Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 74

---

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

Result: As I pointed out at WT:GAN, the review was not in-depth and is thus invalid. Will re-open it shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this article should have been passed in the manner it did. An account with under 30 edits instant-passing a level 2 vital article? That's absurd, especially considering the editor in question came in my own review, where I asked for a second opinion, and said to fail it with no other comment than "bad". At bare minimum I believe this should be re-reviewed; it doesn't look terrible, and if this re-assessment indeed concludes that it is in line with the criteria then so be it. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator and I raised a similar problem at User_talk:ThatChemist25#GA_review_of_Arithmetic. In response, the reviewer added a minimal explanation of how they arrived at their assessment. I'm not sure that it's technically a violation of the GA review process. But as you pointed out, a level 2 vital article should get a more thorough review. It would be great if an experienced reviewer could have a look at the article and I would be happy to work with them to get any problematic points sorted out. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just veto my assessment because you didn't like how I did it. I will buff up my thing latter. Stop this now ThatChemist25 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs an update, with very little post-2009 information. Uncited text throughout, and unnecessary quoting from the Q&A portion of a pageant. Lede might also need an expansion. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article. Can you please be more specific which texts are unsourced? I can try finding sources. D-Flo27 (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@D-Flo27, I'm not Z1720 but I have added some "Citation needed" templates to places that need citations. Hopefully it will help. Cheers! Spinixster (chat!) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding citations. I would like to add that there are a few other problems:

• Reference 11 is just a YouTube search page. I'd recommend removing the information that is being cited unless there's another reliable source to back the claim up (if you need help, WP:RSP is your friend.
• Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources, Pageantopolis is not reliable.
• What makes GetzMo (reference 4) reliable? The page seems to be dead.

Below are not really recommendations in order to maintain its GA status, but is still worth fixing.

• The citation style is inconsistent (some websites are wikilinked, some are not, some include authors, some do not), and per WP:CITEVAR, I'd suggest making it consistent.
• I would recommend expanding the lead so it would summarize the entire article. Right now, it's quite short and does not summarize the article well. WP:LEAD might help.
• Reference 23 is dead; I'd recommend finding an archived or live version.

Spinixster (chat!) 06:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've made some edits based on your suggestions. However, I'm not sure how I can expand the lead without mentioning her mistakes during the Q&A portion, which has been done on previous versions of this article and was even called out in this article from a popular lifestyle magazine. So, if you have any suggestions on that, let me know. D-Flo27 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, do you mean what Z1720 has said? I think they meant the quoting in the Question and answer section was what's unnecessary. I would recommend removing the quote and stating that she had answered the question poorly instead. I don't think a quote is needed to show her mistakes. The Q&A portion can still be mentioned in the lead, since it's a prominent part of the section. Spinixster (chat!) 07:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the above D-Flo27? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, unfortunately I've been busy the past week and this week that I haven't been able to add the edits. If someone else can do add those edits for me, that would be nice. D-Flo27 (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Consensus appears to be to keep. D6194c-1cc is invited to expand the article to their liking, and is reminded that "the "broad in its coverage" criterion ... allows shorter articles and articles that do not cover every major fact or detail". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too short, and it's nomination is from 2009. 79.185.137.127 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see too short being an issue here. The article is well written and covers enough information. Maybe it would need some updating since most of the information is from circa 2009, but that's all I can find. Spinixster (chat!) 02:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks information about side effects ([1], [2]) as decltype takes expression and do not evaluate it. The article just mentions that the argument is not evaluated, no details. And an example with the ++ operator would be appreciated. D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added in the body. [3] I don't believe it's necessary to include examples in the lede. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to describe side effects in the body of the article (with a wikilink). The article still doesn't mention side effects and doesn't provide details on what problems can cause misunderstanding usage of decltype, when developer doesn't expect that the state of variables won't change. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Motivation" section should be split into Motivation and History sections (history is the middle part of the section). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is missing explicit information about what has changed in the C++14 standard ([4], type deduction, decltype(auto)). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is missing a section on typical use cases ([5]). D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the article is more than long enough at 1067 words. Unless there have been changes in its use which were described in WP:RS, I'm at a keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any obvious issues. There might be some information that needs to be covered and I wuld love to see some text on how decltype has inspired other languages, but overall nothing that would require a delist. Sohom (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't see any serious issues either. The article is clear, readable, appears to cover the subject, and is admirably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008, tagged with a GAR request since September. Aside from the boosterism template, there are 5 citation needed templates and several other unsourced information. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed three of the citation needed tags and the boosterism. The other two citation needed tags need some work to see if a source can be found; if not, that information can be removed. Robminchin (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some further citation needed tags that I think have now identified the remaining unsourced information referred to. It looks like everything should be either addressable or not a great loss if it has to be removed. Robminchin (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned these up and made some other improvements to (hopefully) bring it to modern standards for a GA. Robminchin (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the much needed improvements. I see no problems with this article now, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions before closing this GAR. Spinixster (chat!) 02:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: With thanks to Spinixster. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Melchior2006 removing the good article tag out-of-process * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received a procedural notification for this as a previous reviewer, though I wasn't able to actually complete the review for life reasons. Aza24 did, and doesn't seem to have been notified. Looking at the diffs of removals, I'm not inclined to think they're unambiguous improvements. Vaticidalprophet 05:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is funadamentally different than the one I reviewed. I have no idea what happened, but now it appears choppy and disjointed. And why has the lead been obliterated? The previous was perfectly fine. Another case of random editors going way too bold and not discussing anything... Aza24 (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A series of recent edits removed a lot of biographical detail as "puffery". Some of this is borderline or arguable (imo the listing-many-individual-works in the lead might not be the ideal career summary), but a lot of it is entirely worthwhile detail, IMO. I've restored to the stable version so GAR regulars can assess the stable state, and hope Melchior will discuss here. Vaticidalprophet 06:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the article was/is its overuse of one-sided quotes from interviews with Winkler or promotional biographies. Then there was the weird overemphasis of his parents' flight from persecution in Fascist Germany, complete with block quotes about what uncles said to relatives, etc., all before Winkler was even born. A further problem was/is a remarkable over-documentation, using up to three footnotes to verify pretty straightforward information. The self-promotional aspect is easy enough to see after the recent reverts: "he burst into stardom" and so on. In general, it is overly narrative, like the passage "his manager Alan Berger suggested that he write children's books". That is not really of encyclopedic significance, it is enough information to state that he began writing children's books. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved but wanted to put in my two cents. Though overquoting can be a concern—per MOS:QUOTE, Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement—some quotes can be quite valid. For example, one of the recent edits removed the quote from this sentence:

−

was appointed an [[Honorary Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire|Honorary Officer of the Order of the British Empire]] (OBE) "for services to children with special educational needs and dyslexia in the UK" by [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth]] in 2011

+

was appointed an [[Honorary Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire|Honorary Officer of the Order of the British Empire]] (OBE) by [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth]] in 2011

It's one thing to say that Winkler was appointed an OBE. It's another to say why he was appointed an OBE, and removing the quote would remove that context as well.

The previous edits also removed some context:

−

However, he never had to work as a waiter because he was able to earn a living through performing in commercials. He was thus able to also perform with the [[Manhattan Theater Club]] for free.

+

He was able to earn a living through performing in commercials. In his free time, he performed with the [[Manhattan Theater Club]].

The original text says Winkler performed with MTC for free because he earned enough money from commercials. The revised text doesn't give this context, instead presenting this as two separate facts, even though the cited source (the interview with Winkler) says that he was able to perform with MTC because he could afford it. I haven't yet looked through this GA for other issues, but I do have to disagree with some of the recent changes, which Vat reverted. The overuse of quotes can be problematic, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I worked on the original GA and the article as it stands has changed since the reviewed edition. I tried to work with the changes as is, but there are considerable differences. That GA went on many months with suggestions from a number of editors. Certainly remove refs if there are too many, but the bio basically follows numerous interviews that he has given, so nothing is particularly promotional. I'm happy to make comments and give feedback, but I'd rather not give too much input at this point beyond the original GA that was approved. Here is the original GA: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Winkler&oldid=1083628482 -Classicfilms (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also trimmed the EL's.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. "he burst into stardom" isn't promotional? --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have a question about the text boxes on the right. One describes events several years before Winkler's birth. Do we want this featured so prominently? Then, further down, we have a text box which starts: "Lin and I, yesterday morning, wrote the first chapter of our 28th novel. Holy moly." This is just not the kind of objectivity we are looking for. One excuse for such promos might be if the content of the box were truly sophisticated or talented writing, but that is certainly not the case. Can we delete this stuff? --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1.Re: "he burst into stardom" - when using the term "promotional," it implies that editors have a vested interest in what is written, so I'd be careful not to stray into Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It makes more sense to just change the wording if a better sentence structure comes to mind. The fact of the matter is that during the 1970s, "The Fonz" was an incredible force in popular culture. If there is a better way to state it, go for it. 2. As for the text boxes, again I'd caution the term "promotional," as they reflect what happened. If there is another way to state these events, or if you want to trim, go for it. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it promotional to quote the subject discussing his writing process? It would be different to say this stuff in wikivoice as though it were fact, but we're explicitly identifying it as his thoughts on the matter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's one point, thx, but I raised a number of points in the lines above, most of which have gone unanswered so far. --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in as a passerby, I think those points are largely unhelpful in terms of both the GACR and what readers are interested in when they read these articles. Of course it's relevant that his parents fled persecution from Nazi Germany. That's generational trauma writ large; it must have impacted every aspect of the rest of his life.

Using multiple footnotes is not promotional nor is it over-documentation. It's fairly standard practice. There is nothing in the GACR or even the FACR that dictates the number of footnotes one must use.

Finally, re: the manager suggesting he take up writing. That is exactly the kind of thing readers would find interesting. He didn't spontaneously turn himself into an author, his manager had to inveigle him into it, and then he winds up writing 28 kids' novels. That's an interesting turn of events, and cutting the manager's role out changes the story entirely.

I'll be clear in saying I haven't read the article in strict detail and I'm not arguing that it's perfect (there are places where I can see that the prose could be tightened without cutting information), but those specific points I think are not really germane to whether or not it meets the GACR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having said that, there's more unneccessary quoting here than I thought. I've trimmed quite a bit of fat from the Books section - without removing the actual interesting facts, I think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (?) I'd like to help out, but I feel like the changes would be very controversial, so I would like to ask for opinions about them here before I do so. Aside from the unnecessary quoting issues, I also find it to be going into too much detail. For example:

• The Dyslexia section: is it really needed to go super in-depth about his issues with dyslexia? And why does it mention his other roles during his time at Happy Days? The section is called "Happy Days and stardom" so I would find it appropriate to move it there.
• The Arrested Development section (and most sections relating to his role somewhere in general) also seems to have unrelated information. Do we really need to know about some random references to his Fonzie character? It would probably fit better in the Fonzie article, not here.

That's just some examples. Another thing to note is that I see a lot of "Further information" templates. Is it really necessary here? Spinixster (chat!) 11:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tend to agree that the quoting is definitionally unnecessary (e.g. the "he was the Fonz" quote is a pithy illustration of the typecasting). Famously-typecast actors are a tricky lot; I'd expect an article on Winkler to extensively discuss references to Fonzie in the same sense I would Adam West's to discuss Adam Westing, or Leonard Nimoy's to discuss his relationship with being Spock. I'd certainly expect them to be in Winkler's article rather than Fonzie's, for which they actually would be undue references. "Is it really needed to go super in-depth about his issues with dyslexia?" Well, he's a significant activist for it, so...yes. The sectioning is probably not ideal, but I think that particular variant of it could just lose the section header, and another section header on it could be moved to "Personal life" with more general information. Vaticidalprophet 11:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice.

• I've moved the Dyslexia section to the Personal life section, though I'm not sure about its last paragraph since I feel that it is not very necessary to go in-depth about his difficulties with dyslexia.
• For the other sections regarding his non-Fonzie roles, I do feel like it is worth pointing out some references or similarities to Fonzie as long as they're cited, but I think listing all of them is unnecessary. Take, for example, the Arrested Development section. What should I do?

I'll try to remove some more unnecessary quotes, you are welcome to change some removals if needed. Spinixster (chat!) 13:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support- all great ideas, go for it.-Classicfilms (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I love it, thanks! --Melchior2006 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll try and see if I can cut down some unnecessary parts today. Please let me know your opinions on cutting down the parts in the Dyslexia section. Spinixster (chat!) 01:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think that's all I can remove before getting a consensus on the Dyslexia section. Can someone check? Thank you. Spinixster (chat!) 01:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks great to me!-Classicfilms (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Classicfilms, thank you. Do you think I should remove some details in the Dyslexia section, too, as I've stated above? Spinixster (chat!) 02:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spinixster - So, the section was originally part of the "Happy Days" portion of the article. I think it works equally if placed within the "Personal life" section. Dyslexia is a significant part of his biography, a point that he talks about in every interview and in his new memoir. It may make sense to compress the "Happy Days" quotes since you've moved it to a new section, but then you will also need to add sentences reflecting how dyslexia actually influenced many stages of his life- whether it was his approach to acting, signature aspects of his most famous character "the Fonz," and then later the Hank Zipzer books and shows - then his charity work with schools and school children. It's really up to you, and how you want to approach this topic.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion - take a look at the original GA article which I just linked particularly the original intro which tackles the subject- it has the dyslexia section under "Happy Days" because that is when he was diagnosed, but there are references to it before (the problems in school) and after - the Hank Zipzer books and shows and his charity work - that are spread out throughout the article. So one thought might be to summarize these points (by all means take out the quotes if you want to summarize) and put it all under the one dyslexia section.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I noticed in the article. The Happy Days section has 4 images, which I think is a lot considering the length of the section. I want to form a consensus on which image(s) to remove. Please reply with the image(s) you think should be kept:

• Image 1: Richie Cunningham (Ron Howard) takes a turn on Fonzie's motorcycle
• Image 2: Potsie (Anson Williams), Richie (Ron Howard), Fonzie (Henry Winkler) and Ralph Malph (Donny Most) at Arnold's drive-in.
• Image 3: The Fonz becomes a singing superstar. Pictured are Cindy Williams as Shirley Feeney, Ron Howard as Richie Cunningham, Henry Winkler as Fonzie, and Penny Marshall as Laverne DiFazio.
• Image 4: Marion Cunningham (Marion Ross) enters a dance contest with Fonzie instead of Howard (who is not interested).

I am towards keeping the 3rd image only as it illustrates the section well. The caption should be changed, though. Spinixster (chat!) 08:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am for Image 3: "The Fonz becomes a singing superstar" because the pose is characteristic, and you see HW in the context of other actors. Thanks for deleting the others, it is indeed overkill. Melchior2006 (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it - Image 3 works for me.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed the images and updated the caption. Please let me know if there are other issues, because I think I've run out of things to fix. Spinixster (chat!) 02:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! But there is still a lot of padding in this article. I would like to cut, at the end of the Stolperstein section, this superfluous paragraph: "The discovery came as a complete surprise to Winkler, as Jeff Dye had secretly enlisted the help of Winkler's children, who planned the surprise. A letter from them was waiting near the Stolperstein, and told Winkler that all of his experiences in Berlin reflected his parents' life there: "Even though the Winkler history in Berlin is heartbreaking, we thought it was important for you to connect with the past through this hopefully fun adventure, and connect you did...." --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yeah, I've partially removed it. Spinixster (chat!) 08:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you removed that business about "jumping the shark." It was one of many examples in this article that were way too detailed and below encyclopedic standards, simply because Winkler's speaking voice is not particularly profound. Many of these quotes were anecdotal. --Melchior2006 (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinixster, Melchior2006, Classicfilms, and Vaticidalprophet: does the article meet the GA criteria now? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, but to be fair, I am the person who removed most of the puffery text, so I'd prefer someone else's opinion. Spinixster (chat!) 02:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are still NPOV issues and UNDUE as well. Here's what I mean:

1. "he never had to work as a waiter" ...or a taxi driver ... or an office worker? Why single out waiters? It is an example of this article's tone, which just isn't neutral and encyclopedic.

2. In the section "2016–2018: Better Late Than Never" 2/3 of the section is devoted to a Stolperstein, complete with translation about details of his uncle's murder. This is too detailed. I would say take the picture out and reduce the long paragraph that begins "Winkler was the focus..."

3. Under "Personal life" we have this quote which is too personal, emotional, full of [] supplements. "telling the Hollywood Reporter in November 2021, that "I loved the people. They are still my friends". --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll try to condense that. Let me know if it's fixed now. Spinixster (chat!) 10:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! You are something else. As for me, I am all set with this article, I think it looks pretty darn good. Thx for all your help! Fantastic; that's what high-quality wiki-work is supposed to be. --Melchior2006 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! Spinixster (chat!) 12:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Yes, it looks fine. One of the great things about the Wikipedia is that the review process allows for many different perspectives and approaches to a topic, where WP:NPOV also guides talk page interactions, that function under the larger umbrella of Wikipedia:Civility.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Needs updating on her post-2012 career as she has appeared in many races after that date. Spinixster (chat!) 02:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article a bit to add her participation in the 2020 Tokyo Paralympics, though Im not sure if she participated in any races between that and the 2012 London Paralympics. Blue Jay (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the article to include more of the races she was in; however some info is missing from them, so hopefully more sources could be found that can have these info. Blue Jay (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added the extra information, hopefully all the concerns have been addressed. Blue Jay (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: No consensus ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagged with relying on Primary sources. It seems like the banner was added shortly after the article was promoted in 2013. I don't think this article meets the criteria anymore. Z1720 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THe drive-by tag can be removed. No evidence of discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it could be removed, but what would be the point of that? It's indisputably correct—27 of the 41 individual citations in the article are to Tarbuck's own self-described "reminiscences", including everything on his life 1897–1942. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the problem is? There's nothing wrong with sourcing an entire article from primary sources, so long as you stick to the facts and avoid WP:SYNTH. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly contradicted by WP policy, Hawkeye7. WP:PRIMARY (emphasis not mine): "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." I didn't think I needed to point out that being non-independent, the source also fails WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not related to the sources used in an article. The subject has widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article using primary sources, even extensively, isn't in and itself a problem if the sources are reliable (though the chief source not being independent of the subject is a concern, this must be contrasted with WP:SELFSOURCE) and there is also coverage in secondary sources. I do see several independent and secondary sources cited in the article. In my opinion the addition of more secondary sources would be beneficial to the article, but as written the Good article criteria only require reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As used, the sources are not reliable: a memoir is perfectly good evidence for what someone said about themselves or what they claimed about an event, but distinctly dodgy for statements of autobiographical fact: people forget, exaggerate their successes, downplay their failures, protect their friends, denigrate their enemies and sometimes outright fabricate things (a recent FA was about someone who almost totally invented their own autobiography, and I've written one article myself where the subject's autobiography is both the main ur-source and extremely unreliable).

In particular, I would be very circumspect about using an autobiography for statements like Tarbuck observed the Russian Civil War first hand, The ability to speak "Army", and knowledge of the conduct of land, sea and air operations, would prove important in his selection for his next post, or Tarbuck met with Admiral Chester Nimitz, who told him in no uncertain terms that anti-Army and anti-MacArthur sentiments had no place in his command: these jumped out immediately as areas where there's a high risk of the narrative having been "padded", or indeed of Tarbuck simply not having known the truth (he could only have known at second hand, at best, why he was promoted, for example). I'm with User:AirshipJungleman29 that there's a reliability concern here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings and Hawkeye7: thoughts on the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional secondary sources, including a recent work detailing his meeting with Nimitz. I disagree about Tarbuck's knowledge of his promotion; at this time BuPers managed the careers of regular Navy officers carefully, and usually there was some discussion about possible assignments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but even if he was told outright "you're being promoted because you speak 'Army'", it's entirely possible that he was really (or also) being promoted because his new boss took a shine to him, that his current boss wanted rid of him, that the promotion board had some grievance with his competitors... The reason for an officer's promotion is by definition an analytical/evaluative statement, so is outside what we can reasonably draw from a primary source, though there's nothing wrong with us saying something like "Tarbuck later wrote that the main reason for his promotion was..." -- that's a mere statement of fact, presented in Tarbuck's voice, not Wikipedia's. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting I have seen this but am very busy offwiki, I will look into thing further this weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a look, I believe the addition of secondary sources has been a significant improvement to the article, to the point I'm leaning towards retention of GA status at this time. I think the initial GAR had very valid concerns, but they appear to have been successfully addressed to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. This article has many unsourced statements, original research, and uses circular referencing. Spinixster (chat!) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinixster Thanks for flagging this. I'm recovering from covid at the moment so haven't much spare capacity, but I'll try and have a look over it in the next week or two and see what can be salvaged. Standards have definitely moved on a bit in the last 17 years! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray, I can also take a look towards cleanup over the next few days if it would be of assistance? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891 that would be very kind, thankyou! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a few citations and removed an uncited claim. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've overhauled the background (though it might need more tweaking). Working on digging up some suitable sourcing for critical commentary. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little more, and removed an uncited paragraph which does seem to have been editorial. The rest seems to be both sufficient and properly cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the work by Gray et al. looks good to me. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 00:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: No violations of the criteria apparent. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just notably expanded/rewrote the article, so it might need a re-assessment. I am especially unsatisfied with the prose, which is overly wordy. I'd like to present it to FAC in the future, so this needs to be tip-top. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, keeping in mind that GAR isn't PR and is really meant to assess if egregious violations of the GA criteria can be fixed, I think you're fine. About the most wordy sentence in the article is The flanks of Sabancaya themselves include roads and a major power line that comes from the Mantaro Power Plant [es] and delivers electricity to southern Peru; all of these could be threatened in an eruption.; it's still perfectly understandable, if a little verbose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This rather interesting historical figure recently passed GAN, and for the very engaging story the article tells, I'm unsure if it hits the GA criteria. I took a quick glance at the sources and added what additional information I could find from them, but with the current information I'm unsure if it meets suitable breadth or not, and wanted more feedback on this. The prose is also slightly confusing at times, especially in the legacy section. Generalissima (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Generalissima I did the GA review. I tried to hew strictly to the WP:GACR, which only require that it "addresses the main aspects of the topic", which I think this does. WP:FACR requires that the article be comprehensive, i.e. "neglects no major facts or details", but that's a higher standard. Anyway, I'm always happy to have somebody take another look, so I'm cool with the reassessment request. RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback; I appreciate greater scrutiny of my work here. I've tried to tidy up the prose in the Legacy section, which I admit was a bit sloppy/confusing at times. – GnocchiFan (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also (re-)nominated this for copyediting at WP:GOCE if this helps. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima, I am inclined to agree with RoySmith; the GA criteria only requires that the main aspects of the topic are addressed, even while more can be said. A visit to GOCE will clear up any lingering issues in the prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: With thanks to Reconrabbit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 listing contains numerous sentences and paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). Recent edits have drawn attention to the quality of the prose (criterion 1a)), and I am additionally of the opinion that the lists in the article do not meet MOS:EMBED (criterion 1b)). As a non-subject expert, I am unable to say whether the article addresses the main aspects of the topic while excluding excessive detail (criteria 3a) and 3b)). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of the article fail 2b? I went through the article once over and noted the following subsections that could have a citation needed argued for:

• #Isotopes (thank you!)
• #Thermometers
• #Historic uses
• #Occupational exposure
• #Denmark

1b): I'm of the opinion that we don't really need the list under Medicine#Historical and folk, but the long history and wide range of applications kind of necessitate Applications#Historical uses to be some kind of list, if not exactly in the form it is in right now. Toxicity and safety#Releases in the environment looks fine to me right now. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 21:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the issues with the article are not improved by next year then the article will have to be delisted. Catfurball (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a run-through of the historical uses, added references and removed extraneous/repeated/OR statements. Anything else that needs work? Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 15:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: The cleanup section under treatment still needs to be expanded. Catfurball (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it following a change to the heading organization. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 18:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reconrabbit I've added around a dozen citation needed tags to unreferenced paragraphs and sentences; if those are adequately cited, I think the article can be kept. Many thanks for your efforts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tags have all been addressed. There was one instance where I could not find any info and deleted a sentence (the coordination complex of Mercury(II) chloride) both on this page and where it was transcribed on the compound page (where it also had no reference). All others were reworded to reflect the sources found if necessary. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Keep as is, withdrawn proposal GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this good article for reassessment because it has so many edit wars over the years and tons of vandalism and many unsourced content, I certainly want this article to keep it's plus, but it's an old GA from 2009. --GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: UPDATE: It seems to have very few issues now; I fixed most of the grammar. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There probably should be moderate work to keep it's GA status. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the article's DYK nomination, an editor expressed concern with the reliance of YouTube videos. I'm bringing this here to see if editors share this concern, and to determine if the article does meet the GA criteria for sourcing. Thanks to everyone who takes a look. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who expressed the concern—I was troubled by the excessive reliance on self-published, non-independent YouTube videos for large parts of the article, especially the "Cast" and "Filming" sections. In total, there are 67 individual citations to YouTube videos, and one to Facebook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem with most of the YouTube videos in this article as the videos are mainly from the show's official verified account and are used in cases where there isn't currently a better source available for them. The sourced videos are reliable, according to WP:RSPYT, as they were uploaded by the official channel and are therefore able to be verified to the uploader. YouTube links have been and are able to be sourced in GAs (1, 2). Happily888 (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happily888, those discussions took place over a decade and a half ago. Do you know of any more recent discussions? If videos were uploaded to the official channel, that surely means that they are self-published, non-independent, and primary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this more recent RfC discussion which shows if the verified channel owner is known and the content is not a copyvio, the content inherits inherent reliability and is able to be sourced on wikipedia. For example, some of the interview videos sourced in this article contain information which isn't posted elsewhere and therefore are the best sources of information for cast members. Happily888 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, if the videos were third-party sources Happily888. But these are not third-party, they are non-WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:PRIMARY sources.

From WP:IS: "To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. A source too close to the subject will always believe that the subject is important enough to warrant detailed coverage, and relying exclusively upon this source will present a conflict of interest and a threat to a neutral encyclopedia."

These videos might be the "best sources of information for cast members", but that does not mean that the information should be included. It is policy that Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29: However, there are some cases where information should be included in articles: if the best source for this is primary and a video, it should be the source included. The only way to link such sources in video form, whilst avoiding copyvios, is to use videos posted only from an official channel.

WP:IS does state that independent sources are required in articles but it does not state that every source must be independent; rather, it instead allows non-independent sources to be used to fill in non-controversial details, with the section you quoted referring to statements about the subjects importance and why requiring independent sources. A primary source could be reliable whilst secondary source could be unreliable, it is better to instead look at sources on a case-by-case basis for the best possible source for that information, see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD or WP:PRIMARYCARE, which provides examples of primary sources being acceptable in some cases such as direct quotations and sourcing information about plots or characters. Happily888 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I can accept that Happily888. Thanks for your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: No concerns raised. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various maintens tags have been placed dating back to May 2020. I plan on fixing them myself but I wanted to see if anyother issues had arrised since then. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant An entire reassessment based solely on two maintenance tags is both troubling and concerning. If they are fixed, which you've noted you could do yourself, do you intend to close this reassessment? Why could this not have simply been a discussion on the specials' relevant talk page? -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the templates have been there since 2020 and 2021 and there has been 189 revisions in the five years since it reached GA adding an additonal 11,534 bytes to the page so I think its fairly likely that an additional problem would be noticed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain the need for a reassessment instead of just a regular talk page discussion. Are there actually any other issues? -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant Given that the two {{citation needed}} templates have been repaired, do you intend to now close this reassessment, given the lack of any other issues you've raised? -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant You seem to have forgotten about this. Any further updates? -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for a review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant Do you agree that there is no longer a need for this reassessment? On what grounds of WP:GAR was it opened? Which of the six good article criteria do you believe this article no longer follows? -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Doesn't look that bad, kept GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced prose, including whole sections. WP:OVERSECTION of the "Service history" level 3 headings. Z1720 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe I have fixed most or all of the issues above. Keep ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "only ocean liner in service" point not included (or explained) in body. There is a separate "only" point in the second paragraph which I'm also not sure is in the body. Are these related? The tone of the article piqued my interest, but not enough that I'm sure it is a serious concern. Similarly, quite a few primary sources, but within the context of a lot of secondary sources reflecting similar points. The Bibliography seems out of date, but not a GACR issue. Keep if lead/body are brought into alignment. CMD (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Massive effort from Dedhert.Jr and XOR'easter to bring this article up to scratch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant portions, including whole sections and subsections, of this 2007 listing are missing inline citations; the article thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). If someone has access to the books of the biblography section and the requisite knowledge, this is just a matter of finding pages, to my inexpert mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I predicted it. The article has some unsourced paragraphs during I was adding the citations. Not to mention, they are also some parts that is not understandable per criterion 1a, for example the partial derivative part. Also, the history section, to me, is somewhat not related, as it mentions the history of how the calculus was made; maybe this could be expanded or merge to any other sections, or just delete it literally? I do think there are lot of problems in this article. Pinging more users: @Jacobolus, @David Eppstein, @XOR'easter, @D.Lazard for more comments???? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article would benefit significantly from an effort to add a gentler informal or semi-formal description at the top, with less jargon, more pictures, and accessible to a wider audience. (A better history section would also be nice.) Other than that, this article seems mostly fine, and this reassessment is IMO a waste of time. Please feel free to add more specific citations if you want. All of this material is easily verifiable and discussed extensively in the cited references. –jacobolus (t) 20:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify jacobolus, are you saying that you feel this article meets the GA criteria, or that there is no need for this article to meet the GA criteria and discussing whether it should is a waste of time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying this article seems like a fine Wikipedia article. Like most of them, it could use additional work. Arguing about whether it ticks off some boxes on a made up checklist (a poor proxy for article quality) is a total waste of time. Addressing the specific criticisms raised here isn't going to make the article substantively better, and there are many more valuable improvements that could be made (but also don't have to be; as I said it's a fine article). Knock yourself out though. –jacobolus (t) 02:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second option, then. Thanks for your quick response. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, @Jacobolus: the discussion of improvement may be found in many places: see at my talk and the talk page of the article Derivative. In my talk page, me and XOR'easter discussed the improvement in the section of definition. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you and to XOR for working on the article. I hope the article will be improved, to the benefit of the readers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions from me regarding the improvement of this article:

• I'm looking for the possibility of a scenario about the notation part: should this section mention after the higher derivative? In my opinion, the notation describes many different notations of differentiation, including the high order. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I wonder why its applications remain stuck at the Differential calculus#Applications. Is it possible to write them down in this article, instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: No consensus to delist ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very outdated and lacks extensive coverage on recent studies from high-resolution VLT images. There are three citation needed tags and an update template has been placed under the "Orbit and rotation" section since 2019. Compared to the recently-renovated article Ceres (dwarf planet) which passed GA review in 2021 and later promoted to FA, Hygiea is severely lacking in depth, judging by the mostly short sections and the very broad coverage of the "Physical characteristics" section. I do not think this article qualifies for GA in its current state, and a total revamp of this article long overdue. (I do not have time to renovate this entire article by myself, though I may try) Nrco0e (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging recent contributors @Kwamikagami and Double sharp: Nrco0e (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is too out-of-date to be a GA. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be too much work to get this back into shape, since we don't know much about Hygiea, but agreed that work does need to be done. There was that claim that it's a DP, which AFAIK hasn't gone anywhere, with it believed to be a re-accreted body instead. I imagine that other updates will be relatively minor. There's a claim in the intro that there's debate over whether it's the largest C type asteroid, but no explanation as to why (Ceres sometimes being classified as 'G'). — kwami (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e, Kwamikagami, and Double sharp: does anyone have the time or energy to work on this article, or should it be delisted? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit just now, and removed all citations from the lead.

If someone who knows what they're doing could calculate the axial tilt from the polar ascension and declension, that would be appreciated. (I just left it as "...".) — kwami (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any major problems, so keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Result: Uncited material removed from article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In April 2023, an article of the town of Sakurajima was merged into this article. This caused a new, uncited section to be added to the article. This merger should be resolved if this article is to remain a GA. Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't recall the format for posting replies to one of these off the top of my head. However, I think the merge itself should be undone. The scope of the article (the geographic feature) was clear before, and if it seemed like the settlement disappeared when it was merged with the other municipalities, then the best solution would seem to be to revise the contents of Sakurajima, Kagoshima or the article on the city of Kagoshima instead. Dekimasuよ! 05:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged the merging editor, but they have been inactive since November. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]