Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 75

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing has not been adequately updated for many years now, and as a consequence contains significant uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing has not been adequately updated since its promotion, and as a result, there is significant uncited material throughout the article.

There is also an advertisement tag in the "Services" section, and the "History" section is very biased towards the airline's earlier years. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 listing contains massive amounts of uncited material, meaning the article does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist uncited material remains. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 listing contains significant uncited material, possibly verging on original research GA criteria 2b) and 2c). Even in 2007, a reviewer felt it did not meet the GA criteria. It also relies heavily on primary, not secondary, sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this 2007 listing is missing inline citations, and thus it is very far away from GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 addition has multiple unsourced claims and, quite possibly, original research. Spinixster (chat!) 02:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Significant uncited material in the later sections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2007 promotion that survived the 2009 sweeps but is listed on the 2023 sweeps listing. Several uncited sections have accreted, and I am also concerned that not all of the various carfan websites cited would meet modern reliability standards. Hog Farm _Talk 21:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything for the Wheels Magazine references [refs: 1, 2, 3, 8, 9]. More citations might be needed and not (too) many unreliable sources. Webwombat, which later became CarExpert, Drive, and GoAuto are good sources. Not sure about others. Picture amount is pretty excessive. I think everything excluding those is okay. References need archiving but the prose seems good. No expert, just some things that might help. 750h+ (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article was promoted in 2006 with a very limited review by today's standards. As the article stands today, I have concerns about its compliance with criteria 1b, 2b, and 2d.

1b: The lead of the article is not a summary of the body, as is required by MOS:LEAD. Much of the content of the lead does not appear in the body at all (e.g. the Spartan pyrrhichios is not discussed in the body; the claim that "tribalism ... usually gives rise to such folk dances" does not appear in the body). I also see aesthetic claims about specific dances made in Wikipedia's voice in violation of MOS:WTW, e.g. the sword dance Choliya "has a very beautiful and graceful form"; "The Jerusema ... is an interesting kind of hybrid war dance".

2b: I count fifteen paragraphs in the body which do not end with a citation. At least one specific claim, that Morris dance commemorates battles between Christians and Muslims between the 12th and 15th century, I am actively sceptical of. I also found one claim which does not seem to appear in the cited source: "A sub-type of the Khattak Wal Atanrh known as the Braghoni involves the use of up to three swords and requires great skill to successfully execute".

2d: This from the first source I checked; I would consider this too-close paraphrasing if I found it when reviewing an article:

I have notified the nominator, reviewer, main article contributor, and GA sweeps reviewer, but none are currently active. Also notified the relevant wikiprojects Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• certainly below standards in its current state; improvement is urgently required. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Every paragraph needs to be checked against its citation because most of the text appears to be unrelated fluffing the editor did to call whatever it is specifically a "weapon dance", which the lede seems to want to define as combat-oriented or combat-derived, but then most of the examples are anything but. It may just need WP:TNT if there's no actual scholarly/encyclopedic "thing" that is a "weapon dance" (as opposed to, say, a sword dance, which is an actual cohesive topic.) Since some of the dances here don't have their own article, then failing finding an RS giving a cohesive definition, this article article would be better reformed as a "List of martial dances" or something like that (the Talk page notes someone added Capoeira, which notably generally has no weapons, so clearly the article does not have any cohesive scope as-is). SamuelRiv (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. CMD (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following merge. CMD (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains large sections of uncited information. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several uncited statements and an overreliance of blockquotes. Z1720 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: The article's clarity and good prose will remain, it simply does not meet the requirements for a green blob. NBD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b); at well over 11,000 words, it is likely also excessively detailed and violating criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as things go in the 2020s, you're correct. I've just had a good look at the article and for the record, it is remarkably clear and well-written, and admirably illustrated with math, diagrams, photos, and examples, to the extent that a biologist can read it with ease and pleasure: quite the engineering accomplishment. This was, in fact, a well-deserved GA back in the day. As for its length, it would be very difficult to split or condense as it is coherently written, and all the sections are at a similar level of detail. As for citing it to today's standards, that would require highly specific expertise; and the question of how to cite the "illustrations" in the broad sense I've used is a thorny one which I don't believe Wikipedia has adequately thought through. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted as not meeting GA criterion 3a). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is just 193 words long, making it the shortest GA by word count.

Problems I noted with this article include but are not limited to:

• There is uncited text in the lede which is nowhere else in the body.
• The last sentence is uncited.
• One of the sources is WP:GOOGLEMAPS, which is not forbidden but is still problematic. Schierbecker (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I had the start of a response made, but why should I bother now if insults are the norm. Why should I bother to finish the edit I started on the article to clarify a few things in response to this nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delist GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist and redirect the article to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. There's nothing in the article that says why the highway was built or why it was decommissioned, so it fails criteria 3a. Regarding Google Maps, my view is you can use it to cite an existence of a building or a street intersection, but it doesn't contribute at all to notability. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Ritchie333, I think there are just certain articles that, even if they reasonably fully cover the subject, are so short that they fail the broadness criterion and you can't do anything about it. By using WP:DYKCRIT criteria, it would not pass DYK because it has fewer than 1,500 bytes in readable prose, so it's likely a stub, but then WP:STUBDEF says that articles with little inherent notability can be merged. I think doing that by blocks of, say, 25 articles, can be more useful than scattering barely notable articles around the encyclopedia, let alone maintain we have enough confidence to show this as "good quality" stuff.

PS. I accidentally used the GANReview tool to close this discussion, which I didn't mean to. I think I reverted all changes related to that accidental deployment, but double-check if I cleaned up everything. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, Szmenderowiecki, I think you just closed this discussion; the talk page itself needed changing back too. Just an FYI! Cheers ——Serial 17:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist and redirect per ATD-R; usual poorly sourced article from the curb kissers. ——Serial 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure am glad Wikipedia has and enforces policies for WP:AGF and WP:NPA, makes the editing environment so civil and not hostile. Ok sarcasm aside, really resorting to name calling in our vote rationales?Dave (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Serial Number 54129: Why on Earth would you say this? jp×g🗯️ 12:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't particularly want this to derail into a conduct discussion, so I'll just note at this juncture that Serial's !vote is invalid as ATD-R is irrelevant for GAR, per my note below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll just note that your "note below" is being pretty comprehensively disregarded :D ——Serial 16:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you wish to redirect the article, go to AfD - I might even agree with you. But that isn't decided at GAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just as the !votes to redirect will be disregarded when the discussion closes... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Just in case anyone is unaware, GAR is not AfD; this discussion is only about whether an article meets the GA criteria. Any arguments based on notability are at the wrong place; as far as I am aware, there is no rule forbidding simultaneous AfDs and GARs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: wouldn't needing a notability tag fall under #3 in immediate failures? It seems relevant, surely if a topic is not notable its not eligible for GA or FA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Horse Eye's Back, a notability banner is not a cleanup banner. There are quite a few FAs/GAs that have been deleted as non-notable (I have nominated two myself: Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956; there has also been e.g. ANAK Society). The non-correlation between the two processes is delineated at the top of WP:GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The the top of WP:GAR talks about GNG but says nothing about notability in general unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, what is more "general" about notability than the "General Notability Guideline"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is only part of WP:N. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an article falls below the long-established "stub" threshold for DYK, then in my view it walks like a stub, talks like a stub, and acts like a stub. And the GA criteria explicitly says stubs cannot be GAs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, per WP:STUBDEF, a "stub" is defined as "an article that, although lacking the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, provides some useful information and is capable of expansion." If an article such as this is not capable of expansion, but is still very short, it is not defined as a stub, and is thus eligible to be a GA. I repeat, questions of notability are not within GAR's purview—if you wish to invoke WP:ATD or WP:NOPAGE, AfD is the place to go. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can make arguments like these though. If it's not capable of expansion because there's little to tell, is it broad? I mean it fails 3a at least because there are supposed to be main aspects, and you can't really say there are aspects (plural) to talk about, maybe one or two at most

Ideally though, I'd merge with other similar articles because the main claim to notability here is that it existed because MIDoT said it did and I-94 was then built built nearby... which kinda is too little to justify a standalone article IMHO. You know, we grade GAs above B-class articles. Will you give it a B? I'd say it's start-class. Probably an example of what a small article should look like, but still start-class. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szmenderowiecki, I am, in fact, aware we grade GAs above B-class articles, having delisted hundreds in the past year. Taking the only WikiProject for which B-class assessment is still a thing, we find the following criteria: referenced  Done, not containing obvious omissions/inaccuracies  Done, a defined structure with a lead and sections  Done, no grammatical errors  Done, and an infobox/images/diagrams if necessary  Done. I do not know where you are getting your definitions of "B-class" and "start-class" from, but I would appreciate your opinion on which two of these B-class criteria the article does not meet, or an example of alternative B-class criteria this article fails.

As far as I can see, the article discusses three main aspects—the route itself, its history, and its intersections—if you feel that something is missing, feel free to say. Again, if you want a discussion on notability, please start a merge discussion or an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"at the time it was created, it was fully paved" appears to be OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"After removal from the state highway system, the roadway is now simply known as Dexter–Ann Arbor Road" is also unsourced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not necessarily saying anything is missing. I am saying that there's just really too little to tell and it's fine for an article but falls short of GA.

Intersections is in fact just another way to describe the route, which I can read from a map conveniently provided in an infobox. The history is literally 3 (three) sentences long: commissioning, decomissioning, and current name. And that's it.

Now imagine stripping it of the route description. It's OK to describe it in an article, but since the only source is a map, it doesn't really give anything new to the reader, unlike, let's say, a newspaper article about the local importance for ranch farmers or whoever lobbied MIDoT to build it. Still giving a GA? For me, there should also be some astonishment from reading the article, and restating a map gives me none of it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's fine. Sometimes a topic doesn't need to have 70 paragraphs written about it. I have driven on this road; it's pretty nice. But it's not that long. What, specifically, are we demanding be added to this article? jp×g🗯️ 12:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think my real problem is the article doesn't tell me anything I can't get from a map, and where I'd understand the map better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist I get that we've got a gamut of ideas about what the broadness coverage means; whether it's just "we cover everything reasonable about this topic and that's enough" or if there's a particular floor every article needs to get to. Reading this, I definitely end up on the latter side. There's basically nothing here that actually educates me on why this is a topic that matters. Ritchie's point that it can be replaced by a map and you lose almost nothing is I think a fair one to make. These probably should get merged together if all that can be said is in a paragraph or two, but that's not really the purview of GAR. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking with the coord hat on, it is true that notability is not considered part of the GA criteria. If you think an article fails GNG and shouldn't exist, the venue is AfD, not GAR. With that said, speaking from my own perspective, the severe lack of substantial secondary sources (that say more than just maps) is a problem for meeting comprehensiveness requirements. If we can't find a single source besides a map that discusses this highway within the last 60 years, I'm not convinced the article can meet the GA criteria. I fully agree with Ritchie's comment that I think my real problem is the article doesn't tell me anything I can't get from a map, and where I'd understand the map better. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Ritchie. Not every topic can have a good article on it; some topics just don't have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. This is one of them. BilledMammal (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has numerous uncited statements. The reception section is quite short, considering the amount of literature that has been written about it. I am also surprised there isn't a legacy section, considering that this is the first in a very successful video game franchise. Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon performing my own quick look at this article,

• Release date is sourced in lead, but not in the actual article?
• Reception is too short to conclude anything of how critics felt.
• No legacy section, per above, which could easily be made even if it just goes over the sequels established by it. A start could be seeing if this games competitive scene has SIGCOV to warrant placement in this article, or even including some parts about the Smash Remix mod.
• A lot of gameplay is unsourced.
• Development seems to be okay?

If someone took the time to address the issues mentioned here and above I'm willing to change my stance but in my opinion this is a very clear Delist. λ NegativeMP1 17:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had boldly removed the legacy section because it merely lists all the sequels, which functionally makes it no different than the Super Smash Bros. series article and is thus redundant. It did not cover this particular game's legacy in the same way that Melee's Legacy section does with the its still active competitive scene. I had previously brought this up at WP:VG and the consensus seemed to agree. ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While that seems fair and I agree that it's pointless if it only lists sequels, a substantial Legacy section should still at least mention them. I do think however that it should go more into detail about other things of the games legacy, and contain the sequels to a small bit. λ NegativeMP1 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A legacy section can probably include the sequels to the game, its impact on the fighting genre, its impact on sales for the N64, and its use in tournaments, among other topics. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a legacy section could be created with its use in tournaments and mods like Smash Remix. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that lot of reliable sources exist for Smash 64's esports coverage, and a pretty decently-sized reliable source exists for Smash Remix [1]. Both are definitely material that can be included in a Legacy section. λ NegativeMP1 20:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of legacy sections on a first work in a franchise seem to just turn into redundancy with the series article, so I agree with the axing. But aside from the listing of sequels the relevance on the fighting game community and such does seem reasonable to include. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel like the screenshot does not really do a good job at showcasing the gameplay of the series. I think a better screenshot showing 4 players actively fighting on a fairly complex stage like Hyrule Castle or Saffron City would be good. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. For the breadth criterion, Reception should be greatly expanded from contemporaneous and retrospective reviews. A Legacy section is currently unhandled, per above. And the Gameplay section should be easily sourced to reliable, secondary sources. czar 15:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. There are citations in the lead. Also stuff in the lead is NOT present in the body itself. Brachy08 _(Talk) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, including whole sections, and thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2016 listing has degraded significantly - it contains uncited material and relies on some unreliable sources. I intend to restore this article, but it will need a full, top-to-bottom rewrite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been eight years since this was listed. Surprised a 8-year old GA listing would be on the reassessment despite being fairly new. probably Keep if fixed GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for reassessment predominantly over prose concerns. Specifically, the massive overuse and misuse of the word "would". Would is a future tense word, yet it is frequently misused to describe past tense actions. Sentences such as The tavern, being popular with politicians while campaigning or traveling across the country, would provide heated encounters with political rivals who would stay at the tavern as well. and The Peavine Railroad would end service in 1928, and the lines would be either demolished or washed out following the inundation of the Holston River by the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1942. are exceptionally poorly written and do not meet GA standards as I understand them. Consider also the extreme example of The accident is considered one of the deadliest and worst traffic collisions in the history of the state of Tennessee. The collision, the deadliest in state history... It is clear to me this article needs a fundamental rewrite. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I made some prose improvements following this article being mentioned on the Discord, but I'm not sure it's enough to save it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think a number of the sources used are properly reliable. For instance:
  • "Seitz, Robert. "Tate Springs Resort and Hotel 1865-1941". Kingswood School History. Archived from the original on March 27, 2015. Retrieved December 21, 2020." - looks like someone's personal history website
  • " "Private Acts: Highways & Roads". Grainger County Genealogy & History. May 9, 2011. Retrieved May 5, 2021." - local genealogy website; this sort of source usually is not RS
  • " "Bean Station, TN to Tazewell, TN". Walk Over States." - wordpress, no reason to think this blog would be RS
  • " "Bean Station, TN". DataUSA.io. Retrieved May 18, 2020." - I don't know what this is, but I doubt it is RS
  • " Morfe, Don (October 20, 2013). "Battle of Bean's Station". The Historical Marker Database. Retrieved December 28, 2020." - user generated, not RS
  • " Morfe, Don (October 20, 2013). "Bean Station". The Historical Marker Database. Retrieved December 28, 2020." - see above
  • " "Locations". bookofthedead.ws. Retrieved July 12, 2020." - any reason why we should think this is RS?
• This clearly needs substantive work. Hog Farm _Talk 04:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try to take a look at this in the next few days and see if I can do enough to save it. The original promoter has retired, although I have strongly encouraged them to reconsider this decision. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Update - I'm going to copyedit this article over the next few hours or so. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Update - just finished the history section, and plan to move on to the rest of the article tomorrow. After thoroughly reading over this article, I must conclude that this is going to be a difficult one to save. I'm thinking about a GOCE request, but these have been taking months to answer lately. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. I'm happy to leave this open as long as progress is being made. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Trainsandotherthings, Premeditated Chaos, Hog Farm - It took longer than I thought (I almost forgot), but I have made a bunch of other improvements to pretty much every section. However, I'm on the fence about !voting to keep or delist. I would like to hear everyone else's opinion about whether or not any additional improvements are needed. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources that I expressed reliability concerns about above are still in the article except for bookofthedead.ws; these need either replaced or satisfactorily defended. Hog Farm _Talk 03:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll take a look shortly. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still intend to do so Bneu2013? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: - yes, sorry forgot about this. But unfortunately, I still think I'm going to have to reluctantly lean towards delisting to B-class. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 addition has many uncited paragraphs and some unreliable sources. Spinixster (chat!) 02:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Spinixster, you used almost this exact same rationale for opening a GAR of Max Weinberg today. It would be helpful if you elaborated on which sources you feel are unsuitable for these articles, rather than expecting others to dig them up in what are fairly long reference lists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, source 76 is one, though I'm sure it's an upload of an official clip. Others are more questionable, like The Biography Channel, Tribute.ca, and more. Either way, there are many uncited paragraphs. Spinixster (chat!) 10:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2006 promotion that made it through the 2008 sweeps. This is on the 2023 GA sweeps list. This article has chunks of uncited text, and there are some other issues as well. He opposed the Vietnam War and, in the early 1980s, famously recorded radio spots to promote a freeze on nuclear weapons is sourced to a source that doesn't mention Vietnam, and In 1965, Smith helped Howard Lee, a black graduate student at North Carolina, purchase a home in an all-white neighborhood is close paraphrasing to In 1965, Smith helped a black North Carolina graduate student, Howard Lee, purchase a home in an all-white neighborhood in Chapel Hill. This article needs both additional sourcing and checks of the current sources to meet the modern GA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Contains significant uncited material. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy delist. I added the citations needed tag. Numerous uncited areas. Though we unfortunately have just lost another Automobile good article, I hope we can bring more to GAN soon. However, this is just not a very interesting place that I would want to work in. Additionally, the Ambulette section is very short, among other things that might need checking. However sourcing is the main concern.

A recurring issue in multiple writings in and outside of Wikipedia that always gets my attention is the incorrect use of apostrophes in plurals. For instance, the term "Physician Assistants" is erroneously presented as "PA's." It is imperative to adhere to grammatical conventions and replace such instances with the correct form, "PAs." For instance, the passage could be revised as follows:

"Physician Assistants are found predominantly in English-speaking countries and may also be known as physician associates in some countries. PAs mirror the practice of a physician and are capable of providing the range of medical skills a physician provides. They generally work in collaboration with a physician, although in an ambulance environment, this may not be possible. Instead, advanced directives or electronic communication are available to PAs to consult with physicians when required." 750h+ (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing is predominantly uncited, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Yep. Schierbecker (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, not meeting GA criterion 2b), and suffers from poor organisation throughout, including a very problematic "In popular culture" section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted per consensus for merge at AfD Noah, AA^Talk 23:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

System had minimal impacts, failing WP:GNG, which immediately disqualifies it ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close, there's already an ongoing AfD that looks like it's heading for a merge, if it ends that way it'll be automatically delisted so this isn't necessary. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok ''Flux55'' (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been expanded a lot in the past year with a lot of useful information, but also a lot of fancruft, a lot of messy inconsistent style usage, and ultimately all this information in presented in subpar prose that does very little to actually inform the average reader. tens of hours would likely be required to get this back to a GA status. I might even start with a revert to a previous version of the article and readd information as justified, but I don't have the time for that right now. Remsense留 15:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist A few notes: The "Scriptures" section has been vastly expanded into the current "Texts" section. A lot of this expansion is written in a way that does not provide a clear understanding of the significance or relationship between the texts mentioned. Some of them seem irrelevant just based on the article's own writing. The "Chinese classics" subsection begins "Taoism draws on numerous Chinese classics that are not themselves "Taoist" texts but that remain important sources for Taoists." and ends with an embedded list of seemingly non-Taoist writing.

A brief note from old GA version about pronunciation (The character Tao 道 (or Dao, depending on the romanisation scheme)) has been expanded into an entire section that is not clear and seems to indicate the pronunciation provided on the first line of the article is incorrect.

I started looking at the "Classification" section initially because of prose issues. The two bullets about translation would be so much clearer if they began with the words "dàojiào" and "dàojiā", rather than phrasing like "Firstly, a term encompassing a family of". I checked the first source online[2] and I don't see those quotes ("religion proper", "the teachings of the Tao") within the cited text. Also, that first cited text really deemphasizes the division noted in the Wikipedia article (The same quandary surrounds the related issue of daojia versus daojiao, the two terms to which the first entries in this book are devoted. Even though the origins of these terms may lie in mere bibliographic categories, Taoists have sometimes used them interchangeably to denote what we call “Taoism,” and sometimes separately to distinguish the teachings of the Daode jing (and a few other works including the Zhuangzi) from “all the rest.” While these terms do not seem to have raised major issues at any time in the history of Taoism, the questions that they have generated in the scholarly realm are largely products of their early flawed translation, or rather interpretation, as “philosophical Taoism” and “religious Taoism,” respectively. Based on the way of seeing outlined above, Taoism is not exactly either a philosophy or a religion, but rather a set of consistent doctrinal notions that have taken many forms and given rise to a large variety of individual and collective practices throughout the history of the tradition.) That division is highlighted again in the next prose section, "The distinction between Taoist philosophy and Taoist religion is an ancient, deeply-rooted one." and again cited to a source that does not seem to put weight on it (‘Taoism’ encompasses thought and practice as a ‘philosophy’, ‘religion’, or a combination of both.[3]). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it may be viable to revert the article to an early 2023 revision? Remsense留 06:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled up the first version from 2023[4] and checked to see how the issues I noted looked a year ago:

• Chinese classics: This is just the I Ching at this point and the connection to Taoism is more clear.
• Classification/Categorization: More of an issue than the prose, is that the dichotomy expressed in the article wasn't backed up by the sources. I think that religion v. philosophy view is even more present here.

I wouldn't say that a revert to this version would fix all the issues, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rjjiii, would it be a good start, in your mind? One that would turn this from probably just delisting, to a project that one or two people (including me, likely) could tackle to keep that from happening? Remsense留 06:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It'll depend on the section. Reverting Chinese classics back to I Ching resolves the "fancruft" issue there. The classification section had problems with writing against its cited sources earlier than 2023.[5] Good luck with the article, and if you ping me as you make progress, I'll strike my notes above, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense, is there a specific version that you find still meets the criteria? If you link to one, I'll take a look and respond back here. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, Rjjiii, I won't be able to look at this until Thursday, my apologies for starting something and not being able to finish it promptly. If someone else wants to take action in that time, it's within their right to do so. — Remsense诉 02:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, take your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, I am back—apologies. I will provide a substantive assessment shortly. — Remsense诉 00:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I think I have a plan.

1. Splitting. Taoist ethics, and maybe Taoist schools and Taoist texts should be their own articles, which should be related summary-style in this article. §History is far too in-depth—shuffle to History of Taoism, and summary-style further. I think if any glossary page on the site is justified, we should have a Glossary of Taoism.
2. Partial reversion (‹See Tfd›反) – with the early 2023 revision as a baseline, this can now be done section-by-section.
3. At that point, we can start to tackle some of the (I would say perennial) issues with clarity and definitions brought up by @Rjjiii.

— Remsense诉 23:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - there are too many problems with this article in its current state; it's too long, devotes too much attention to certain areas at the expense of others, has inconsistent referencing styles, includes un-cited material etc. It isn't Good Article quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short GA with uncited sentences and Google Maps as a source, which is problematic. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielPenn4223: please tell me which sentences are not cited. The entire route description is cited to the 1919 state map, the appropriate section of which is an illustration in the article. (I added a redundant citation to the current state highway map for good measure.) The entire history section is cited to its several citations. The lead is a summary of the body, thus it doesn't need citations. We might quibble over the last sentence of the lead, but if you would like me to cite every single official state highway map from 1926 to 2023 (yes, I have scanned copies from the Library of Michigan on my hard drive or print copies in notebooks for 1958 to 2023) for the proposition that a number has never been reused in almost a century, then I will. P.S., List of state trunkline highways in Michigan also has every iteration of every highway designation, and M-41 only appears once there.

As for Google Maps, it's only cited for the length of the highway, and that's a fairly common use case for that site for millions of people daily. There is no consensus on the reliability or unreliability of Google Maps generally per WP:GOOGLEMAPS, so we have to judge on a case-by-case basis. Suffice to say, they can get basic lengths correct. Imzadi 1979 → 09:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist and redirect to List of state highways in Michigan. There is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The closest is a citation to the The Grand Rapids Press but that talks about highway classification generally, not specifically this topic. The discussion about Google Maps misses the point - of course it can be a reliable source, but it cannot be an independent authoritative one to demonstrate notability. User:Uncle G/On notability is my favourite essay that describes the difference between being reliably sourced and notable in an engaging way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ritchie333, notability is irrelevant in a GAR discussion and discussions about Google Maps' reliability are very relevant; if you have an issue with the article's notability, please take it to AfD. I have taken the liberty of striking the "and redirect to" portion of your !vote, as it is not within GAR's purview. Best, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to AfD the article, because there is a non-deletion alternative per WP:ATD-R. But blanking and redirecting an existing GA might be considered disruptive. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ritchie333, then the GAR discussion will happen, and if it is delisted you can blank and redirect without fear of being called disruptive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct, and @Ritchie333, it is not disruptive to blank and redirect existing GAs It is not vandalism. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is fine. GAs are not required to be long. If there's some specific thing that isn't in the article, which needs to be added to it, then fine -- but we don't write long articles simply for the thrill of the keyboard. jp×g🗯️ 12:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and redirect to List of state highways in Michigan. Another article that was wouldn't pass GA these days, but did over a decade ago. When an article is so short as to almost be a stub and still has multiple statements that are either unsourced or only sourced to maps, there simply isn't enough there for GA. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist but keep FWIW, I believe a GAR (and delisting if necessary) is definitely the way to go, but I don't believe blanking and redirecting is necessary. There are a number of potential citations online and on Wikipedia Library that could be used to help expand the article, and seven citations is pretty decent compared to some stubs which are kept with only three. I don't edit highway articles, but I stumbled across this conversation and thought I'd give my two cents. Cheers! Johnson524 08:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• We do not decide on notability here. Take it to AfD if you think this fails GNG. We are looking for arguments on if this meets the GA criteria, and if not, can it be improved to meet them, or should it be delisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Ritchie. Not every topic can have a good article on it; some topics just don't have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. This is one of them. BilledMammal (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Agreed that this topic is self-evidently too shallow to qualify for GA, and the weak sourcing confirms it. I would also support redirecting.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 listing with Google Maps as a source. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielPenn4223: not Google Maps, but rather Google Maps' satellite layer for the aerial imagery and only secondarily for some cross-street names. The primary source for the content of that paragraph is MDOT's Truck Operator's Map for the routing. Several dozen Featured Articles use a similar pairing of citations for their route descriptions without issue. If this is the only concern, the citation could be swapped out for the appropriate page in the DeLorme atlas & gazetteer of Michigan in about 30 seconds. Imzadi 1979 → 03:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it can be swapped out, but is Google Maps reliable in some cases? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielPenn4223: yes, actually, it is. WP:GOOGLEMAPS states that there is no consensus on the reliability or the unreliability of the source after 7 linked discussions, so it's context dependent. It adds: "Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names." Please read the rest of my comments above though. The article uses an official MDOT map, in this case the Truck Operator's Map, which denotes unsigned as well as signed highways, and pairs that with the Google Maps citation for its satellite imagery for basic details. I've added citations to the DeLorme and Rand McNally atlases though, so everything in the route description is cited through that pairing just as it is through the MDOT+satellite footnote pairing. Imzadi 1979 → 08:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Despite addition of other maps, these do not show any independent coverage explaining why this should have an encyclopedia article, and doesn't expand on the political / engineering reasons for it. I checked some sources and couldn't find a reference to the number or the street names, though I assume I'm looking in the wrong place, so haven't tagged these. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GAR isn't AfD; the article is in sufficiently good shape now and the History section does explain the reasons for the route's existence and includes some independent coverage. Elli (talk | contribs)

• Delist. This article is based mainly on primary and/or non-independent sources, which is against policy.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited statements, an orange banner with "more citations needed" above the video game section, short & stubby paragraphs and much of the information needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is slanted towards pre-2012 career. Later career needs to be expanded in order to comprehensively cover this topic. Z1720 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Considerable uncited material remains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited paragraphs, and the "Policy and identity" section has a "needs update" banner from 2016. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've boldly removed the update tag from "Policy and Identity." It's not clear what's being looked for to be updated - did the party abandon its old ideology or something? I also boldly refactored some stuff that has little to do with policy elsewhere - moved some comments on polling down to "Electoral Results", and an issue with defections up to the main history section where it's already discussed. (This is not an endorsement of the article as a whole, just disagree with that one section needing an update or that being a problem.) SnowFire (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2006 listing with uncited material. failing criterion 2b GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issues here are valid - uncited text mixed in throughout, an orange cleanup tagg from 2022, and the commerce section includes dated information, such as brine shrimp cyst pricing sourced to a source from 2007. Hog Farm _Talk 20:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't think the required notifications were ever made here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth a decent amount hopefully, although I don't know what their hit rate is. I've made the required plus a few more to major contributors. CMD (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like they've accomplished anything here; I'm going to go ahead and close this one. Hog Farm _Talk 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2011 promotion has not been adequately updated, meaning that the last decade is given much less weight than the two previous ones. This means GA criteria 3a) and 4) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalvagable 2007 GA. 20 citation needed tags. Two uncited sections. Schierbecker (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly referenced 2009 GA. The original nominator has not edited since 2022.

11 citation needed tags, one section tagged as needing more sources.

I've gone ahead and removed unreferenced material from the pop culture section. This article has other issues as well including undue weight. For example, there are almost as many words written about a viral video from 2021 as there are about the 10th Mountain's role in Operation Anaconda. Schierbecker (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listed in 2007. Six citation needed tags. Israeli-Weapons.com and jeepolog.com appear to be WP:SELFPUB. Schierbecker (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist; sourcing is badly deficient. Hog Farm _Talk 04:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Procedural delist following merge discussion Noah, AA^Talk 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to merge at Talk:2007_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Cosme_(2007)_into_2007_Pacific_hurricane_season. Noah, AA^Talk 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Nuts! Panini! • 🥪 02:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But ping me if this stalls, I'll take a look at it. Panini! • 🥪 02:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - I was the one to put the cleanup banners on the article, and I assessed on my own accord a while ago to definitely not fulfill the GA criteria. I don't think it'd be too difficult to whip the article back into shape, but as it stands, it definitely does not meet the criteria based on the Gameplay section alone. λ NegativeMP1 05:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Gameplay is largely uncited, this should have another pass if it is to become a Good Article again. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The whole gameplay section is almost fully unsourced, and the paragraph The game's soundtrack is composed by Mario Kart: Double Dash!! composer Shinobu Tanaka with voices by Charles Martinet as Mario, Luigi, Wario, and Waluigi, Jen Taylor as Princess Peach and Toad, Kazumi Totaka as Yoshi, Deanna Mustard as Daisy, Takashi Nagasako as Donkey Kong, and Scott Burns as Bowser also lacks a source. If someone manages to substantially improve this please do ping me, but this is very far away from 2b. So delist. VickKiang (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist The Gameplay section needs a major rewrite, and the Development section also has unsourced content. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to merge after a discussion at Talk:2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Karl_(2004)_into_2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season. Noah, AA^Talk 17:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b), and is heavily weighted towards her wrestling career, meaning it does not meet criterion 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains significant uncited material, especially in the "Notable people" section, thus failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 promotion contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 listing contains huge amounts of uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 listing contains uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b), and has not been updated since the late 2000s. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two unreferenced sections and two citation needed tags. Some content in the lede isn't mentioned in the body. This includes most of the list of main event single-bracelet winners. 2003 WSOP Champion Chris Moneymaker, the design of the bracelet remained relatively unchanged under Yerushalmi. Why is this statement attributed to a contestant rather than an event organizer. I could go on. Schierbecker (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2010. Significant unsourced paragraphs within the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing to the promoted version, most but not all of the uncited text is due to someone splitting paragraphs with a single source into multiple paragraphs but not carrying the citation around. Hog Farm _Talk 19:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reset. Two cn tags remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the statement about the portrait as unsourced and trivial; the bit about his son shouldn't be hard to find a citation for. I'm a little more concerned about the fact that we're citing most of the article to an edited edition of some memoirs with no page numbers provided. Hog Farm _Talk 14:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a big issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 17:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2009 promotion on the Sweeps listing that has accreted significant uncited text since promotion, much of which borders on original research. Most of what is cited is only cited to Herodotus, and the modern standard for these articles is to rely less heavily on the ancient sources. Hog Farm _Talk 18:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on this, the Manville section in "significance" is almost totally uncited and smells strongly of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to me. The same is true of the even longer and highly essayistic Myres section, and the "In modern literature" section (is that really all of the cultural impact of the revolt?). On a less serious note, I am distinctly not wild about Tom Holland as the major secondary source behind Herodotus, nor the fact that the third-most-cited source is over a century old. Major cutting and reworking needed: I don't think it would be particularly difficult (all of the facts here should be easy enough to find in secondary literature), but I would delist in the absence of an editor willing to take that job on any time soon. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 22:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues. The article is peppered with {{cn}} tags, and is largely based on primary sources (with not enough weight being given to third party sources). There is a one line section covering the PHP Foundation which should probably eithier be integrated into "History" (or removed completely). Additionally there are multiple dubious statements and promotional SEAOFBLUEs in the "Use" section while the "Security" section offers uncited WP:NOTGUIDE advice on security matters Sohom (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man, this is an old GA. This barely missed the cutoff for GA sweeps so many years ago. I don't think it would've survived then, and it wouldn't now. Not to mention there are literal copyright violations with lyrical passages included in the version I'm viewing right now. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, as so much material that needs citations is lacking them. Some of the uncited parts may be personal opinions, e.g. "It is about the intense power over subordinates" and other commentary on the songs. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be reviewing this article as part of the reassessment drive of all weather-related good articles.

Well-written/verifiable

• The opening sentence could be stronger. Right now it reads as a bit of a run-on, with struck the towns of Windsor, Windsor Locks, and Suffield, Connecticut, and Feeding Hills, Massachusetts, on Wednesday, October 3, 1979. Perhaps one of the tornado's more notable characteristics could be included in the opening, like that it was one of the costliest single tornadoes in the US, or one of three F4's in CT?
• In the infobox, the damage is formatted weirdly.
• Were there exactly 500 injuries? The article says " Over 400 people were hospitalized", so where did the 500 come from?
• You should have some sort of note that all times are in Eastern Daylight Time (presumably). That time zone is only mentioned in the infobox.
• I think you should split the storm synopsis and the impact section. Right now, you have material in both sections.
• "Eyewitness reports have the tornado ripping the roof off a grocery store in Wethersfield, Connecticut. Trees were uprooted in East Hartford, Connecticut. " - so did the tornado touch down in Wethersfield then?
• "Students at a Brownie meeting were led into a hallway just before the auditorium they had been in was destroyed." - the wording could be stronger
• The most severe damage occurred along River Road, Hollow Brook Road, Pioneer Drive and Settler Circle, where large frame houses were left "in splinters" - who said the quote "in splinters"?
• The tornado moved north into Feeding Hills before dissipating near the Westfield city line, about five miles north of the Massachusetts state line. - source?
• The Windsor Locks tornado, with $1.568 billion in damages (when adjusted for inflation) - what about unadjusted for inflation?
• Also is the article title the best one? There has never been another tornado to hit Windsor Locks? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broad

• The lead could be expanded a bit, it's probably too short as it is. Be sure to include damage total, deaths, injuries, and anything else notable about the tornado.
• "The storm system that caused the tornado had produced severe weather, including two weak tornadoes, in eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey that morning." - any way to expand on this? When did the LPA form? Also, since it starts out an entire section, you should probably mention the date.
• Any impacts in Massachusetts?
• This NY Times article mentions that $50 million in damage occurred to the Connecticut National Guard
• Where was the third death?

Neutral/Stable/Illustrated

• Definitely neutral/stable
• The satellite image is fine, but I'm not sure about the impact picture. There are other images that can be used, say from Monthly Weather Review, to illustrate the path/damage reports. It's not up to Wikipedia to have images of damage from every tornado. So I don't think the fair use claim is valid here.

Citations

• Is the Tornado Project a reliable enough source?
• Several citations are broken.

The article is decent, but it just doesn't quite seem up to the standards of a modern-day GA. I'll leave the review open for a week and notify the GA nominator. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Copied from Talk:Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado; Please see that page for attribution. Noah, AA^Talk 23:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m leaving two comments for others to reference from.

• Related to Is the Tornado Project a reliable enough source? — Yes. Actually, last August during a GA review of Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945, the exact same question came up. The Tornado Project is cited by the National Weather Service and is linked to by them in a more information page. (Further explanation on that GA review).

• Sweet, thanks for verifying that. I'm not as familiar with tornadoes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Related to the impact (damage) image and about Monthly Weather Review: Actually, I would disagree with the assessment by Hurricanehink on the fair-use image not being valid here. Monthly Weather Review was no longer owned/operated by the US government starting in 1974. Therefore, that article suggested by Hurricanehink from 1987 will not qualify at all for public domain/free-to-use images. Also, it is by the State University of New York, not US government, so that is very clearly not free-to-use images. Currently, there has not been any presentable free-to-use images related directly to the tornado (satellite image is of the supercell, not directly tornado), so the fair-use image claim is, as it stands now, entirely valid and should be treated as such for a GA review, or at least until a directly-related free-to-use image is added. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well put, that's fine then. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: Im not the one who conducted the review. I only copied and pasted what was left on the TP to here. Noah, AA^Talk 20:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoops. Just realized it is Hurricanehink conducting the review and you just did a copy/paste. My apologies for that. I will correct, the name in my comment. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I messed up doing the reassessment in the first place. I'll do better in the future, I swear :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the GAR officially starts at 20:27 UTC today. Noah, AA^Talk 16:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I delisted the article because of no progress on any of these issues. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing contains considerable uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b), and contains citations predominantly to non-independent sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a skim of the article looking mainly at comprehensivity, as that's often an issue with university articles. It seems fine on that front, so if the citations can be improved, there's a good chance this can be saved. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too much uncited content. The original GA nominator has unfortunately passed so I don't think updates are forthcoming. Schierbecker (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see about 7 {{cn}} tags, generally for minor details, but otherwise the prose looks generally cited...footnote for nearly every sentence or related 2–3 sentences in nearly every paragraph and often multiple such. Could you clarify the scope of your concern? DMacks (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material in the "Performance history" and "Music" sections, failing GA criterion 2b). The "Synopsis" section should also be rewritten to comply with MOS:PLOT, part of criterion 1b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on your plot concern? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At over 1,600 words, it is rather lengthy, and should probably be cut down (I note it was previously a gargantuan 4,500 words before HandsomeMrToad streamlined it last year). I am also unsure about the execution of the interspersing of musical details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think given the subject area noting how the music integrates with the plot is appropriate? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, perhaps you're right. Still, that is the least of the issues outlined above... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is kind of all over the place in balance and cohesion; the Music section is downright painful to read. The article (and particularly the music section) would do significantly better if modeled after Brian the structure work on Das Rheingold, which is definitely more worthy of GA than the current Parsifal article. The Interpretation and influence section should also be rethought, it is perhaps not summarized enough. Aza24 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Real4jyy (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this article isn't in the worst state ever, I've questioned the GA status on it for a while now. My issues with the article include the Gameplay section consisting of some pretty faulty sourcing, the Plot section having weird writing, a completely separate section for a seemingly trivial advertisement controversy, and several smaller bits of the article not having any sourcing at all (ex. nothing in the article verifies the game as being considered one of the best of all time, and sourcing the Wikipedia list isn't an acceptable means of verification.)

I personally feel this article to fall more in line with a C-Class article than a GA at this current point in time, though I do think that if someone were to really put in the effort, it could be whipped into shape. λ NegativeMP1 05:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: It's been a month, and there's been no real improvement. I'm already working on Byzantine Empire, sadly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited prose, including the entire "Painting" and most of the "Literature" sections. It has a good structure, but it needs a topic-subject expert to go through to cite or remove the uncited sections. Z1720 (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this, a few scattered thoughts:

• The "Fall in the West" section is very out of step with a complex and fast-moving scholarly field. It's been decades since one could respectably write a narrative that begins and ends with invasions of nasty foreigners with beards.
• The same is true of the article as a whole, I'd suggest: it reads like it was written by "fans" of the empire rather than people with a real background in its academic study.
• The Languages section is also pretty outdated in its treatment of "vulgar Latin" and non-treatment of other Italic languages.
• The "Society" section is pretty rose-tinted, put mildly. Again, most treatments of Roman society in the last few decades have not shied away from the general brutality and unpleasantness of it.
• The article seems chronologically confused: it's theoretically about Rome post 27 BCE or so, but occasionally lapses into talking about the mid Republic, centuries earlier.
• The Freedmen section needs to at least acknowledge the existence of women.
• The "census rank" section gets bogged down in the idea of the ordines (which included only a minute fraction of the population), and then tries, not very successfully, to talk more broadly about social class and mobility. There's also a lot of chronological confusion and imprecision, where situations that changed over time (such as labels like honestiores or conversion to Christianity) are presented as if always part of Roman life.
• This thing is a monster! I know it's a big topic, but it definitely needs hacking up and shrinking down.
• There are a number of points where complex debates are reduced to one side of them, and cited to a single source. The Empire is best thought of as a network of regional economies, based on a form of "political capitalism" in which the state regulated commerce to assure its own revenues (cited to Potter) sticks out: it's not necessarily wrong, but at the moment the article is far too confident in its conclusions and often badly devoid of nuance, and will give the reader a false impression that ancient history is nicely settled and clear-cut.
• The "Legacy" section makes some rather odd choices as to what to focus on and leave out.
• More generally, and related: I don't think this article really knows what sets it apart from Ancient Rome: there's a lot here that's really about "the Romans" in general, rather than the specific material the article claims to cover.
• Citing Luttwak makes me sad.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of these comments, except as to the size of the article. There's no just way to cover everything that is relevant with the Roman empire without it being very long. Ifly6 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel paring it down to focus on the Empire as opposed to Ancient Rome in general will solve the length problem. Generalissima (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good observations. This article deserves not just an general update, but for someone to drive it to FA status.

If any one decides to take on this challenge and upgrade this article I'll support you. I intend on spending most of this year reading sources as I work on the FAR of the Byzantine Empire and can offer my (unprofessional) perspective on modern scholarship where it overlaps. Biz (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have long said that the Roman Empire article is impossible to write within the parameters of Wikipedia. Here are some thoughts from a long-time contributor who worked on an overhaul ten years ago (at that time, the key was to get a more comprehensive outline structure) and whose doctoral work is in classical studies.

• Length. The current article is indeed too long. Most sections that have their own main article, such as "Languages", are far too long and detailed. When some of the sections were sketched in ten years ago, there were no main articles for those topics. It's a harder writing task than you might think to offer both clear broad statements that are useful to the wide range of visitors to this article in combination with some concrete details that bring those to life. Maybe we should just link them to the Jason Momoa SNL video and be done with it.
• The dangers of recentism. Classical studies is not a field in which older work is discarded. It isn't like either the sciences (where older ideas are actually proven wrong and progress is made) or, say, literary studies (the latter meant to continually renew the vitality of texts for current readers). What you find in classics, because it's inherently multidisciplinary, is that areas of focus within the field change over time, so that research on some topics may be concentrated during certain decades, like republican prosopography in the Ronald Syme era. All that work is still valuable and perceptive; classicists took up other questions and other approaches. I have read some awfully lightweight published articles lately by newborn classicists in which I could immediately spot internal contradictions and research gaps that make me wonder what's happening in the field—support for the humanities in the US is drying up, of course. Still good work in English from the UK but more so from younger multilingual European scholars. Anyway, in classical studies the date of publication is not a measure of the depth or value of research, though archaeology and text retrieval (as of Philodemus from Herculaneum) continually provide new resources to build on.
• Neutrality. Neither rosy nor brutal should be the aim. If you go in thinking "my job is to show just how nasty the Roman Empire really was," then that's as detrimental a mindset as wanting to wear a toga and lie about on couches eating grapes. Scholarship is about trying to understand what the Romans were about in relation to their own time and to the world as they received, entered, and reshaped it. If anything, scholarship in the last decade has moved away from the "Romans bad" agenda.
• Audience. This article gets high traffic. What do visitors come for? My occupation IRL is book editing. At least half of all compositional problems in nonfiction can be solved by putting yourself in the shoes of the average reader. What questions are they likely to bring to the article, and how can the article be structured and compiled to best answer those questions?

Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR as page reverted to redirect because its creator was a sock. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]