Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 68

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

Result: Delisted. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From a cursory glance, article suffers from sourcing, prose, and neutrality issues. Some texts are tagged as either unsourced or unverifiable, while others are unencyclopedic (I caught one usage of the idiom "taste of one's own medicine", which I have deleted). There could be many unsourced claims in the article due to lack of in-text attributions to RS. Some sources don't seem to be reliable, either; the use of IMDb, which WP:RS/IMDB deems unreliable, is a major red flag. I vote to delist. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I question the notability of the "London 2012 Olympic Summer Games opening ceremony" section. IW. (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delist. I'm concerned by the substantial amount of non-RS, including IMDb and Metro, both generally unreliable, and also an unsourced paragraph at Mr. Bean#Home media that has some stats, e.g., it was originally 52 minutes when broadcast on television, failing criteria 2b. In the music section, the paragraph opening with The theme was later released on Goodall's album Choral Works... is also unsourced. There is additionally a valid cn tag and a valid failed verification tag. The Mr. Bean#In popular culture section might also fail criteria 3b, going into excessive trivia based on questionable sources (1, 2, and The Daily Mirror are not WP:RS. Therefore I am at weak delist. VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	see several pertinent edits I made in the lead section and elsewhere on 5 December 2022‎ between 06:38 and 08:27 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	same as above (1a)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	see edits I made (see 1a, above) for examples of unreliable sources
	2b. 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).	same as above
	2c. it contains no original research.	I removed some original research, but the article might contain even more
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	for a television series of 10 years and 17 seasons, the article is short - it seems to lack both breadth and depth of coverage (I have never watched the show, thus my use of the verb "seems")
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I guess.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Maybe - I tried to remove opinions, but I could have easily missed something
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I didn't notice any edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	not even close to satisfying Good Article criteria

I used the table above to explain my reasoning for listing this article for good article community reassessment. Please discuss here. Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 09:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Markworthen, apart from the trivial divorce section, I honestly don't see anything that unforgivable with the article. Keep ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onegreatjoke, Chipmunkdavis, any thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't that bad, at least from an initial viewing. Maybe it's not broad enough but I don't have enough knowledge to tell. though I would like for

"As polygamous marriage is not legally recognized in the US, there are no divorce documents to date the end of relationships. The end of a relationship is instead reckoned by announcements, and events such as moving away."

To be cited before I say keep. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs fixing. The second paragraph is totally unsourced and doesn't appear anywhere in the body. The first paragraph doesn't appear in the body either, although there is a source. The lead simultaneously needs expansion to summarize the body, it doesn't touch on most sections. CMD (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails GA criterion 2b. Is lacking in inline citations. For example, the following paragraphs are completely uncited: first, fifth, and seventh paras in "Adulthood and professional work"; first para in "Gaudí and Modernisme"; fourth para in "Surpassing the Gothic"; all of "Urban spaces and landscaping"; first para of "Works"; last para of "University years"; etc. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about a shortage of in line citations. Also the citation style is not consistent (which I will work on now). I think that the existing references almost certainly contain sufficient information and just need the inlines added. I also think that there should probably be a Further reading section for all sorts of additional material. Gusfriend (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation style is now more consistent. I have also tagged a couple of references as possibly being user generated content. Gusfriend (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PerfectSoundWhatever: It seems you forgot to notify the major WikiProjects. Given that it's a VIT4 article, we may be able to find somebody willing to rescue it. Gusfriend, nice work so far. Just FYI (you likely know this); consistent citations and a further reading section are not part of the GA criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also mention it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles as there are a bunch of people there who are generalists. Improving citation consistency fits in with being a member of the VA WikiProject and is generally a good thing that I try to do from time to time. Gusfriend (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll do that now. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - currently we have orange template on top, 18 'Citation needed' and 3 'unreliable source?' tags, poorly written and partly unsourced Collaborators section, and extremely poor Death and legacy section. Article needs a lot of work, and now it's not a GA. Artem.G (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this article include:

• Large amounts of unsourced text and/or dead links.
• The list of committees is two terms out of date.

– Steelkamp (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence under history However, the Senate had few committees, engaged in limited activities, until 1970 really needs to be expanded out to talk about what the committees actually were. I would actually like to see the history section split off into a separate page with more longer term information. Here are a few resources for expanding, understanding Senate Estimates (which may also be worth a page by itself).

• Administrator (2022-11-18). "What I learned at Senate estimates • Barbara Pocock". Inside Story. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
• Bowrey, Graham David (2012). Senate Estimates and their contribution to Australian Commonwealth Public Sector Financial Accountability (PhD thesis). University of Wollongong.
• Evans, Harry (2006-04-12). "Estimates hearings and government control of the Senate". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• EAC, Jean (2020-03-06). "So what the hell is Senate Estimates and why does it matter?". Every Australian Counts. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
• "Michaelia Cash grilled about police statement in Senate estimates - ABC Radio". AM - ABC Radio. 2019-02-19. Retrieved 2023-01-03.
• Brandis, George (2022-11-06). "The forgotten tricyclist who left his mark on our democracy". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2023-01-03. - article discussing how estimates got started and impact.

I agree that it is not currently a GA but it could be brought up to one with some effort. Gusfriend (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GAR from 2007, reassesed in 2008. Very important article in a poor state - almost half of the text in unsourced, f.e. half of Etymology, whole Evolution, half of Taxonomy, parts of Diversity, Anatomy and physiology, Muscular system, half of Reproductive system, etc.

Other problems - underdeveloped sections - f.e. Scales, Emotion, and Fishkeeping.

Tags present: dubious – discuss. Article is probably outdated: Conservation section starts with The 2006 IUCN Red List names 1,173 fish species that are threatened with extinction - it's 17 years ago!

I don't usually edit biology articles, so will ping some users who are good in it (hope it's ok, no pressure of course, but would be great to know your opinion): @LittleJerry:, @Chiswick Chap:, @Casliber:

Artem.G (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Damn this article is bad. I'm going to preemptively put a delist. Though, if major work on this article begins then consider this vote null until the major work is done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom, unless serious effort is made to fix the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist choppy paras, unsourced text etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, extensive work needed exceeding the reasonable scope of GAR. CMD (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No evidence of recent improvements. Consensus to delist achieved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made a GA in 2013. Numerous statements are unsourced that would need to be addressed if this article were to remain as a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist really, really unsourced. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, with 28 'citation needed' tags it's not a GA. Artem.G (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No improvements since GAR listing. Consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA that was promoted in 2006 and last reassessed in 2013. The main problem I've noticed is the numerous uncited statements that makes the article fail criterion 2b. Haven't checked for other problems yet but the uncited stuff alone is worthy enough for reassessment. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I don't know how to notify wikiprojects about this so if someone can do that then that would be great. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind I figured it out. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

Definitely not meeting the criteria as it stands now. This article fails 1A, 1B and 2B at least.

• Lead should be larger for such an article.
• Edmonton is North America's northernmost large city and metropolitan area comprising over one million people each. This should be reworded.
• Edmonton's historic growth has been facilitated through the absorption of five adjacent urban municipalities (Strathcona, North Edmonton, West Edmonton, Beverly and Jasper Place) in addition to a series of annexations through 1982, and the annexation of 8,260 ha (82.6 km2; 31.9 sq mi) of land from Leduc County and the City of Beaumont on January 1, 2019. The lead needs to go into more detail into the history of the city than this, frankly unimportant, information.
• It is at the same latitude as Hamburg (Germany); Dublin (Ireland); Manchester (United Kingdom); and Magnitogorsk (Russia). What is the point of saying this?
• Hamlet of Fort Assiniboine. Does Hamlet need to be capitalised here?
• The City... Does City need to be capitalised here?
• The "History of municipal governance" section is mostly about 1892 to 1934. Why is there almost nothing more recent than that?
• though its weather is milder than Regina, Saskatoon or Winnipeg... The article should explain why Edmonton's winters are milder than those cities.
  • In general, the article does a poor job at explaining the factors behind Edmonton's weather.
• 1981–2010 normals, extremes 1880–present. We could do with more recent normals.
• 1981–2010 normals, extremes 1959–2010. We could do with more recent normals and extremes.

Steelkamp (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Article fails criterion 2. No improvement since GAR listing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made into a GA in 2007. There are multiple uncited statements that need to be cited. I also don't feel if this article succeeds at broadness as many sections are too small for me to consider broad enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Not much uncited material, but enough to fail criterion 2. A committed editor could probably get this back to GA status with ease. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2008. There is some uncited material that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Lacks some citations, but more importantly recent updates in the history section. Is additionally recent-biased in economy section. As Dr. Blofeld notes, not a lot of work required, just some diligent copyediting and sourcing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2014. There is many unsourced material (such as the entirety of the culture: general section.) along with some supposedly needed updates and a better wording of

• "In October 2017, over 500 people were killed by a truck bombing.[citation needed]

• In March 2022, al-Shabaab killed over 60 people in a series of attacks.[122]

• In October 2022, an al-Shabaab double car bombing killed over 120 people.[citation needed]"

among many other things. If that can be addressed then this will not have to be delisted. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The economy section displays recentism, only covering events since 2011. Steelkamp (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the main article writer Middayexpress was blocked in 2015. The article has degraded since 2014 through overediting. I don't know if Fsmatovu wants to take a look at it and see if he can source and improve it to retain GA status? I don't think it needs a lot of work, just to check there are no unsourced claims, removed what can't be sourced and avoid the short snappy sentences like those mentioned above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Significant citation issues mean that the article meets the quickfail criteria, and thus should be delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several unsourced sections and paragraphs, thus breaking criterion 2. Most citations are to Guibault, pp. 840–844; however, the book in question (Zouk: world music in the West Indies) has under 350 pages, unless I'm mistaken. Very troubling. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Honestly, with the large amount of uncited material I doubt anyone will save this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Much uncited material. Restoring the pre-restructuring version encounters the same problems. Thus, fails criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2008. There are is uncited material that needs to be cited. Also the lead is too small for my taste. 1 paragraph is not enough to summarize this article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user has been completely restructuring a lot of city articles in central Japan; most of these are not watched by many editors. Some of these have been reverted and others haven't, but it is worth considering whether the previous version of the article from prior to July needs as much reworking. At the very least, I think the new gallery added in this edit should be removed. Dekimasuよ! 02:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: WP:UNDUE issues mean that criterion 3a) is not fulfilled. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another GAR nomination. This article was made a GA in 2013. However, this needs to be reassessed because it fails the broadness required for a GA. Andry is now president of Madagascar and has been for 4 years now. But, the article has rarely covered much of it in the presidency section. In order for this to remain a GA it must have Its presidency section updated and expanded. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist the article is now unduly weighted towards his pre-presidential career, thus compromising its neutrality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist as the article fails criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2010. There's quite a lot of unsourced content in here that needs to be addressed for this to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, a lot of unsourced text, and Music of Chamba section looks bad. Artem.G (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Fails neutrality criteria ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016 listing which fails criterion 4 (neutrality). Article is overly promotional, especially in the services section, but also elsewhere. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist quite some text that could come straight out of an advertisement. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2008. There are multiple unsourced claims that need to be fixed for this article to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed one unsourced fact. What are the others? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire paragraph in History: Antiquity that isn't sourced. Neighborhoods, first paragraph of healthcare, Media, and the sentence "Arad's dead are mostly buried in the local cemetery, located in the northeastern outskirts of the city, close to the road to Masada." are unsourced along with other possible problems I might not have noticed yet. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2016 this time. Many things are unsourced and would need to be fixed for this to remain a GA. Also the prose seems kind of bad with multiple 1 sentence paragraphs that look weird. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist - Article lacks significant citations. @Onegreatjoke, the way people reflect that discussions are not a vote on Wikipedia, is to say something like "I !vote delist". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007-listed, level 4 vital article lacks significant numbers of citations. I have tagged over 30 locations, but more may still be there. Without significant improvement, the article should be delisted as failing GA criterion 2. As this is a vital article, with a huge number of reliable sources written about it, I do not think that it will be too much work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Doesn't seem like anyone is going out of their way too fix the article from the ground up so I vote to delist. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pourtigul

 a uou au ff.sdfhdfk

f fdsfghdfghdsfsdh

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

Result: No response to issues; thus delisting on basis of silent consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA made in 2012. Now has multiple unsourced claims that need to be addressed for this article to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess right now. I'm gonna try to remove blatantly bad sources and content out of the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CactiStaccingCrane, do you intend to continue? Also pinging potential contributors for their opinions: RegentsPark, Fowler&fowler, Vanamonde93, Kautilya3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist on lack of up-to-date material, and lack of citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2013. Some material is uncited and needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Not only uncited material, but a reliance on unreliable and promotional sources. Article needs to be rewritten. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The unsourced text appears small within the scope of the article, and should be dealt with through tagging and regular editing before a GAR is initiated. Out of the 170 sources, how many are promotional enough to be problematic in this use case, and could they be tagged/removed? CMD (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the culture and leisure section is problematic. From initial inspections, I think source-text integrity is very low in the section, in addition to it containing lots of trivia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you tag the items you inspected so it is easier for other editors to follow up? I also find the section a bit trivia-filled, but that is what is expected from such sections. It does not seem much worse than say Altrincham or Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory. CMD (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try to get to that later. I am willing to bet that the two articles you have cited, despite both being 15 (!) year old FAs, have a text-to-source integrity of over 90%; I would be very surprised if sections of this article reached 50%. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Text-source integrity is a separate issue to trivia, no models of other articles save that. Just found Talk:Kota Kinabalu/GA2, not the most thorough review. CMD (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - like many city articles, it contains outdated information. For instance, saying that something is in development with a 2007 source. Needs some TLC before it meets the GA criteria again. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting per general consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious problem with this article is the large amount of unsourced content. (t · c) buidhe 07:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist There's definitely a little too much uncited material in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources to the unsourced paragraphs. Let me know if any other changes are needed. -Riley1012 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked two references and both failed verification, so I don't think the article can be kept without a more thorough reference check. (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per buidhe. Artem.G (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting per immediate general consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sentences and paragraphs without citations. Steelkamp (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On 14 July 1952, the VR entered the diesel era, ... It's not explained up to this point what VR is. Steelkamp (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It's weird how there is a list in the lead. Steelkamp (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the main problem appears to be that since the original GA listing was made 14 years ago there hasn't been enough effort to ensure the article is at GA status. I suggest searching for sources and removing any pieces of information that sources couldn't be found on. Ive added a citations template at the top of the article. I am currently working on expanding another article so I likely won't be avalible to look for citations. For now I am for de listing this article however if there is effort to fix the problems I may re consider my vote. NotOrrio (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I see quite a few areas missing citations. This article is showing its age and has not been maintained to the standards we now have for good articles. I am supporting a delist unless the article is significantly improved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with delisting it until it is improved. Seeing as its original GA listing was made 14 years ago, there will have many changes made to this page, also with it being about a current topic instead of a historical one, it will most likely require rewriting for all the changes to the system in the recent years to bring it back to a GA standard. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting per immediate general consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 19 cn tags, at least one failed verification, and is in need of updating (a lot of the science uses 10-yr old sources). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist as failing criterion 2 (sourcing) and criterion 3 (broadness, including up-to-date research). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist as someone involved in the article. I've been sporadically and slowly working on updating the article with scientific reliable sources, but I will admit it is not in a great state right now where I would consider it qualifying for GA. One of the key problems I've run into is people adding in sources on general bee health issues and confusing that with CCD, which has very specific symptoms outlined in the sourced part of Colony_collapse_disorder#Signs_and_symptoms. Old sources are not inherently bad because a lot of the CCD research and reviews were back from around 10 years ago, and I haven't seen updates recently that showed a major sea-change in anything on the entomology front. Definitely willing to do some heavy lifting on it in a month or two though (or ping me then to give me a little kick). KoA (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Unfortunately I too must agree, even though many of the Sources are ten odd years old, that does not make them invalid, it's just that some of them could be better, and some more up to date info. could be added with recent research as sources, but generally not changing the CCD overview: But it does need to be cleaned up; this will take a bit of time, I have seen wiki editors not overly familiar with a subject and make edits throughout a page that takes a long time to fix. I would say with this now on the radar of some of us, we should be able to fix this page in the next couple or so months. Bibby (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting per general consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006, it was't reassessed. Half of the article is unsourced, with 'This article needs additional citations for verification.' on top, 5 'citation needed' tags and two 'This section does not cite any sources' templates (Female Peronist Party and women's suffrage and Honours), see also unsourced sections: Juan Perón's arrest, 1946 presidential election, European tour, Vice-presidential nomination, Re-election and Spiritual Leader of the Nation; and 19 'page needed' tags. Artem.G (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Article needs a lot of work to be kept as a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. Needs significant work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Considerable amounts of unsourced content, failing criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of unsourced content in this article. (t · c) buidhe 07:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist There's a really bad amount of unsourced content. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist; fails good article criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2010. There are some uncited paragraphs and sentences here and there that need to be addressed. Some areas might need updates though I'm not sure. Also, populations for manila's districts are cited to a permanent dead link. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Populations for Manila's districts have been updated. Will try searching for sources for uncited paragraphs, or deleting the info if no reliable source could be found. —Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanglahi86, do you intend to continue working upon the article?

Oops, messed up ping Sanglahi86 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought other editors would also assist in finding/citing sources, which is why I discontinued editing the article for the moment. I tried in the past looking for sources to remove some cn tags, but I had a hard time finding reliable ones; I could boldly remove some unreferenced content in my free time. Sanglahi86 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29:, I have exhausted all efforts in trying to find reliable sources for the remaining cn tags, but I could not find any. I would want to remove those unreferenced claims, but doing so might be contested by other editors and I do not have time to defend the content removal. Please feel free to do what must be done with the article. Thanks. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanglahi86, thank you for your efforts. The article will be delisted shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting per general consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. There's some uncited statements that should be addressed. The "Applications" section looks like it needs to be changed in some way Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There are many stubby sections, such as the "Production", "Applications", and "Precautions" sections, and considering the amount of information that I could find about the topic, I would say that this article needs a lot of work to be a GA. ¹⁴¹Pr 12:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely some work to go before the Neon article reaches GA-standard again. While a lot of the existing content is up to standard, several areas need improvement (as pointed out by User:Praseodymium-141). InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist as doesn't meet GA criteria 2 or 3 (insufficient citations and lack of recent updates). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has "This section needs to be updated" tags in five sections: Economy, Transport, Demographics, Education, Sports, and As of 2019, the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration employed 1,381[needs update]. It also has "needs additional citations for verification" tag for Sports, and a 'citation needed' in Healthcare section. 'clarification needed' is in Independent Croatia (1991–present) section. With 6 big orange templates article needs work to remain a GA. Artem.G (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly longer than preferable, and with some oversubsectioning. However, overall not a bad article as far as country articles go, hopefully this can be fixed. CMD (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: sections need to be updated, while citations are needed in selected places. As CMD noted, should be fairly easy to get back to GA standard, should someone wish to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Fails GA criterion 2 - lots of uncited material, especially in the bloated politics section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2018. Lots of uncited material that needs to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist on primarily failing GA criterion 3 (addressing the main aspects of the topic). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2010. First problem, a small amount of uncited material that should be addressed. Second, and my main problem, which might be reaching, this article seems way too small. This is a place with over 500 thousand people living in it. Yet it's only 35000 bytes? With multiple sections that are just two-four sentences long? There are articles on towns with less than 1000 people living in them yet have significantly bigger articles than these. Because of that, I think fails the broadness category. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist The article content has too many gaps to fulfill the broadness criteria. In particular, the "Geography and climate" and "Demographics" sections should be expanded. There is also no mention of any pre-modern history in the history section. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist: lack of edits improving compliance with the second of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue with the article right now is a lack of citations for several sections. Other things include:

• In Infrastructure#Transportation, is a list of the ships in the harbour too much detail for an article on the entire city?
• The St. John's Cycling Master Plan was officially launched in July 2009. Its first phase will consist of 43 km (27 mi) of on-road painted bike lanes, signs on an additional 73 km (45 mi) of roadway, the installation of 20 bicycle parking facilities and the addition of bike racks on the fleet of 53 Metrobuses. Needs to be updated.
• Is there any intercity public transport?
• Why is anglophone in lowercase but Francophone in uppercase?
• Are there really only two television stations?
• English was mother tongue spoken by the majority of residents of St. John's (92.9%) with the second most common language, Chinese, as the mother tongue of 1.1% of the population. I'm surprised that the percentage of French speakers is not mentioned, considering that Francophone schools are mentioned and that there are French language radio stations.

Steelkamp (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Citation issues still exist. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Lack of improvement means that the article fails GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2018. Pretty Recent. Anyways, the usual case of there being multiple cases of uncited content that must be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please mention the uncited contents which you found out. Shady59 (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ernakulam Lok Sabha constituency elects six members to the state Legislative Assembly. Out of this, five constituencies, namely Kochi, Ernakulam, Thripunithura, Thrikkakara and Kalamassery represent the city."

"Kochi's historical reliance on trade continues into modern times, as the city is a major exporter of spices and is home to the International Pepper Exchange, where black pepper is globally traded. The Spices Board of India and World Spice Organisation are headquartered in Kochi."

"and is the world's first fully solar energy powered airport."

"SH 15, Ettumanoor-Ernakulam Road, connects the city to Kottayam, Pala, Kumily, Changanacherry, Pathanamthitta etc. SH 41, Palarivattom-Thekkady Road, provides a corridor to the eastern parts of the district. SH 63, Vypeen Pallipuram Road and SH 66, Alappuzha – Thoppumpady road are coastal roads that serve the narrow sliver of land between the backwaters and the sea."

"Kochi is one of the few cities to be granted the new-generation air-conditioned low-floor and non-air-conditioned semi-low-floor buses under the JNNURM city transport development project. KURTC and private buses operate frequent schedules to neighbouring areas of Nedumbassery, Perumbavoor, Aluva, Muvattupuzha, Kothamangalam, Cherthala and Poochakkal. Taxis and auto rickshaws (called autos) are available for hire throughout the day."

"Kochi has the highest population density in Kerala with 7139 people per km². As of 2011, Kochi had a metropolitan area population of 2,117,990. The female-to-male ratio is 1,028:1,000, significantly higher than the all-India average of 933:1,000. Kochi's literacy rate is 97.5%. The female literacy rate lags that of males by 1.1%, amongst the lowest such gaps in India."

"Malayalam is the main language of communication and medium of instruction for primary education, although a number of schools do offer English medium education. The higher education is invariably in English medium, and it is the preferred language in business circles. Tamil and Hindi are widely understood—albeit rarely spoken."

"The people are also increasingly fashion-conscious, often deviating from the traditional Kerala wear to western clothing."

"The Maharajas of Kochi (then Cochin) were scholars who knew the epics and encouraged the arts. The paintings at the Hill Palace and the Dutch Palace are testimony to their love for arts."

"Other leading managerial institutions include Rajagiri Centre for Business Studies, Kochi Business School, Amrita School of Business, Albertian Institute of Management and Toc-H B school."

"The School of Legal Studies (SLS), CUSAT is one of the leading graduate, post-graduate, and research institutes in the country. The National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) is located in the city, which is a premier law university in India and the only Law college listed in CLAT (Common Law Admission Test) in Kerala."

"A number of financial publications are also published in the city. These include The Economic Times, Business Line, The Business Standard and The Financial Express. Prominent magazines and religious publications like the Sathyadeepam, The Week and Vanitha are also published from the city."

"There are over 50 cinema halls that screen movies in Malayalam, Tamil, English and Hindi. The city hosts Kerala's first cine multiplex, at the Oberon Mall with four screens. Gold Souk Grande also has a cine multiplex operated by Q cinemas with four screens. PVR with 9 screens is another national multiplex brand that has presence in Kochi and is based out of LuLu International Shopping Mall. Cinepolis at Centre Square Mall with 11 screens is the first international megaplex brand in the state. 16 more multiplex screens are expected in the city in the near future."

"The FACT Grounds at Udyogamandal, Sacred Heart's College Grounds, HMT Grounds at Kalamassery and St. Albert's College Grounds are the other major training facilities for various games like volleyball, badminton, cricket etc."

Along with some other miscellaneous sentences here and there. If you can fix them that'd be great. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shady59: Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort. Will fix them soon. Shady59 (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shady59, do you intend to continue to work on the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Out of date (not great for an article on modern economic development), thus failing criterion 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite a bit out of date, for instance giving 2004 natural gas reserves, but most data given for the years around 2010. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Significant amounts of uncited material with no general references, failing criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. There's uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a lot of very short sections and probably needs some work to maintain GA status. Sections that require improvement are: Occurrence, Production, Safety and some of the subsections in Applications. ¹⁴¹Pr 11:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Lack of updates mean the article fails criterion 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2013. The usual uncited material that's here and there and should be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Uncited material has been removed or sourced by me. Pinging Onegreatjoke. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist needs an update too. For instance, the last paragraph in economy about wind energy misses the last 16 years of development. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No response to issues raised. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2013. Minor uncited text here and there that I would like addressed. This "kalasam of a temple tower","txt":"The gold plated image of kalasam of a temple tower"}]]}" id="mwAcw" data-ve-attributes="{"typeof":"mw:Image/Thumb mw:ExpandedAttrs","about":"#mwt806984473"}">Sivakasi Badhrakali Amman Temple" is just shoved in the culture section and needs to be cleaned up. Also, I may be picky here but the sports section seems really small for the article size. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. There is quite a lot of uncited material that needs to be cited along with being updated. Also the Summer Hill Rainbow Crossing section needs to be rewritten as there are so many external links that it's absurd. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree regarding section on rainbow crossing. Also demographics data needs to be updated for 2021 census. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist huge amounts of unsourced content; external links have gone overboard ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2009. Some uncited statements needs to be cited. The citations for notable residents section needs to be cleaned up as some are just brackets and not actual footnotes. The article needs to be updated as lots of things are source to the 2001 UK census. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. There's lots of uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2008 and last reassessed in 2013. Some uncited material that needs to be cited along with an orange tag being in there. Honestly, had there not been 2 peer reviews and a GAR the article likely would've looked much worse. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 18:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Coldwell GA. This is somewhat my fault, as I missed a number of issues in my GA review in 2020 (which was the year I first was involved in the GA process). I've done a general rewrite, so copyvio isn't an issue anymore, but there were several instances of failed verification that need to be resolved yet. Much harder to fix will be weighting/comprehensiveness concerns I have - IMO the 1840s village stuff is disproportionately weighted, while the post-1950 NPS ownership needs additional information. I'm in a busy season with work and don't have the print sources that would be most useful in fixing the comprehensiveness issues. I'm genuinely sad to see this one probably go, but if this is going to be fixed, someone else is going to need to pitch in above the time I spent on this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist barring a total rewrite and fixing of sourcing issues. Anything written by Coldwell is guaranteed to be filled with close paraphrasing, failed verification, and factual errors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trainsandotherthings: - the close paraphrasing (in this case, one sentence largely copied) has been removed, and the failed verification has all either been removed, sourced, or tagged. Several minor factual errors have been corrected. The total rewrite had (mostly) occurred, it's just that there's underlying weighting/comprehensiveness issues I don't have the time or sources to fix. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That's fair. I do still stand by delisting based on what you said just above, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • The last of the failed verification is gone - per Sturm's comment below, I just removed most of the unverified text, and then dug up a citation for the last part. Hog Farm _Talk 00:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Most of the village stuff isn't relevant to the park and should be dumped, IMO. And I agree with Hog Farm that the stuff about the Park itself needs expansion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: There are general references, but none since 2003; several uncited sections describe events since then (salt fields, transport) or statistics (weather). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. There's some uncited material that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No improvements for two and a half weeks, issues remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. There's a good (or bad) amount of uncited material that should be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: I see you've done some maintenance here after the start of the GAR. How do you see the article vs the GA criteria? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting there. It was 10 years since I last edited the article! Lam Tin was promoted to GA before paragraph by paragraph inline citations became mandatory, so there was some work to be done. In the meantime 10+ years of local history have happened. I've trimmed content that have become outdated. User:Underwaterbuffalo has also been doing great work brushing up the article. Deryck C. 10:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant unsourced content without general references, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist - Citation issues unaddressed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. Last reassessed in 2014. Numerous citation issues including

• Nearby, to the west, Roman Road marks the course of a Roman road that ran from Winchester to Silchester. Further to the east, another Roman road ran from Chichester through the outlying villages of Upton Grey and Mapledurwell. The Harrow Way is an Iron-age ancient route that runs to the south of the town. The first recorded historical event in the area was the defeat of King Æthelred of Wessex and his brother Alfred the Great at Old Basing by the Danes in 871.
• Basingstoke is a major interchange between Reading, Newbury, Andover, Winchester, and Alton, and lies on the natural trade route between the southwest of England and London. The area had been something of an interchange even in ancient times. It had been cut by a Roman roadway that ran from northeast to southwest, from Silchester towards Salisbury (Sorbiodunum), and by another Roman road that linked Silchester (Calleva Atrebatum) in the north with Winchester (Venta Belgarum) to the south. These cross-cutting highways, along with the good agricultural land hereabouts, account for the many "Roman" villas in the area, mostly put up by Romanized native nobility (Roman villa). Even more ancient was the Harrow Way, a Neolithic trackway, possibly associated with the ancient tin trade, that crossed all of southern England from west to east, from Cornwall to Kent, passing right through Andover and Basingstoke.
• A John Lewis at home and Waitrose co-located store is near the station. It was built in November 2015 as part of the redevelopment of Basing View
• The town's nightlife is split between the new Festival Square, and the traditional hostelries at the Top of Town, with a few local community pubs outside the central area. The town has four nightclubs, two in the town itself, one on the east side and one 2 miles (3.2 km) out to the west.
• As of 2011, Basingstoke has a roller derby league and team, the Basingstoke Bullets. Due to difficulty finding a suitable venue, the team practice in nearby Whitchurch. Basingstoke is also the home of Rising Phoenix Cheer, a successful competitive Allstar Cheerleading programme for athletes from age 5 upwards, training at Aldworth school.
• The entire railway section

And many more. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. Quite a lot of problems with this. First, uncited statements such as

• The Parliament was dissolved by Governor General Michaëlle Jean on the advice of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on September 7, 2008. The general election for the members of the 40th Parliament of Canada was held on October 14, 2008.
• On March 14, 2008 Bloc MP Maka Kotto resigned, followed by Liberal MP Brenda Chamberlain resigned on April 7. Another Liberal MP, John Godfrey, resigned on August 1.
• The motion may not have any legal effect, but it is related to Bill C-288 – which received Royal Assent on June 22, 2007.
• Bill C-2, titled An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Tackling Violent Crime Act) was the government's omnibus crime bill which received Royal Assent on February 29, 2008 and amended several pieces of legislation. Among other things, the bill raised the age of consent to 16 from 14, imposed minimum mandatory sentence for crimes involving firearms, instituted a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" (also known as a "reverse onus sentencing") for habitual offenders, and restricted "house arrest" policies for serious offenders. The bill received royal assent on February 28, 2008 and sections 1 to 17, 28 to 38, 54, 57 and 58 went into force on May 1, 2008 and sections 18 to 27, 39 to 53, 55, 56, 59 and 60 went into force on July 2, 2008.
• Currently, senators can stay in office until they reach the age of 75. The bill was first introduced by the government in the Senate on May 30, 2006. After consideration in committee and making amendments to the bill, the Senate recommended that the bill not be proceeded with until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled with respect to its constitutionality, which had not occurred prior to dissolution. The bill was reintroduced in the second session as a Commons bill on November 13, 2007, but did not become law before the session ended.

Along with many other uncited statements. Along with that, the prose is just poorly written. The article is written so weirdly with so many 1 sentence paragraphs such as

• Five members of parliament crossed the floor since the election on January 23, 2006:
• On February 6, 2006, David Emerson, elected as the Liberal Member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, crossed the floor to join Stephen *Harper's cabinet as Minister of International Trade.[9]
• On January 5, 2007, Wajid Khan, elected as the Liberal MP for Mississauga—Streetsville, crossed the floor to join the Conservative Party.[10]
• On February 6, 2007, Garth Turner, elected as a Conservative MP for Halton, moved to the Liberal caucus. He had been sitting as an Independent since being suspended from the Tory caucus on October 18, 2006.[11]
• On June 26, 2007, Joe Comuzzi, elected as a Liberal MP for Thunder Bay—Superior North, moved to the Conservative caucus. He had been sitting as an Independent since being suspended from the Liberal caucus on March 21, 2007.[12]
• On August 30, 2008, Blair Wilson elected as a Liberal MP for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, moved to the Green caucus. He had been sitting as an Independent since he resigned from the Liberal caucus on October 28, 2007.[13]

And even then, i'm not sure if the article is broad enough as it feels like there's so much that could be talked about that isn't Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2010. Some uncited statements such as

• At the time, U Street was known as "Black Broadway". Many jazz greats of the day, such as Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, and Nat King Cole, would stop by the restaurant when they performed at U Street clubs.
• though it has a more limited selection than the original restaurant.
• and the entire popular culture section.

Fixing this would be great. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: (First delisting encountered error, which should be resolved).

No general references, but extensive uncited material, meaning criterion 2 is not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A GA from 2015. Has been orange tagged for

• This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage.
• This article's factual accuracy is disputed.

and also has some uncited statements which seemingly include

• These were productive, grain-producing areas, called d'engrais, undeveloped, marginal, predominantly forested land called forestiers, and developing land called d'élèves. Cattle, in particular cows, were used extensively for all types of agricultural work.
• The French Limousin Herd Book was then created in 1886 to ensure the breed's purity and improvement by recording only those animals that satisfied a strictly enforced breed standard.
• that the Limousin breed's origins can be traced to the blonde Garonne breed in the fifth century AD. The Garonne breed from the south-west of France was merged into the Blonde d'Aquitaine breed in 1962. The grey Gasconne breed with which Limousin cattle have a close genetic relationship is also reported to have arrived in the south-west of France with the Visigoths also around the fifth century AD.Limousin cattle are identified as members of an "intensively selected" "blond and red" branch of hardy, heavily muscled, and fine-boned working cattle found in south-west Europe. The branch, which is one of several that have influenced cattle breeding in France, comprises a number of Spanish, Portuguese, and French cattle breeds, which possibly evolved from those introduced during a past occupation of Iberia. (this only cites up to a note)

and more. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many uncited additions since I passed the article for GA in 2015. Needs quite a bit of work, failing which I'd not oppose the removal of GA status. Tim riley talk 20:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of a review here. I've made a good number of edits in the last 3 years or so, but not really managed to make any real impression on the substantial and serious problems in the page. I've created or edited many pages on French cattle breeds, and am available to try – to the best of by ability – to make further improvements to this one. In my opinion the page needs prolonged attention from an experienced team of workers with heavy brush-cutting equipment before anything else much can be done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist article requires significant work on citations to regain GA status. MOS:IMAGELOC is not explicitly part of the GA criteria. MOS:LAYOUT refers to only one specific part of MOS:IMAGES (size), not IMAGELOC. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of sentences without citations. It's not on the good article criteria, but there are sandwiching issues with the images as well. Steelkamp (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Steelkamp MOS:IMAGELOC is explicitly part of the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good to know. Steelkamp (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that it is, @Buidhe and Steelkamp:. The GA criteria only state:

"Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio"

"media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;"

"media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions."

• WP:WGN notes "Mistakes to avoid: Requiring compliance with all of MOS:IMAGES (as opposed to just the sections linked in the GA criteria)". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically what is required is compliance with MOS:LAYOUT, of which MOS:IMAGES is a sub article. Most of the important points in the latter are in the former as well and therefore required by the GA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's your interpretation. I don't see any indication that MOS:IMAGES is a subpage of MOS:LAYOUT, other than the former being linked from the latter (along with every MOS page). Template {{Style}} explicitly separates images and layout. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 listing features substantial amounts of unsourced content, thus failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - quite a lot of uncited material. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist no improvements made Femke (alt) (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A GA from 2007. There's some uncited material such as

• When the French colonized Vietnam, one of the most famous and popular dishes, Pot-au-feu was subsequently introduced to the local people. While it didn't directly create the widely recognizable Vietnamese dish, Pho, it served as a reference for the modern-day form of Pho.
• There are many dishes that are considered part of French national cuisine today. A meal often consists of three courses, hors d'œuvre or entrée (introductory course, sometimes soup), plat principal (main course), fromage (cheese course) or dessert, sometimes with a salad offered before the cheese or dessert.
• Cabécou cheese is from Rocamadour, a medieval settlement erected directly on a cliff, in the rich countryside of Causses du Quercy.This area is one of the region's oldest milk producers; it has chalky soil, marked by history and human activity, and is favourable for the raising of goats.
• Anibal Camous, a Marseillais who lived to be 104, maintained that it was by eating garlic daily that he kept his "youth" and brilliance. When his eighty-year-old son died, the father mourned: "I always told him he wouldn't live long, poor boy. He ate too little garlic!"
• French Guianan cuisine or Guianan cuisine is a blend of the different cultures that have settled in French Guiana. Creole and Chinese restaurants are common in major cities such as Cayenne, Kourou and Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni. Many indigenous animal species such as caiman and tapir are used in spiced stews.
• The entire foods and ingredients section.

And many more that need to be addressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No improvements within the past week. Steelkamp (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reassessment requested since March last year. The article contains some uncited text, and doesn't have an update after ~2006. Is DNR still "developing the area with nature trails and other improvements"? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist failing criterion 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been maintained to standards after the 2010 GA, and does not meet the broadness criterion for his career afterwards. Has been marked for possible reassessment since 2021. Not quite a GA issue, but the article is full of WP:Proseline. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist on lack of detail since 2011. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I say that proseline falls under 1a. Steelkamp (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delist - I find a WP:silent consensus too weak to close on neutrality issues of an article like this, but the verifiability issues and outdatedness issues are enough to delist. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently a way off meeting the GA criterion of verifiability. It has had a verification needed tag since December 2021, and there are nine citation needed tags throughout the page. Since the article was promoted to GA status in 2010, instances of the existing material being demonstrably incorrect have also come to light on talk that call into question both the article's accuracy and neutrality. This has caused at least one other editor to also question the article's GA status. The article also no longer covers the main aspects of the topic properly. There is a dearth of information post-1979, and there has seemingly been not a single update since 2013, making the content grossly outdated. The page also irrelevantly recounts the emigration of Zoroastrians to India, yet, despite the sizeable population there, and the huge tensions between different minorities, it makes no mention of the state of persecution, or lack therein, in India. Despite having sections on both persecution by other Zoroastrians as well as Christians, the lead does not mention this but slants the subject from the single-minded POV of Muslim persecution of Zoroastrians. The page is meanwhile organized in terms of persecution by Muslims first, other forms later, despite this being anachronous, since the other types of persecution date to Sassanian and Roman times and should simply be included at the beginning of the chronological history of persecution. Not great in all. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this might just be me reaching too far for something. The article uses general references so there doesn't seem to be much citation issues (though "Beer was not only consumed for its flavor and alcohol content, but because it was safer to drink than water, which often harbored disease-causing microorganisms. Even children drank small beer." needs to be cited). However, my main problem is the prose. There's so many choppy 1-2 sentence paragraphs that make this feel cluttered and I feel as if that's a problem that could be fixed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do personally have a problem with the general references and that has to do with citation 5 being [Fischer, pp. 74, 114, 134–39.]. Though i'm kind of ok with general references, this is 3 different sections and eight different pages of a source and I don't feel that the general reference is used correctly there. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main GA criteria not met is the 3b (summary style). At over 15,000 words, the article contains many details of matches. There is significant text either uncited or cited to unreliable sources such as "Online World of Wrestling". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: I am also surprised how small the article is, and surely there are more sources available now after the battle. Steelkamp (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2015. I do not think that this article is broad enough. It has been eight years since the battle took place. Yet, there's no aftermath section, a seemingly small background, and pretty small article in general. Considering how long it's been, it can probably be expanded on with scholarly sources. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is out of date in quite a few places (f.i. "The stadium will have wi-fi and 4G LTE in all its sectors", with 2013 source). Will need a lick of paint to meet GA criteria again. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some uncited information being.

• The large, mild, and white East Asian form was developed in China, though it is mostly associated in the West with the Japanese daikon, owing to Japanese agricultural development and larger exports.
• Although mu is also a generic term for radishes in Korean (as daikon is a generic term for radishes in Japanese), the word is usually used in its narrow sense, referring to Joseon radish(조선무, Joseonmu). In Korean cuisine context, the word Joseon is often used in contrast to Wae, to distinguish Korean varieties from Japanese ones. The longer, thinner, and waterier Japanese daikon cultivated mainly for danmuji is referred to as Wae radish(왜무, Waemu) in Korea. Korean radishes are generally shorter, stouter, and sturdier than daikon, and have pale green shade halfway down from the top. They also have stronger flavour, denser flesh and softer leaves. The greens of Korean radishes are called mucheong(무청) and used as vegetable in various dishes.
• In a 100-gram (3+1⁄2-ounce) reference serving, raw radishes provide 66 kilojoules (16 kilocalories) of food energy and have a moderate amount of vitamin C (18% of Daily Value), with other essential nutrients in low content (table). A raw radish is 95% water, 3% carbohydrates, 1% protein, and has negligible fat.
• Radishes are mostly used in salads, but also appear in many European dishes.[29] In Mexican cuisine, sliced radishes are used in combination with shredded lettuce as garnish for traditional dishes such as tostadas, sopes, enchiladas and Posole stew.

These will have to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Extensive citation issues, failing GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]