. The lead does not summarise the political beliefs of the subject. There might be some post-2018 information that should be added to "Career" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icehouse (band)

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

The article uses sources that WP:RS/P does not consider reliable, such as "Rate Your Music" "Discogs" and "IMDB". These should be replaced or the information it is verifying and the source removed. There is also some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diving cylinder

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

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

Busy with citations. If there are any statements you feel specifically need further citation, please tag as such. Preferably with some indication of why if it is not obvious. (I will query if it is not obvious to me). Sections with multiple subsections may include summaries which contain material cited elsewhere in the section.
Please feel free to make actionable suggestions for which content should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed, specifying which of these you are recommending, and motivating each case. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant

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

Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, the article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too detailed. Many sources listed in "Bibliography" are not used as inline citations and should be moved to "Further reading". Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, this article has already been reduced in size, to allign with the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower article. Grant's presidency was detailed, as it included 8 years of turbulent Reconstruction, Native American, Domestic, and Foreign Policy. Second, Grant's presidency article, should not be a reduced format historical article format, when the Eisenhower article receives ample article size. This is Wikipedia. Articles should be detailed, supplied by reliable sources. Important issues such a civil rights, prosecution of the Klu Klux Klan, should have detail. Both Grant and Eisenhower, deserve equal importance and equal size. As far as sources, not used in the article, I have no issue with them being removed. Third, I think this article has already been improved, and deserves GA standing. I am not sure why Grant is getting this attention all of a sudden. The article appears to be written in a neutral format. Why now? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, and not all details will be included in an article. If the level of detail is important, the information can be spun out into a child-article. WP:DETAIL outlines examples of how much detail an article should have, and states that "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)." The last part, linking to separate articles, might be what is best for some aspects of this article. WP:TOOBIG outlines that articles should probably be less than 9,000 words: at 14,000, this article far exceeds that. In a GAR, the current article version is evaluated on its adherence to the GA criteria and does not consider how much work has been done to an article, or how much it has been improved. The Eisenhower article is not a GA, so it is hard to compare the qualities (and size) of those two articles for this GAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, articles can be spun out. You have not mentioned anything specifically you want changed. What is it exactly you want changed? Again, I have substantially reduced this article before. Is there an exact rule of how long articles should be such as 9,000 words or less. What does "should probably be less" mean ? Anymore reduction in this article would reduce the reliability and needed context of the article, imo. Grant has a lot of biographers and biographies. Renewed interest has been taken in Grant's life, generalship, and presidency. Charles W. Calhouns (2017) book on Grant's presidency has 593 pages. What specific areas of the article do you find too long? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable people and topics have books that are hundreds or thousands of pages long. WP:TOOBIG has useful rules of thumb for article size. I usually do not recommend specifics at the beginning because I want to give a chance for subject-matter experts to make recommendations first. Since I have been asked, here are some suggestions:

  • In general, I recommend that a subject-matter expert do a copy edit of the entire article and remove redundant text, off-topic information about others, and sumarise text more effectively when possible.
  • First Presidency:
    • "Financial policy" Suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. I suggest these paragraphs be merged and extra/too detailed information be placed in the appropriate article.
    • "Failed annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)" could be too detailed and possibly trimmed.
    • "Native American policy" also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and, if the paragraphs are merged together, information can be spun out to the appropriate articles.
    • "Domestic policy" also suffers from OVERSECTION and not as much detail is needed for all of these individual aspects (especially the "Holidays law")
  • Second Presidency:
    • "Vicksburg riots" and "South Carolina 1876" spend at least a paragraph explaining the conflict before mentioning Grant. While a brief introduction is appropriate, too much space is given to this off-topic information and this article should focus on Grant's actions and policies.
    • "Foreign policy" suffers from OVERSECTION with the last three paragraphs: these should be merged and summarised.
    • "Reforms and scandals" Lots of oversection, it is better to merge the information and give a wikilink than have a whole paragraph explaining each topic.
    • "States admitted to the Union", "Vetoes" and "Government agencies instituted" can be moved to the part of the article most appropriate to his presidency. "Memorials and monuments" can be moved to Grant's main article.

This is not an exhaustive list, and there can of course be disagreement. None of this negates the uncited paragraphs in the article, which also need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those spin off articles have not been created. The Presidency of Barack Obama article 13,915 words. I found that on XTools. Is this correct? You can verify that. The Holidays Laws is important. They are national holidays created by Grant and congress. This article can be improved. You are free to make edits to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: Yes, Presidency of Barack Obama is 13,000 long. No, it is also not a GA. This process is to evaluate an article against the GA criteria. If the article topic is notable, any editor can make a new article and place information there. I will not be making edits to this article as I am busy with many on-and-off wiki tasks. I am happy to support those who do want to make those edits and will re-review if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article passed GA in the past. Yes. There is room for improvement, and thanks for the specifics. I just don't think it necessary to take away the GA status, when in the past it was given GA status, by whatever standard(s) was(were used) at the time. Improvements can be made to the article without removing the GA, imo. I have made past reductions to the article, found in the talk page, to improve the article. Grant's Native American policy, reforms and scandals, have been made into spinoff articles. Probably, the next spin off article should be Grant's Foreign policy. Grant's presidency was different. He was elected and served two consecutive terms in office, that would not be repeated until the election of Woodrow Wilson. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: An article will not be delisted if improvements are ongoing and concerns addressed. My concerns are listed above. The GAR will assess the article against the current criteria, not the criteria that was in place when it was passed. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been significantly been reduced in size, before. Your concerns are noted. What about editor concensus? These objections seem to be only your objections focused specifically on Grant, not other Presidents. You also seem to be requiring other spin off articles to be made on Grant's domestic and financial policies. The Santo Domingo annexation was very important to Grant. It was also a drama between Grant and Charles Sumner, who would control the Republican Party. Some leeway should be allowed in that section on article length, since this article focuses on Grant's Presidency. When you say "delisted", are you saying removal of the article from Wikipedia? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Impact (spacecraft)

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

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

British Army during the First World War

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

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, this article has too much detail and is WP:TOOBIG. While this might be a large topic, I think some prose can be spun out, summarised more effectively, or trimmed. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk

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

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

  • Delist – unless it is cut down to 8,000 words max. The article is way too long, to a point where it is simply not readable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – agree with Jens Lallensack that the article is much, much too long. I notice that citations to books do not specify page numbers. Looking at the history, the article was only 27.7kB when listed as a good article in October 2007. The article was expanded by 182kB in a single edit in January 2018. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree there's a lot of unreadable stuff there. I've also just replaced a misidentified photo; the "nominate B. j. jamaicensis" photo was a random captive bird with zero information on its origin, I've added a genuine one from Puerto Rico instead. I'll check the other subspecies photos later. - MPF (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Cleveland Browns

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

Numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 16,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Should this article be split into various time periods, or should prose be moved to other articles, summarised more effectively, or removed? Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime You Need a Friend

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

Uncited text, some labelled with "citation needed" since October 2021. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Grant (basketball)

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

"The Basketball Tournament" section is uncited and underdeveloped. There is no post-2020 information, although it seems like he played in the 2021-2022 season for a Kosovo and Liga team. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Flames

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

Lots of uncited statements near the end of the article, including entire paragraphs and the entire "Uniforms" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I'll do my best to keep this article in good standing. However, could you place in citation tags in the places you think are very necessary? Thank you. Conyo14 (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust in Lithuania

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

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is an "updated needed" orange tag at the top of the "Controversy and criticism" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as it stands now. Lots of maintenance tags + a translate banner that suggests this is not broad. Further reading + ELs suggest many sources that are not used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I was the primary author of this, but this was long ago. Our standards have risen and this requires verification, replacing poor sources with better ones, and such, and I, at least, have no time and will to bring it to our modern standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royal intermarriage

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

Lots of uncited statements. Also, the latter half of the article seems to be an indiscriminate list of every royal intermarriage ever without curation: I suggest that this information be spun out into its own articles. Z1720 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has had more than 7,000 words added to it since it was promoted to GA in June 2014 in this version. I agree with Z1720's comments, above. As well as having too many uncited statements the article now suffers from a bad mess in the References section: authors are given, seemingly at random, by forename/surname or sometimes by surname, forename; capitalisation is equally arbitrary: "anselme", "FREDERIC WAKEMAN JR" (but also "Frederic E. Wakeman"), "RETURN OF THE ROYALS"; we have "Beeche (2009)", "Beeche (2010)" and a dateless and accented "Beéche"; in the References section we have bibliographical details of more than 40 books that clearly ought to be listed in the Sources section (and some are given multiple times: the details of Wakeman's The Great Enterprise are given four times); titles are sometimes in sentence case and sometimes in title case; and we have some impenetrable citations such as "BAILII, 'Act of Settlement 1700'". The referencing plainly fails GA criteria 2a and 2b in my view. This is now such an omnium gatherum of an article that I think it also fails criterion 3b. Tim riley talk 07:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satake clan

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

Uncited statements tagged with "citation needed" since 2014. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

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

Lots of uncited statements, including the entire "In popular culture" section. The lead could be expanded upon a little bit. Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades Interstate Parkway

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

Uncited paragraphs in the "Rest areas" and "Controversies" sections. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augustin-Jean Fresnel

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

There are some uncited statements. While some of the statements might be covered under WP:CALC, other biographical statements are not covered under this and will need citations. I am happy to add citation needed templates to the statements that I think need them, if requested below. The article, at almost 16,000 words, has redundant phrases and too much detail. Some of the prose could be moved to other articles, or removed per WP:TMI. Some sections are also quite large, leading to poor navigation (especially for mobile users). I suggest that sections be around 2-4 paragraphs, with more sub-headings used to break up the text. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I am not going to have time to act on this in the foreseeable future. So I shall just have to accept the outcome.
— Gavin R Putland (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

Some uncited text (including entire paragraphs) and lots of one-paragraph sections which should be merged per MOS:OVERSECTION. History stops at 2022 so there might be some recent information to add to the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly needs updating for the past four years, but it's not an impossible task. Best of luck. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mythodea

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk

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

Prior issues were raised by editors at Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 22#Good Article Concerns, though no action was taken to follow up on them. The largest issues in this article relate to stability and citations. On stability, article content has changed significantly week after week and it can no longer be assumed that there is a consistent level of quality, in addition to the various disputes that have arisen in the last six months since Musk has become involved with the U.S. federal government. As far as citations, a non-negligible amount of work would have to go into improving them, namely in the "Politics" section. The CiteHighlighter script may be useful here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Please note WP:GAR: "Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delisting The article has undergone over 5,000 edits since its reassessment in November 2022. To say that the article has changed significantly since then would be an understatement. This article suffers from neutrality issues (namely UNDUE WEIGHT/BLPGOSSIP problems) and poor sourcing. Some1 (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Dream – The Ride

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

The lead is quite short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article. There is lots of uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Development Association

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

The "History" section stops at 1960, even though it continues to exist today. Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Xilai

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

Uncited statements in the article, including the entire "Popular culture" section and multiple paragraphs. At over 10,000 words, this article is too detailed. For example, there is far too much detail about his marriages, including a very long block quote that should be summarised instead. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added starting sources to uncited paragraphs and removed some unsourced material. How do you think the marriages section should be cut? The Account 2 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Account 2: An article should have information about who the partner is, one sentence on how they met, when they were married, their kids, and how their marriage ended (if applicable). Unless there is something really notable about the marriage, other information can be trimmed/cut. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it look now? I trimmed and split some of the info to a new article. I didn't want to remove too much information about his second marriage because it played a central role in Bo's career and ultimate political downfall. The Account 2 (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Allen (governor-general)

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

No post-2009 information, even though he has been governor-general of Jamaica during this time. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo (D'Angelo album)

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

The chart in the "Accolades" section is uncited, and has been tagged with "citation needed" templates since December 2023. Z1720 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably fix a few and the rest can be removed. I'm assuming it is because it was acclaimedmusic. Chchcheckit (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yea this seems like it can be a really easy save. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
alright i cut a lot of the uncited stuff and found sources for some. only thing i think needs doing is finding a source supporting the claim it appeared on many year end lists // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and if anyone else finds any other accolades then can add them. given they're properly cited Chchcheckit (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references for the two remaining {{cn}}s. I don't see any other glaring issues (other than the lack of citation templates, but those aren't required for GA). voorts (talk/contributions) 04:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Zahorchak

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

The article's history stops at 2011. I did a quick Internet search and saw that there was controversy in the Allentown School District that he was superintendent at, and that he is now a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Johnstown. I think there is post-2011 information that needs to be added to the article. There are also some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, and many sections are quite long and should be broken up with additional headings. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was the primary author on the original email. I'm not as active on Wikipedia these days, but I'd be happy to add post-2011 information to this article and fix some of the issues that have been identified here in this GAR. I think I can find some time to do this either this weekend or early next week, and will share updates here either way... — Hunter Kahn 17:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steel

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Some have been tagged with "citation needed" since January 2024. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and added citations, rewording sections as necessary. If there are any other poorly cited sections feel free to let me know. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 07:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Court

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

The "Recent history" section stops at 2018. Are there any more recent events to add to the article? There are also some uncited paragraphs in that section. There are several large block quotes, which should probably be put into summary style instead. "Location and surroundings" has a lot of small paragraphs which could be merged together for better formatting. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above suggestions, but the article still seems to me to meet the GA criteria. Tim riley talk 13:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citation concerns seem to have been resolved with edits to the article on July 5. My other concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking our resident expert on British country houses, KJP1 to look in, if free, and comment. Tim riley talk 17:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look. KJP1 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There’s certainly some sourcing to allow for updating post 2018, [1]. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So:

  • with thanks to User:Rbrwr, the History is now updated to cover 2025;
  • the absence of citing is sorted - I've also updated the Pevsner, added the Andrew Foyle City Guide, put the Historic England cites into the template, and given a cite for the listing of the park;
  • the short para.s are combined - I've also reordered, as it struck me as odd to have the History to 1945, then the Archive and Architecture sections, then the Recent History, so I've put the History altogether and smoothed out the repetition over the last resident owners.
  • what that leaves is the block quotes. I can certainly take these out but, for me, they're not much of an issue. Z1720, can you let me know. KJP1 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work, KJP1. I see no objection to the block quotes, which are not excessive, in my view. Tim riley talk 07:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They look alright to me too. I've had a look at MOS:BQ, and that explicitly doesn't specify maximum lengths. But I have moved the cites to the introductory lines, which is apparently the preferred placing. Let's see if Z1720 thinks they're a deal-breaker. KJP1 (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haapsalu Castle

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

The "History" section is quite short, considering how long this has existed. More recent events should probably also be included. The lead is too short and does not summarise all major aspects. The article has uncited information, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German submarine U-853

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

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

I've added cn tags where relevant, and gone ahead and removed most of the legacy section. It dealt with the post-war history of USS Atherton, which is completely irrelevant to U-853. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not easily verify the remaining statement, and it seemed to be of low importance to the article. If somebody wants to research the question of what happened to the propellers and write it up, they could. On balance, such low importance, unverified information is best removed. Jehochman Talk
Here's a source, that perhaps might be sufficient to restore that content about the propellers. [2] What do you all think? Jehochman Talk 20:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant NHHC article here covers the propeller point. As a 2020 publication, it might be useful in filling in other gaps in the article as well. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Although now that I look at it, the wording for U-853's part seems distressingly similar to your writing of twelve years earlier! What do you think? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uncited armament section was added in 2016, by an editor who hasn't edited in many years. It appears to be giving details of a rearmament carried out after completion of construction, but (1) doesn't really fit as a standalone section so should be integrated into the design section, and (2) badly needs sources that can pin this specific upgrade to the submarine in question - while U-853 will have been re-armed (an increased anti-aircraft armament was required for operational use) there appear to have been several different options for this upgunning.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that for at least some of the book sources (i.e. Due to enemy action... and The greatest submarine stories ever told, the publisher claimed for the edition cited does not match that for the ISBN according to Worldcat - this may indicate a need to check sources more closely.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • While as a 2008 GA it's possible this could use some work, this claim does not appear to be true? I'm not seeing any unreferenced paragraphs here, barring the Gameplay / Plot section which is implicitly sourced to the game itself (and there are some references thrown in anyway). SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire: Per MOS:VGGAMEPLAY, "gameplay details must be appropriately verifiable to reliable sources." The last paragraph of the "Music" section is also entirely uncited. It is correct that the Plot section does not need citations, but I took another look and noticed its length: MOS:VGPLOT says that, in general, video game plots should be less than 700 words, or if episodic, 300 words per episode. This article's plot is over 1,700 words so it might need to be trimmed and/or have the information about the characters in their own section. Z1720 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In practice, since gameplay sections accept primary sources (if grudgingly) and a lot of the secondary sources are going to be in Japanese, this is just about the most acceptable kind of Gameplay section to have be primary sourced. I don't know the game but I suspect a lot of it could be handled with someone who does know it just making explicit citations to the game. It's not ideal and would be a problem on well-covered games, but the expectations are a bit different for non-English obscura.
    • Your other points are fine, but I think they should have been in the nomination statement. As I noted, it wouldn't be shocking if this article needs some cleanup, and I agree the plot section seems a tad over long. SnowFire (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: If action is not taken soon, I agree. I see an entire paragraph outside of plot summaries uncited. This paragraph starts with "The opening theme of Ef: A Tale of Melodies is the English version". The sentence "The PlayStation 2 version released by Comfort will include an image song CD in the game disc, which will contain a song called 'Echt Forgather' by Hitomi Harada" is also uncited. Ideally, paragraphs outside plot summaries and summaries of cited material need to be cited. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist economics

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Ramírez (Dominican pitcher)

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

Uncited statements, including entire sections and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did work at two of the recent baseball GARs (Ian Kinsler and Buster Posey) but I don't functionally read Spanish and I know little about the Mexican League, so I don't anticipate being able to do much to help this article, as the Mexican League portion of his career is what needs the most work. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union

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

Lots of uncited statements including entire paragraphs. Citation needed tags since 2017. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bali Nine

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Lots of block quotes that should be in summary style. Some unreliable sources are used in the article such as International Business Times and World Socialist Web Site. Z1720 (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style has nothing to do with block quotations. I don't think you understand this guideline at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: MOS:QUOTE states "Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate." Summarising or paraphrasing a quote, rather than using all of the text, is sometimes more appropriate. Since the GA criteria 3b wikilinks to WP:SS, I will cite that instead in the GA reviews. Lots of quotes also bring copyright concerns if used excessively. I try not to write this level of detail in every GAR I open because it makes the nomination very long, which discourages editors from wanting to make additional improvements. If editors have further questions or concerns, I am happy to go into more detail. Z1720 (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:QUOTE has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:Summary style, which is about the creation of subarticles. This article is fully compliant, as subarticles do exist for each of the Bali Nine. While I fully agree with the rationale for MOS:QUOTE, 1(b) does not specify it as a requirement for GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and I would like to have more editors give their thoughts on whether the quotes, especially in the "Reactions in Australia" section, adhere to the GA criteria. None of this negates the multiple uncited paragraphs in the article, especially in the "Arrests in Indonesia" section and the "Philip Ruddock, a federal MP, was quoted as saying:" quotation. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the missing citations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for adding citations. Two citations in the "Arrests in Indonesia" section were added with the wikicode {{ref|profiles}}. When I click on them, they don't jump to a reference like other inline citations do, and when I hover my mouse over it, the pop-up text reads "Wikimedia-related website#endnote profiles". Is this what is supposed to happen with this inline citation? What source is supposed to be verifying this information? Z1720 (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Over time the formatting of the references was changed. The link is to http://www.laksamana.net/news_read.php?gid=140 Profiles of the Bali Nine, 16 February 2006. However, the link is now rotten and the Wayback machine never archived it correctly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why wasn't this information put into a <ref> code or sfn template? I'm not sure the ref:profile template works for this situation, as the link to the laksamana website is not in the references section. I'm fine with a "deadlink" template being next to it if that is all we can do for now, and the information was verified in the previous review. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, I am in agreement with Hawkeye7 that MOS:QUOTE is generally unrelated to WP:SS; you may have gotten confused with GA criterion 3b), which advises against "unnecessary detail". Summary style is a possible solution to excessive detail, but the two concepts are not congruent. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Cornell University

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the good article status. Here is why: There are too many block quotes which are too short to justify blocks. "Henry W. Sage donated $500,000 to fund the construction of the library" is unreferenced. Oberlin and University of Michigan allegedly "provided models for Cornell," but that assertion is unreferenced. There are several entire paragraphs in the section "Support from New York State" which contain no references at all. The graphic "Dedication plaque on Uris Library" is illegible. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karl G. Maeser

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

This article has multiple orange banners, including paid contributions, promotional content, and sources too closely associated with the topic. Z1720 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It smacks of boosterism, particularly in the section about the black boards. "He had a dream, or what he called a vision, in which he saw '...great temples of learning,'" and then showing pictures of all three. This is devotional boosterism. Also, we need more critical literature which would address the topics of polygamy and sexual abuse of minors (child brides, etc., the usual Mormon problems). Also, the lede is too extensive and should not have abbreviations in parentheses, that comes later. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The passage you pulled out seems to have been poorly written and deviated from the source. I disagree with the assessment of the lead being too long or improperly written (indeed, it seems to me a fine summary). Regarding the lack of coverage of usual Mormon problems, we should identify sources that discuss them in detail before assessing whether this article fails to adequately cover them (though I suspect it does). ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The re-write certainly helps with those passages. There look to be a few other passages that stray from an encyclopedic tone (e.g. "He was an example of dedication and faithfulness" – I've just changed this to "He has been held up as an example...") but overall it seems pretty well written and referenced.
The banners:
There is a claim that the article has been worked on by paid editors who have inserted promotional wording, which was made a few months ago on this talk page. It is unclear what the evidence for this claim is. However, I don't think this meets the criterion of being a clean-up banner that is 'unquestionably still valid' for WP:GAFAIL.
There was promotional wording, but much of this seems to have been addressed or can be addressed. This claim was made at the same time as the claim that paid editors had been working here.
The claim that there are sources are too closely associated with the subject is another one made at the same time. Citations 3, 4 and 5 are referenced multiple times. 3 and 5 are published by BYU, 4 by Deseret Book Company. All of these are Mormon-owned. However, I am not convinced that this makes them too closely associated with the subject to be considered reliable. It is quite possible that they contain biases, but that does not make them unreliable per WP:PARTISAN. My feeling is that, as far as GAR is concerned, these are not clearly unreliable and so need to be treated as reliable until they are separately discussed and consensus that they are unreliable is reached at RSN.
However, as raised by other editors, there is a danger that reliance on sources that may omit 'problematic' issues means the article fails to cover some major aspects. I think Melchior is right that the article could use more critical literature. But if it is going to be failed on the grounds that it omits major aspects, there has to be actual evidence that these aspects have been omitted. The article does actually mention that he took a second wife, and that he was arrested and fined for it. If he had taken a child bride or there were other credible allegations of abuse, these should obviously be mentioned, but I couldn't find any indication (in a fairly quick search) of either of these.
Overall, once the boosterism problems have been addressed I don't see any reason to remove this from GA. The banners should probably also be removed unless some supporting evidence is given for them. Robminchin (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retention: Unless someone has access to some of these print sources and finds substantial deviation from them and the article, I see no reason to demote the article at this time. The tags were arguably appropriate due to the involvement of BYU student editors and some laudatory language, but I believe this article presently meets the criteria for Good Article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I read through the article and removed off-topic, POV and too detailed prose. There is some text in the middle of the Career section that is not chronological that I think could be better formatted. I also added a "when" template to the "Legacy" section. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • These removals were excessive. Substantial details—particularly about his second wife and early interactions with Mormonism—contradict some of the concerns raised by another reviewer and detract from the coverage of this subject. I believe that the article is now worse off than when I supported keeping it earlier today. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Article should avoid becoming a WP:COATRACK for other topics, and should only include notable information. Some of the text was added back in, so below is my explanation of why I removed those passages:
  • "The baptism occurred at night because the church was banned in Germany at that time." In my opinion this is too much detail: the time of Maeser's baptism has no effect on Maester's biography. The article does not need an example to show that LDS was banned in Germany at the time: the article can instead clearly state that information earlier in the article, or mention it later to explain why the Dresden police forced Maeser to leave Germany.
  • If Damke is notable, she should have her own article. If she is not notable, Maeser's article should not be used to explain her biography. I did not feel that Damke's age was important to mention in the article. If it is important to mention, the article should explain why.
  • "This event marked Maeser's acceptance of Mormon practice that wholly contradicted his German identity." This is a pretty extraordinary claim that is hard to prove. Why didn't his baptism, move to America, or becoming president of any missionaries mark this transition? This sentence sounded boisterous and not within WP:WIKIVOICE, and if it did mark this transition this would need to be explained in much more detail with several citations.
I hope this helps explain my reasoning. If there's any other text that was removed where an explanation would be helpful, feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to each of these:
  • Why not include an interesting, relevant detail about Maeser experiencing persecution for his religion in a context that he actually experienced that persecution?
  • This is a tad unusual. If it is important to mention, the article should explain why. The detail I added clearly explains why this is important to mention: it was a major deviation from his native culture. See the GA Joseph Smith for a demonstration that brief details about a polygamous wife are conventional.
  • This is a pretty extraordinary claim Not really. Re-baptisms weren't unheard of in Germany–Anabaptists once abounded–and I think a few the notion of moving to America marking a transition from German identity would come as a surprise to some of my great-grandparents. We have an RS (one of the relatively few independent of BYU, no less!) that says it, so it ought to be included.
Thank you for your explanations, but these specific removals are addressing a COATRACK issue that does not exist. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbritti: Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia, it is a general encyclopedia. The more random facts that are added to an article, the harder it is for readers to find the more important aspects of Maeser's biography. The article already mentions religious persecution towards Maeser when he and his family is kicked out of Germany, and this fact is important to his biography because it explains why he then travelled to England. That is far more important to highlight than when his baptism took place. Converting to LDS is already a major deviation from his native culture, and further explanations of how he embraced the religion does not demonstrate further deviations. While rebaptisms might have been common at that time (and having a baptism when you are converting to a Christian religion is not uncommon) getting baptised into an illegal LDS religion is not a common part of most people's biographies. The extraordinary claim that his second marriage (and not baptism into the LDS church, causing him to convert to an illegal religion) is what marked his transition away from his culture will need extraordinary proof, not just one citation. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That a person converted to an illegal religion in secrecy and married a woman 23 years younger than his first wife is not trivia or random facts. Indeed, their emphasis in coverage by RSs indicate that they are relevant. Wikipedia follows from secondary sources. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Belgrano

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

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is also a "citations needed" orange banner at the top of the "Family tree" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torta caprese

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

Per the concern listed on Template:Did you know nominations/Torta caprese (low-quality sources, which seems to have slipped under radar during the GA review). This is also partly my fault, considering that I thought the sources were in good quality (but lower than rest of my cake GAs) when nominating this article for GAN. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you looking for here? GA doesn't have higher standards of sourcing than regular articles, so if sourcing is too weak for it to be a GA it is too weak to include at all. Are you looking for new sources? I'd love to help you look, but I know you are quite a good researcher so I'm not sure how helpful such an exercise could be. Is this a second opinion on whether the sources are indeed too low quality? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 17:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The sources are suitable for Wikipedia, so they're suitable for a GA. Neither GAN nor GAR are meant as platforms for creeping change to the encyclopedia's core policies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well... let's start from the beginning, shall we? When I first started examining sources for this article, I started from prominent food books and I was surprised that I found zero mentions of this cake. On Google Books, I was able to find mentions of the cake in some books but I was skeptical and I did not end up adding any books in the article. Then I started researching from various websites and everything that I was able to find is currently in the article. It's not a lot, but basically, I carefully looked at each source to determine whether it was reliable or not and whether it was a food blog or not. I nominated this article for GAN because I thought that the sources were of good quality. And Rollinginhisgrave, you are correct. If these sources are not of good quality even for GA, then this article should not even exist. It's sad that there are not a lot of reliable food websites, but that's not really my or anyone's fault here. So, really, I don't need help. I know that the sources I've found are of best quality available currently on the internet. The problem that I had at DYK is that some editors deemed them to be unreliable or weak. I did not want to occur any more problems there, so I withdrew the nomination (it's already been sitting there for like 2 months) and came here. If you two think that the sources are of good quality and usable for GA... then I'm confused. I started this reassesment because of the concern at the DYK nomination and I want to hear what other editors think of that. Are these sources of good quality? Are they usable for a GA? I won't have any objections to either of the outcomes of this discussion. I'm just rather curious to see if the community thinks the same as those editors at DYK. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vacant0, I left a comment below about sources that I don't think are reliable enough for the information. What do you think about this source? Some coverage of the publisher: [3][4]. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay to me. I'd say that the article looks much better now. Thank you so much! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the guy who rejected this at DYK, sources 1 through 7 on the article seem like a problem to me, specifically for their use as historical references. Apocheir (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apocheir I've rewritten it around "food legends" instead of historical claims; except for Food52 and Cookist the sources should be sufficiently reliable. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lot more comfortable with that. The rest of the article is more fleshed out now and that helps too. Apocheir (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Goldfaden

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

Lots of uncited paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, when I wrote the bulk of this about 20 year ago, we had much less rigorous standards of citation. Most of what I wrote was pulled either from Bercovici's history of Yiddish theater (in Romanian) or from Lulla Rosenfeld's translation of Jacob Adler's memoir. I'm not particularly interested in going back to those to improve citations, but those would be the two big sources to hit if someone else is inclined to do so.

I believe Bercovici's work is also available in Yiddish and German, but not in English. - Jmabel | Talk 19:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene V. Debs

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Large block quotes that should be in summary style instead. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bratislava

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Widnes

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "Economy" section could also be updated, but a talk page discussion explains why this might be difficult. Z1720 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Arran

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wadsworth Jarrell

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

The article is mostly based on one source (Douglas). I did a Google Scholar search which returned dozens of sources. While not all of them can be used, I think this shows that the article relies too much on one source and needs other perspectives. There is one sentence of information in the "Reception" section. With such a long career, I would expect more commentary on his work. The search for sources mentioned above might also have commentary on his work. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amanita ravenelii

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

The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. The first couple of paragraphs in the "Description" section are missing citations. There is no information on its conservation status. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A first quick response: 1) We can expand the lead easily enough. 2) In the reviewed version of the article, the description was based on Bhatt and Miller paper; it's just less clear in the current version because the paragraphs have been split up. So it's just a matter of double-checking the current description matches the one in the article history, and then adding the citations for clarity's sake. (Unless you're worried about that sourcing for some reason, I suppose?) 3) Conservation information is not common for fungal species; only a few Amanita species appear on the IUCN Red List; maybe 5% of described species. (And, to be clear, Amanita are at the 'charismatic' end of fungi.) This article has standard 'field guide'-style information about occurrence; that's about as much as we could expect. A quick check of Index Fungorum and Mycobank suggests that it remains a valid taxon, and it gets few hits on Google Scholar, so I doubt there's any need for a big update, but, again, it shouldn't be too hard to check. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I've expanded the lead, tidied up the text, added a few more recent citations with some extra info, and added citations to the description. I echo what I said above about conservation status. Hopefully this is where it needs to be now? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Men's T20 World Cup group stage

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

This is a list article. Wikipedia:Good article criteria#What cannot be a good article? says stand-alone lists are eligible for WP:FLC and not GA. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 12:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirin

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

The "Formulations" section has a "needs expansion" orange banner fom 2023. There is uncited text in the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both issues appear to have recently been fixed. That leaves a couple of minor tags to be sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On reference #47 (Goel A, Aggarwal S, Partap S, Saurabh A, Choudhary (2012). "Pharmacokinetic solubility and dissolution profile of antiarrythmic drugs". Int J Pharma Prof Res. 3 (1): 592–601.), it indicates verification needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one of the two tags. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source exists, but seem to deal with antiarrythmics, not antiinflammatories. Therefore I have removed it. Boghog (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second tag requested that the USPSTF recommendations be updated. This has now been done in this edit. Boghog (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism

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

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

Please allow me some time to work on this article and the Asprin one as you’ve opened 3 medical GAR recently and these tend to be quite hard to track down citations for. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 07:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense: GARs tend to stay open as long as editors are working on them. Please provide periodic updates so that editors know that you are still making progress. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Key

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

The article mentions that he remained a television personality in 2016, but there is no inforamtion after this. Is there any information about their commentary career post-2016? The "Director of England cricket team" feels underdeveloped. Is there any information to add there? There is also some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bush

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

There are lots of one-sentence or short paragraphs. This is probably a result of subsequent information added by a variety of editors. This information should probably be formatted more effectively. There doesn't seem to be much post-2021 information, even though she attended events and campaigns during this time. There are also some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Valle

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

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There's also "additional sources" and "updates needed" orange banners at the top of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petarded

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

There's a "more citations needed" orange banner at the top of the "Cultural references" section from 2016. I also think that section can be turned into prose, with additional information from sources about their application in the episode or development as described by the episode's writers and creators. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert

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

There are uncited statements, including lots of the awards/honours he received. At over 12,000 words, the article is considered WP:TOOBIG and detailed. There are lots of large sections that can be trimmed or moved to other articles, like "Critical style" and "Preferences". There's also lots of block quotes used in the article. Considering that the article is longer then the recommended length, I think this is a good place to better summarise the article per WP:SS. Z1720 (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth

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

Uncited paragraphs in the "Gameplay" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article appears to be otherwise well-sourced. If the gameplay descriptions are accurate, it should hopefully not be difficult to find sources and add them. If there are any other issues beyond this, they should be identified. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a citation needed template for a short statement, and the article outside the gameplay section seems to be properly cited otherwise. No concerns with the sources. Some prose might be better written, but nothing that disqualifies the article from the GA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaal Westerman

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

Underdeveloped, uncited statements throughout the article. No post-2020 information. Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (band)

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 10,000 words long, this article is WP:TOOBIG and has too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed several unsourced statements within the article. Are there any sections in particular that you believe are too detailed? If you can identify some areas for improvement, I can try to scale it back a bit. In terms of references, I do not possess any Yes books, so any sources I add will likely be limited to websites, newspapers, magazines, and online texts that are available through the Internet Archive. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - I have access to the Yes books (at least the main ones we rely on in the article), so happy to help out I have time or if you want me to look up a citation! Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "WP:TOOBIG" policy mentions "though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." This article concerns the history and ongoing activity of a band that has so far spanned 56 years, 20+ members, numerous other collaborators, 24 studio albums, cultural impact, etc. Numerous pages on bands with similarly long histories have similarly long word counts. OP - do you have an example of an article of parallel topic complexity that should be a model for the level of brevity you believe is appropriate? ` —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shubopshadangalang: AC/DC was promoted in 2023 and might be a good model for a band (although their achivements might be a bit bloated, but I haven't taken a thorough look). Beyonce is about 9,300 words and I would argue that she has a lot more information that needs to be included in her article: this article is getting ready for an WP:FAC. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on those examples, which have shorter, less complex histories (with fewer lineup changes, and fewer album releases, for example), are only slightly shorter than this article. If anything, these examples tell me that this article could easily justify being longer. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could always skip huge sections of the band history for the sake of brevity, and employ the very well-received Star Wars sequel trilogy method, and open a section of the article with "Somehow, Rick Wakeman returned." —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just tested this, and we can reduce the article length by nearly 3000 words by removing the 15 years of history between Tormato and Keys to Ascension. I recommend making this change and seeing whether there's any negative feedback from other editors. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 15:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skipping 15 years of history is probably not to solution. However, there is information that can be removed such as what individual band members did during the band's hiatus (these can be moved to the person's biography). I went through the first paragraph of the article and made lots of edits to reduce the prose. This included WP:TMI about rehearsal space, their last performance, a quote with no context that did not influence actions, and some word redundancies. I think with a copyedit of the whole article lots of this information can be spun out or removed as WP:TMI. Please note that none of this resolves the uncited text that is in the article, which I can highlight with "citation needed" templates if asked. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced such removals are warranted, based on previous editors' consensus, but as a good faith experiment, I've made edits to the haitus section based on your suggestion, removing all side/non-Yes projects from that period. Curious to see how this is viewed by other editors. —Op\Shada\nG (talk | contribs) 19:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure about the removals, either - for instance, some of the info removed in this diff provides context on the formation of the band that could be considered important, and it's not obvious that removing it is doing the article any favors. Would it be better to trim down some of the later sections (1995 to present), perhaps forking some of it off to a separate article, and to keep these important details about the early history? The edits to the Hiatus section look good to me. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The cn templates would be helpful! Though I assume you are just looking for all uncited sentences to be cited? I.e. we could aim to cite throughout at the sentence level (I generally prefer this style anyway). Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! :) Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Stanford and other interested editors: I have added citation needed tags to the article. I am happy for any of my deleted prose to be returned to the article, but please note here if something is put back so there can be a discussion if necessary. As someone who does not know this band, I my goal was to remove information that I thought was more trivia or not needed to understand who this band was and their accomplishments. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. The citation needed tags will help users identify areas of improvement. In terms of trimming the article, it is my opinion that the band's 50+ year history necessitates a relatively long article to accommodate for the band's numerous personnel changes, releases, tours, and any other notable event worth mentioning. Of course, if anyone would like to flag certain passages for removal, I am receptive to assessing the merits of the contested content.
Upon looking at the article again, I have also identified another issue: On no less than 21 occasions, AllMusic is used as a reference to cite chart positions in the United States. While AllMusic used to provide chart histories for bands and solo artists, this feature is no longer present. As such, it would be advisable to swap out the AllMusic references with information from Billboard. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Pie

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

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

I volunteer to help fix this. The original nominator is a friend of mine, but he is on vacation and thus not willing to come out of retirement to fix it. mftp dan oops 16:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from this brief statement: "the critical reaction to Flaming Pie was strong, with McCartney achieving his best reviews since 1982's Tug of War", the article lacks actual critical reviews too (aside from scores). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also integrate "Album title" into another section, as per MOS:OVERSECTION. Additionally, the Personnel section there doesn't specify track duties (see WP:PERSONNEL), although I know for sure those are in the liner notes. I'll volunteer to help with that one, as it's something I routinely do anyway. The Keymaster (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of debate recently about whether or not the inclusion of deluxe editions and copious bonus tracks is warranted in most cases, so an argument could be made that that section should just be removed, which would fix that problem. The Keymaster (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up to everyone, I intend to fix this article tonight. When I'm finished, let me know if there's anything else I need to address or if I need additional refinement. mftp dan oops 20:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, are you fixing this article? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been busier than expected, but by morning it should be close, if not completely repaired. mftp dan oops 02:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a substantial amount to reception. There is a little more to be done, and some re-organizing, but that should not be difficult. I am going to get some sleep and will resume in the daylight. mftp dan oops 05:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Injection moulding

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

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ovulatory shift hypothesis

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

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. Some statements have been tagged with "medical citation needed" since 2021. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I engaged on talk way back in 2021 (my comments can be seen there). The article is based on primary and non-independent sources, and rife with SYNTH, and there's possibly a student editing conflict with promoters of the hypothesis. I found a lot of deeper problems, but then never had time to return to spell them all out. The article should not be GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Barton

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

Uncited text, including 14 citation needed tags, some from December 2016. There are also two orange "expansion needed" templates. Z1720 (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid CF

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

There are uncited statements in the article. Also, I think the article is bloated, with too much detail in the lead, post-2009 History, "El Clásico" section (under rivalries, which also has large paragraphs), and "Finances and ownership" where the information can be moved to "History". Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie (TV series)

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

As per the rationale of the original GA nominator User:Aoba47, the removal of a "Critical reception"-type section has left this article incomplete and therefore failing GA criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment why was the critical reception removed anyway? I went through it and didn't see any problems with it being there. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was removed in 2021 by @EggContestWinner: with this edit. They did not use an edit summary. I disagreed with a majority of their edits to the article (with some examples here and here). I believe that they introduced WP:NPOV issues, as they both downplayed the negative reviews (by outright removing them in one instance) and added how the show was/is a popular favorite without a citation to support that information. At the time, I was uncertain on how to handle this as I did not want to cause an edit war. I was also frankly getting frustrated by it, so I just walked away from the article. Apologies for that as I should have handled it better at the time or reached out to other editors to get their opinions on it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Center

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

Uncited statements, including short, one-sentence paragraphs. There's a "Concerts" section that I think should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some unsourced content but I have no opinion re: good article status. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some sources that could perhaps be used to restore some of the unsourced content.
Ken Shamrock has words with Royce Gracie after losing his fight at Bellator 149 at the Toyota Center.
Singers Lupillo (L) and Jenni Rivera perform onstage during the 9th annual Latin GRAMMY awards held at the Toyota Center on November 13, 2008 in Houston, Texas.
Gabriel Iglesias special filmed at Toyota Center will debut on Netflix in January
Toyota Center welcomed more than 1.5 million fans during its first year alone
Will any of this stuff work? Ladtrack (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that any of the listed events are notable enough to be mentioned. Instead, I think events should be listed if they are notable for something that happened during the event, or for an accomplishment (the first event held at the stadium, breaking a record, etc.) This information doesn't need to be in its own section and instead can be mentioned in the article's history section. Z1720 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Storm

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

Lots of uncited paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

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

Uncited statements throughout the article. While some might be covered under WP:CALC, other statements such as "Likewise from augere "to increase", one gets "augend", "thing to be increased"" and "Pascal's calculator was limited by its carry mechanism, which forced its wheels to only turn one way so it could add" do need citations, in my opinion. I am happy to add citation needed templates to the article if an editor pings me. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be just as easy to fix these issues without a threatening formal process? Did you try looking for sources for the claims you were skeptical about? –jacobolus (t) 18:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacobolus: Please see WP:GAR, where it says "Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened." A GAR is not a threat, it is an article review process. Z1720 (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read that before, and I'm not insisting anything. I just generally feel that leading with formal process is usually significantly less productive than other alternatives. The most useful is doing concrete work to fix specific problems you find. The second most useful is making a careful and detailed review (like a peer review), noting down specific problems and possible types of fixes. Starting an adversarial formal process with vague / nonspecific feedback is of very limited usefulness, and typically wastes about 3x as much attention as more collaborative efforts, and even when it manages to make improvements often leaves everyone feeling grumpy. I would recommend always trying something else first, leaving the "do this or I'll take the green badge away" threats until after you run into page where other editors are either (a) completely disengaged and unwilling to discuss concrete and specific concerns, or (b) outright refuse to make changes that seem clearly required by good article criteria. –jacobolus (t) 23:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacobolus: This GAR is for reassessing the article's GA status and making improvements. It is not a place to comment on the GAR process or my conduct. If you would like to continue that discussion, please post at WT:GA or an appropriate noticeboard. Would you like me to add citation needed templates to the article? Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you could make a detailed and specific list of everything you think is an issue, that would be helpful – and even better if you take a crack at fixing some of those yourself. Editing the article to put little "citation needed" templates is not necessary, though you can do that if you really feel like it. (It would be significantly better still if you started with that before kicking off a formal process – something to consider for next time.) I already provided references for the two specific statements you disputed; it took about 10 minutes. –jacobolus (t) 23:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it is the place to comment, every time someone starts such a process without trying anything else first. Judging from their behavior, people starting these processes generally seem not to realize that they have more collegial alternatives available, not involving a short time limit or an implicit threat, so it's valuable to clearly explain it to make sure they get the message. –jacobolus (t) 23:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacobolus: I have added citation needed tags to the article where I think they are needed. I have opened a thread at WT:GA to discuss the above interaction and ways to improve the GAR process. Z1720 (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About half of these "citation needed" templates added here point at statements that in my opinion need no reference, along the lines of WP:BLUE. Of course it doesn't hurt anything to add extra references for well-known/trivial/self-evident statements, if anyone really feels like it, but not having them also is no real problem, and doesn't make the article any less "good". The others are also statements that look easy to verify, though it takes a while to do each one, and when done in a hurry the sources found are likely to be fairly mediocre and unhelpful to readers. Adding sources for these doesn't really seem urgent or the best use of editors' time, but it's probably at least marginally productive.
Frankly the several most problematic statements in this article are ones that already have footnotes, but the sources don't say what the statement claims; I don't think an audit of this type is going to fix any of those issues, and those take much more work to fix. For example, I think the claims about etymology we make here are not quite right but figuring out the actual story takes significantly more research effort. –jacobolus (t) 17:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no short time limit. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/1, now open for almost four months and with no indication of closing soon. Feel free to take as much time as you need, if you want to bring this article back to GA standards. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look through the references, I think some of them should be removed:

  • Bogomolny, Alexander (1996): seems to be a promotional site for a logic puzzle book. It is not used as a citation so I think it can just be removed.
  • Dunham, William (1994), Jackson, Albert (1960), and Williams, Michael (1985) are not used as inline citations in the article. Should these be moved to "Further reading"?

Thoughts appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bogomolny's website Cut-the-Knot is generally great, but this particular page about "What is addition" (even if we include the sub-pages linked at the bottom) is nothing special. Since we don't currently cite it (perhaps we did at some point in the past, I didn't check) it can safely be removed from the list of citations. Feel free to move anything not currently cited to Addition § Further reading and also feel free to just trim any that don't seem particularly relevant or useful. –jacobolus (t) 03:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just took Dunham, Jackson, and Williams out entirely. None of these seems really fit for the Further reading section. My guess is that they were previously cited for some claim or other, but at some point the claim and/or specific citation was removed. –jacobolus (t) 03:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text abstract objects such as vectors, matrices, subspaces, and subgroups is problematical, because I'm not sure of the intended scope of the article. My first thought is to replaces it whith elements of abstract objects such as vectors, matrices, subspaces, and subgroups and add Direct sum to the See also section. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strensham services

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

Lots of uncited statements and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A7 (Croatia)

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

Three uncited paragraphs. The "Future" section needs to be updated, with some information moved to "History" and other information updated with more current sources. The "Future" section also needs a copy-edit. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to commend processes as helpful as this. Now where would Wikipedia be without diligent editors like Z1720 always ready to step in and point their finger at an offending article vaguely saying some information need be moved. The GA reassessment process is clearly superior way to deal with three uncited paragraphs than adding a citation needed template since it adds "or else". Also the GA reassessment is clearly more appropriate venue to ask for a copy-edit than the Guild of Copyeditors. Nothing gives editors more pleasure than creating or maintaining articles themselves or pointing the finger to caution everyone else to jump in... or else! What a personal achievement! Tomobe03 (talk) 09:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evansville tornado outbreak of November 2005

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

This GA has been here for a while, but there have been a number of changes. There likely needs to be a review here. ChessEric 20:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Shulgin

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

Has had an orange tag for almost a year, previous review was in 2007. Sahaib (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On June 14, I removed the military history project banner with this edit summary: "remove military history project banner; not notable for military service nor does military service make any contribution to overall notability; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover?." I also removed U.S. Navy as an institution in the infobox with this edit summary: "remove U.S. Navy from institutions in the infobox; nothing in the article shows he worked for the Navy in a scientific capacity; the article shows nothing beyond an experience as a sailor." These actions express no opinion on whether the article should be reassessed. Donner60 (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Fort William Henry

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

An uncited statement in the "Background" section and a "unreferenced section" banner for the "Order of battle" section since 2023 and no information about the French forces. An editor on the talk page indicated that lots of information was added to the article since its promotion, so a spot check might also be needed. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the order of battle in a sandbox until I can put it in proper form. I have a citation for the background section from Anderson, Fred "Crucible of War". I want to look at a few other sources before I post it. Donner60 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still working on Battle of Lexington and Concord and Flavian dynasty. I intend to get back to this as soon as I can. I think that my sources, especially the one that I cited above, will provide the references needed to improve the article back to GA. Donner60 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rain

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

Unreferenced sections, including entire paragraphs and sections. There's an orange "update needed" banner at the top of "Pollution and composition" from October 2022. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will research the unreferenced areas. They seem to be concentrated under "global climatology" and "Virga". The "pollution and composition" issue is that it only addresses PFAS as a pollutant and nothing else. I'm also searching for this. -- Reconrabbit 18:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work. I'm unsure how much weight should be placed on PFAS in the Pollution section. Later on I can better address the climate issues since these generalizations could be reworded. -- Reconrabbit 20:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Steinem

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

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

Agree that some sections could use a re-write to better organize instead of a dated list of factoids. There are no "citation needed" maintenance tags so if there are claims that need citations it would be good to identify these. It will be a couple of weeks until I can spend some time with this article. Nnev66 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nnev66: I have added citation needed tags per the above request. Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding these. I will look for citations and have already added a few. I notice there are sometimes details that may not need to be included in the article (too granular) that don't have sourcing. I'm tempted to remove these, e.g. "Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press" and "Frontline Women's Fund" - do you have thoughts about this? On the latter there is a non-independent web site for half of the claim, but I don't think every organization Steinem has been involve with needs to be listed, especially if it doesn't have WP:RS coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McKellen

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

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

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

Oleg the Wise

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

Popular culture section unsourced. One CN tag and two primary source tags. In addition, several statements are uncited or have footnotes referring to primary sources. Mellk (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the primary sources with secondary sources accordingly. Please let me know if these qualify; I've never done this before 🌷Reverosie🌷★talk★ 02:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I finished pop culture section and removed info marked with cn tag (my instict that an absence of something difficult to cite; maybe some else find cite for it). —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the improvements. We can definitely cite Shikanov and Pashuto. I still see a few citations that refer to primary sources, for example: The Primary Chronicle and other Kievan sources place Oleg's grave in Kiev, while Novgorodian sources identify a funerary barrow in Ladoga as Oleg's final resting place. Mellk (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mellk: It's OK for articles to cite primary sources, as long as they aren't promotional or undue. Were there any particular passages that you were concerned the use a primary source to verify the information? Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copper

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

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and some tagged with "citation needed" since 2016. Other unresolved tags are also present in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking a look. I'm an old copper geologist. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the citation needed cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile, Alabama

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

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

I am going to take a stab at filling out the citations. I'll circle back to the sports and art issues you mention after inline citations are in place unless some kind soul hops in and takes it care of first, Rjjiii (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added citations while correcting errors and updating information. The only uncited things left are in the census sections. Next step will be to go through Mobile, Alabama#Demographics to update and cite the information there, Rjjiii (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Demographics" section is now cited and up to date, using census data. I'll look soon to see if secondary sources comment on the city's demographics. Then, I'll check through the "Arts and Culture" section. Rjjiii (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, I've been going through "Arts and Culture" and have trimmed much. What do you make of Mobile, Alabama#Historic architecture? I have not touched this part yet and hesitate to remove all of these historic buildings. Rjjiii (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rjjiii: This section seems more like a list of buildings sorted by architectural style than a description of the architecture of the city. I would expect this section to describe the architecture used in various parts of the city and various time periods instead. Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, I'll take a moment to break the existing section out into its own article. Cities with a long history, like New York and Paris, have several lists linked from the main article, but Mobile probably just needs one. Rjjiii (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC) When attempting to draft the article, I found National Register of Historic Places listings in Mobile, Alabama already exists. 04:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've trimmed that section down to remove all the prose list stuff. I have been tracking down WP:RS and just slowly reading through the article, making upgrades and updates. From Fort to Port by Elizabeth Barrett Gould covers the city's architecture. It should offer the sourcing to flesh out the architecture section, but I can find no copies online or through my local library. It will be sometime in July before I can check out a copy from the university library. Rjjiii (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Straume

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

Much of the article's text is devoted to the character's arc. I think this is too much information (especially season 5) and should be reduced. There are some uncited statements at the end of paragraphs. The lead is quite short: I think it could use more information about the character's development by the show runners, as well as the character's reception. Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at cutting down that plot section, what do you think is a good length? One or two paragraphs per season? Olliefant (she/her) 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inside No. 9

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

An "Update needed" banner in the "Viewing figures" section from 2019, as well as uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Could you clarify where the article has uncited statements?
Overall I am a bit concerned if GAR was actually needed here; the rest of the article meets standards, and patching up a few loose uncited statements and updating one section does not seem difficult, and could easily have been performed by one editor. If no one else does it, I can probably take a look at it myself sometime in the next week or two, but I do believe this should have been patched up by the nominator before it was brought to GAR. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: Please see WP:GAR #3, which states "Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened." I have added cn tags to the places where they are needed. I have no interest in fixing up this article although I will re-review when an editor thinks the article meets the GA criteria again. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Ah, apologies, I'm confusing this with another guideline. Sorry about that. Thank you for the tags! I'll let you know when I get to these. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pokelego999, are you still intending to improve this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 yep! Sorry, a lot's come up for me lately (I'm in a theater show, prepping for graduation, and had several GANs come back at the same time). I'm afraid I'll likely be occupied until around June 16th, but after that I'll be free to get around to this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 Are you able to work on this? Tarlby (t) (c) 21:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarlby Yep! Fixed the citation neededs today, will need to do some digging for viewing figures though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting for the future: Will be getting on viewing figures within the next few days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Lexington and Concord

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

The article has uncited statements. It is also quite long, at over 10,000 words: I think some information can be spun out or removed because it is too much detail. The article has many block quotes, which are not needed for the reader to understand the context and contributes to its long length. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important subject. I'll at least take a look. Hog Farm talk 04:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly this article appears quite notable, rated as high importance for US history, in that context I don't think I find its length objectionable or unmanageable.
Some quotes could be removed and summarised;
"We ... find that a part of your Majesty' s subjects, in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme Legislature..."
"Whenever the army under command of General Gage, or any part thereof to the number of five hundred..."
--
Whereas I would oppose the removal of the quotes from participants in the battle that seems more relevant to the article at hand, without some other reason to suggest they represent a POV that should not be included, I think they are fine.
--
I am unable to find any statements in the article that are not cited at least at the paragraph level some uncited paragraphs exist but these appear entirely unobjectionable at least to me and the GA criteria are
> reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some touching-up that could be done here. I'm busy with work but I'll try to make a library run either this weekend or next weekend. Some of the tags confuse me - I don't know what needs further explanation about "Nearly a hundred barrels of flour and salted food were thrown into the millpond". I have doubts about the free license status of the Franklin Mint medal and have nominated it for deletion on Commons. Hog Farm talk 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would adding citation needed templates be helpful in identifying the uncited text? At a minimum, every paragraph (except the lead) should have a citation at the end of it, verifying the information that proceeds it. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. As it has turned out, real life, for the most part, including preparation for a meeting, has delayed my work on the article. With any luck, I'll have time to start working on this in earnest, (in addition to one earlier minor edit), over the next few days. I'll be looking for any text that needs citation as well as doing some rewriting and summarizing of other wise helpful long quotes. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LeChatiliers Pupper, Hog Farm, and Z1720: I have cleared the citation needed tags. I think the quotes from participants are useful in this article. I usually use few if any blockquotes in writing or editing articles, sticking with summaries or shorter quotes. A possible option would be to summarize the quotes in the article but put them into a footnote. I think the blockquotes can be reduced and melded into the text in some cases, if required, but not all.
The footnotes that are not just citations but text might be separated into a separate section as they are in some other articles. Battle of Gettysburg for example. It would reduce the size of the main text but would no doubt increase the total number of bytes - as did the new citations - but it would reduce the number of words in the main text. Perhaps a few points might be made more smoothly. I am not sure that is a big benefit because I think the subject of this article is enhanced by participant views. Historians as well as the participants don't agree on some key facts.
I don't find the length objectionable as it is. It is well written and gives interesting details. Breaking this article up does not seem as useful as it might be in other circumstances. The whole affair took place over the course of one day. It was a running battle over a large distance. In that way, it was unlike a campaign or most other modern battles. The continuity is integral to the story. Also, the lack of agreement on some facts should be noted for completeness and inclusion of valid differing views.
I will give some more attention to this over the next week or so. Further comments by interested editors would be helpful in deciding what and how much still should be done and what seems the best approach based on the different types of edits and structure that I have mentioned. Donner60 (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to summarize blockquotes which eliminates some bytes and words. I will continue to work on this. Much as I think the quotes are helpful, I am now leaning against adding a footnote section that would state them in full. That also could suggest that some text notes now in the footnotes should be moved to the separate section. That would likely take even more time. I suppose that would increase the word count, but they would not be in the text of the article which perhaps would not conflict with the objective of the work on the article. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donner60: My opinion is that quotes should be used as little as possible, whether in the article prose or footnotes. While interesting to the editors who write the articles, readers are more likely to want an overview of the topic and will skip quotes as being too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to summarize the quotes and not repeat them in footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Donner60 - Thank you for doing the work here that my library just doesn't have the sources for. Please let me know if you'd like me to give it a read-through at any point; I appreciate the work you're doing here. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three more blockquotes to summarize; probably will leave a fourth, President Ford's brief quote from bicentennial speech; then we can proceed to read throughs and any other editing (if any). Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All blockquotes now summarized. Part way through copy editing with some reduction in words, bytes (though addition citations added to bytes if not to words). I will ask @Hog Farm: to review this soon to see if more editing can be done. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping - it'll be a couple days before I can get to this probably but this is on my onwiki to-do list. Hog Farm Talk 19:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LeChatiliers Pupper, Hog Farm, and Z1720: I have revised and cut some words from the article. I think the flow may be somewhat better now. The net change in bytes may be small (about 3,100) because the previously added citations increased the byte count. While I may look through this again in the next few days, time permitting, it should be ready for Hog Farm to work on it when he can. With a fresh look, Hog Farm may be able to reduce the size without cutting the content since his would be a fresh look and his writing and copy editing is always excellent.
I tested splitting the Legacy and Commemoration sections into a separate draft article at User:Donner60/Battles of Lexington and Concord (Legacy) but restored the split text to the existing article for now. The draft is incomplete because it would need a lead and perhaps some additional text. This is the only way that I think I could be comfortable with a substantial reduction in the narrative of this important article (to about 9,900 words) without removing details which I do not favor for reasons that I have noted before. I would rather not make the split but would consider doing so, with favorable comment, rather than cutting the article too much or downgrading the assessment. This may well be the only narrative that many readers will read for a reasonably detailed account of this action. Please let me know your opinion on this possible split. Of course, you may wish to wait to see what further editing in the near future might do to improve the article while keeping the last sections. Further editing may reduce the size of the article enough to gain consensus for keeping GA. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I was one of the least critical at the start, the changes that have been made appear to me to be enough to keep GA. Im not that experienced so I may be wrong but that's my reading of the article and the GA criteria.
On length I think the article is fine, no single section appears overly long or irrelevant. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
my final comment @Donner60 would be that so much has changed it might be worth reposting a request for comments / perspective on milhistory discussion to see what the consensus is now getting some fresh eyes would be good LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea if all four who have commented here do not agree that the article is now fixed - or if someone thinks it needs my proposed possible split off to be completely fixed and some or all others don't think that should be done, at least without further opportunity for others to comment. Those who have commented are Z1720, Hog Farm, you and me.
If we all agree that the article can stay as GA after the editing and revisions are finished, I think that would be as much agreement or consensus as GAR's usually get. In fact some GAR's, at least those which don't need as much editing and revision (such as just lacking citations for later additions or changes) may only get one or two commenters or "fixers" after the original proposal.
I am not opposed to reposting even if all four of us agree but someone thinks the reposting should be done for some reason despite and agreement it is back to a GA. Note Hog Farms' later comments and my reply below about some more editing needed before getting everyone's conclusions. Donner60 (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - some thoughts here:

  • The Suffolk Resolves are only mentioned in the lead; does this more warrant a mention in the body or ommission from the lead?
  • Are all of the citations just to "French" referring to General Gage's Informers?
  • "telling him that although the Congress was still divided on the need for armed resistance, and delegates were being sent to the other New England colonies to see if they would cooperate in raising a New England army of 18,000 soldiers" - I don't think this is grammatical
  • "Some witnesses (on each side) claimed that someone on the other side fired first; however, many more witnesses claimed to not know which side fired first.[citation needed]" - the CN tag should be addressed although this seems to be pretty basic
  • "Aged Menotomy resident Samuel Whittemore killed three regulars before he was attacked by a British contingent and left for dead. (He recovered from his wounds and later died in 1793 at age 98.)" - is 98 correct? Our article on Whittemore has 96

Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at all of these and fix them in some way. I gave a quick look at four of the five; I suspect that there are more sources for the fifth, General Gage's informers. At least two of the other points were editing errors or omissions as I cut or changed the text. Suffolk Resolves was not cited later in the text in a version before I started on the revisions; I did not catch that. I am sure a citation can be found- a general sentence in the text refers to the Suffolk Resolves without further mentioning that declaration. The ungrammatical sentence was a clumsy attempt to combine two sentences and cut a few words. The "some witnesses claimed..." was originally a few sentences earlier in a paragraph cited to Fischer. I moved the sentence for chronological order without paying attention to adding a new or repeat citation because it was now at the end of a paragraph (and thus was just tagged). The Samuel Whittemore article cites two sources for age 96 and accepts those as definitive. It also refers to a Massachusetts Senate bill honoring Whittemore, the headstone of his grave (shown) and a source cited for other reasons (Moran) which gives his age as 98. The image of his obituary gives his age as 99! I suppose we should adopt the same age as the article and cite those two sources. Thanks for catching these. I will get to work on them. Donner60 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Adding to the above comment. On a little closer look, I see that I did not fully understand your question about French. I now see there are two books by French cited in the bibliography but only "French" is cited in the footnotes, without identifying which French book is being cited. Since these are old books, they may be available in the internet archive and I will look at them if I can find them. Otherwise, I assume I will need to find other sources, with any luck in the books that I have on the subject . Donner60 (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LeChatiliers Pupper, Hog Farm, and Z1720: There were three French books. All of them are old enough to be available in the Internet Archive. I have corrected all the French footnotes to show the French book being cited each time. I had to add the distinctions by year of publication without using the system of placing a citation with French books and page numbers in shortened form because I am not familiar with how to do this in this system with multiple books by the same author. My efforts to make the distinctions with a few variations of the template all failed to work. Also, a few page numbers in support of the text were a few pages different in the online texts so I made those changes. A previous editor had tried to differentiate two of the French books but his fix failed to make the distinction, leaving all of the citations as just to French. So it apparently isn't easy under this type of citation. I handled the other corrections or edits suggested by Hog Farm a few days ago. I think the article is now in shape to preserve the GA rating.
If anyone thinks I need to do any more work on it (other than making any further removal of content which I think is likely beyond my ability to do), please let me know. As I and LeChatiliers Pupper noted early, we do not think that this article which is about a daylong battle and something as a while can be split (except as I suggested for the legacy, commemoration parts, which I would prefer not to do and which has not gained any positive feedback).
Otherwise, I ask that the reassessment be closed as completed with the rating retained. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
would you like me to check the french language sources? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donner60: At over 11,000 words I would consider this article to be too detailed. After a quick skim there are many sentences that could reduce redundancy or is information that is too specific for the average reader to be interested in. There's also lots of quotation that could be written in summary style instead to reduce the word count and have the information conveyed more succinctly. Would any subject-matter experts be interested in conducting a copyedit? I would do it myself but sometimes I remove information that experts consider important. Z1720 (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LeChatiliers Pupper, Hog Farm, Z1720, BusterD, Djmaschek, GELongstreet, Magicpiano, Relativity, and Rogerd: I am still willing to split out the legacy and commemoration sections but it appears you have some more extensive copy editing in mind than simply reducing the word count. I am willing to go through it again, after giving it something of a rest so I have a fresher perspective and to complete some other work. I might want to take as much time as two or three weeks depending on other work that I think I should complete soon and coordinator work, especially toward the end of the month. In the meantime, I am pinging some active experienced users who are interested in this area who might be willing to help out with the copy editing - and perhaps could do it more proficiently than I can as well. If not, I'll get back to you or you can ping me if you think this is stalled too long. Donner60 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is probably biased by my heavy FAC involvement where there is a much bigger emphasis on weighting of material and on conciseness. My instinct would be to trim some of the eyewitness accounts. That's the sort of stuff that you'd rely on heavily to write a book on the battles, but less so to produce a shorter encyclopedia-level summary of the battle. For instance, we've got the Ripley account of the shots at the North Bridge where Davis and Hosmer were killed, and there's then a longer desciption of the same set of events in the next paragraph from Thaxter, and the two disagree on Davis' rank. My instinct (again colored by FA expectations) would be to let Fischer & Tourtellot and those historians dig into the weeds based on the conflicting participant accounts and then summarize what the 20th and 21st century historians have to say about the conflicting accounts instead of quoting the participants extensively. One area where this is also a bit of a concern for me is in the later accounts - for instance, Thaxter's account was from the 1820s and we discuss in the legacy section how the participants' recollections understandably started to change on key details as time passed from April '75. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good points and helpful advice. Donner60 (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I disagree with the TMI, I think ultimately exceptions can be made for articles of specific complexity or importance.
I would argue this article is important to American history and American military history. (reflected by the talk page assessment of importance)
It is also not a simple battle, its a march to and back from somewhere with engagements on both routes.
More words are needed to convey complicated or confusing events than simple ones.
My third point would be you have some length contributed by areas such as "Order of battle" - these are just useful references to have to interpret future text and not really a wall of text people will read.
--
If you want trimming I would suggest putting a message on the talk page with specific paragraphs or parts you think should be summarised or removed for redundancy. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will summarize and then move most of the text on the first shot section to Shot heard round the world and put a main article tag in that subsection. The American Revolutionary War section of the shor article is brief, has citation needed tags and may have some inaccuracies. The order of battle could possibly be eliminated or perhaps put in sentence form rather than list form. I thank [[User:Relativity who may be able to make some improvements before I can further review the article. As I noted, I am not sure whether I can make the desired large reduction in words and keep all the facts that I think are essential. Donner60 (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some prose comments (and let me know if you need clarification for any of these; I tried my best to explain my thoughts but these comments may come across as confusing):
  • "between the Kingdom of Great Britain and Patriot militias"--I would change "Kingdom of Great Britain" to something with a link to British Army during the American Revolutionary War, although this isn't necessary
  • "In the summer of 1774, Colonial leaders in Suffolk County, Massachusetts"-- link Suffolk County, Massachusetts
  • "Gage considered himself to be a friend of liberty..." -- this seems like an odd place to start this portion of text, as it goes directly from powder alarms --> this. Is there a better place for this information?
  • "The spy told Gates that the Congress was still divided on the need for armed resistance. The spy also told Gates that the Congress sent delegates to the other New England colonies to see if they would cooperate in raising a New England army of 18,000 soldiers" -- is there some way to avoid saying "spy" twice in this sentence? Coupled with the word spy being used in the previous sentence, it feels repetitive.
  • "A February 1775 address to King George III, by both houses of Parliament, declared that a state of rebellion existed in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, that some of the Massachusetts subjects had encouraged unlawful combinations and engagements in other colonies but that Parliament would pay attention to any real grievance" -- this is confusing; what qualifies as a "real grievance"? Additionally, this may read better as two sentences; i.e. "A February 1775 address to King George III, by both houses of Parliament, declared that a state of rebellion existed in the Province of Massachusetts Bay. They also announced that some of the Massachusetts subjects had encouraged unlawful combinations and engagements in other colonies, but that Parliament would pay attention to any real grievance"
  • "but Dartmouth gave Gage considerable discretion in his commands" -- why is this relevant? I understand this comes back later in the section as "Gage used his discretion and did not issue written orders", but it's still unclear why Gage needed discretion, since his instructions in the article say nothing about writing orders.
  • I agree with Hog Farm above about trimming primary quotes; they constantly pop up in prose and could be summarized or omitted.
  • "Therefore, a military force should be assembled and an army of observation formed to act solely on the defensive."--is this sentence saying an army of observation was formed or that Congress thought it should be?
  • "Paul Revere then began the "midnight ride""-- this needs linking to Paul Revere's midnight ride
  • "using lanterns to communicate "one if by land, two if by sea""--anyone unfamiliar with his midnight will be confused by this. Some explanation is needed.
  • The photo of Margaret Gage may fit better in the previous section under the paragraph that starts with "The colonists were also aware that April 19 would be the date of the expedition", since that's when she's first introduced (although I am in mobile, so I may be seeing things differently)
  • "The [[ride of Revere], Dawes, and Prescott"-- linking is confusing here. Prescott is already linked in the previous paragraph, being a WP:DUPLINK, and Revere's ride should have been mentioned previously, per my above comment. Additionally, is it possible to consolidate this section about the rides (under Militia assemble) and the previous mention of Revere's ride (under American preparations), preferably keeping it on chronological order, to keep relevant information together?
  • "This system was an improved version of an old notification network for use in times of emergency. The colonists had periodically used it during the early years"--do we really need an explanation here on the history of this system here? Thoughts?
  • "because over 500 regulars" we had information previously on the fact that regulars were coming from Boston, but the amount coming was never mentioned. Could we have the "over 500" fact where the info first appears?
  • "

More coming later. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 12:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I will not be able to add comments since I will have to be off-Wiki for over a week. I'll get back to this once my situation clears up. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 10:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for your attention to this article. I will get back to this article within the next several days to work on the comments from you and Hog Farm and see if there is anything else I can trim. The invitation is still open for anyone else who wishes to comment or edit. Donner60 (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished Flavian dynasty GAR. It will be late this week before I can devote much time to this one but I will be back soon, absent an unforeseen time sink, of course. Donner60 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more comments. Sorry if this isn't the right way to go about a GAR; I'm more familiar with doing GANs.
  • "the man replied, "Well, the regulars will miss their aim."

"What aim?" asked Percy. "Why, the cannon at Concord" was the reply"--I might not be understanding correctly, but I'm not really sure what they're talking about... what does "aim" mean in this context?

  • "they had lost the element of surprise."-- might be worth it to add that maintaining the element of surprise is crucial strategically.
  • "Of the militiamen who lined up, nine had the surname Harrington, seven Munroe (including the company's orderly sergeant, William Munroe), four Parker, three Tidd, three Locke, and three Reed; fully one-quarter of them were related to Captain Parker in some way."-- too much detail imo, I'd remove this part.
  • "The Regulars would march to Concord, find nothing, and return to Boston, tired but empty-handed" is this what Parker expected to happen or what actually happened?
  • "Historian David Fischer wrote that while a few militiamen though the regulars were only firing powder but not ball, that when they realized the truth, few if any of the militia managed to load and return fire."--wording is confusing here. What is "the truth"? And the placement of "though the regulars" is strange in the sentence.
  • In the paragraph with the first sentence being "In a later deposition, militiamen Nathaniel Mulliken...", there are four consecutive sentences in this paragraph that start with "They", which reads as repetitive. Is there a substitute?
  • "Eight Lexington men were killed, and ten were wounded"--to clarify, does this include the British casualty?
  • "Caution prevailed."--I would expand on this and reword to "Out of caution, they stayed to defend the town."
  • "
More coming later; I'm about halfway done with reading through the article. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 12:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the further comments. I will just be getting back to working on the article in the next few days. I am glad that you are keeping the activity alive, even though I think that a final decision is not likely to be posted as long as work on the article is not deferred or delayed for an unreasonable period of time and both of us has expressed our intention to continue working on it. I will pay attention to your comments and answer questions and work on the section pointed out by Hog Farm earlier. Donner60 (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment&oldid=1225482527"