Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 76

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

Result: Closing as kept; the more minor issues remaining I'm sure will be dealt with outside of GAR. Hog Farm _Talk 03:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 listing with uncited material. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to work on this. Hog Farm _Talk 16:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we've got some uncited material and a few unreliable web refs (historynet, necrometrics, etc.). IMO there are frankly far too many images; we don't need to reproduce as many of the Gardner images or all of the Hope ones. This will take some work but it is fixable. Hog Farm _Talk 16:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the historynet source, but not done for necrometrics yet. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Eicher 2001, Frassanito 1978 (I think a different edition), Kennedy 1998, McPherson 1988, McPherson 2002, and Sears 1983 books from the sources listing, as well as the Gallagher 1989 and Gottfried 2011 sources from the further reading, in addition to Johnson's Artillery Hell and the Brigades of Antietam book edited by Gallagher from a couple years ago. It'll take me a bit, but I feel comfortable in my ability to fix the citation issues here. Also pinging Donner60 and TwoScars who worked on the Gettsyburg GAR awhile back. I have more time for the next couple weeks, so I should be able to play a more active role here than in the Gettysburg one. Hog Farm _Talk 18:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GabrielPenn4223: (Also pinging Donner60 and Hog Farm) I agree that Battle of Antietam needs to be fixed up. Since it gets lots of views—you might want to a) fix up a copy in your sandbox; b) get Military History people such as Hog Farm, Donner60, or other members of the group to look that version over; then c) replace the entire article. That way, people can come to a consensus on what needs to be done—and you should not get complaints. I have been involved in two recent rewrites: Battle of Shiloh was done using the sandbox method, while Battle of Gettysburg was not (Donner60 did most of the work).

My thoughts on the current article, which may not match what others think, are:

• The opposing forces is a mess. We already have a separate Order of Battle—no need to reproduce it. I would discuss the Union's corps (each) and cavalry, with one image of McClellan. How many men did each corps have? Were they experienced? Well-armed? For the Confederates, discuss the two large infantry wings and the cavalry. One picture of Lee. Need similar info: size, experience, and arms.
• I like sub-headers and images that tell a low–attention–span reader (like me) what is going on. The "Cornfield" section is too many paragraphs before we get another section header.
• I'm not a fan of the Thulstrup image, especially since a Thulstrup is already in the InfoBox. Hal Jespersen's maps are usually good, but I think they are too small sometimes. I have cropped copies of his images for some articles. I can also see that some of the paragraphs in this section do not end with citations.
• Midday phase has the same issues as the Morning Phase–Cornfield.
• Midday also had text sandwiched by two images—not a recommended practice. The Sharpsburg's citizens image is a waste of time.
• Same issues in Afternoon phase.
• Aftermath is somewhat long. Maybe the first paragraph can be two paragraphs. I recommend the Aftermath section have a Casualties subsection, and a Reactions and significance subsection.
• Battlefield preservation needs citations, and a better image would be what the battlefield looks like today.

• Donner has added the citations, and I've swapped out the image for a picture of Burnside's Bridge I took when I visited the battlefield a couple years ago. It's a bit self-serving to use an image I took myself, and there's plenty of other images on Commons to use instead if preferred. Hog Farm _Talk 17:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the preservation section now, and I like the photo too. My tour was over 20 years ago, and the bridge is one of the few things I remember. TwoScars (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally do not like the Historic photographs and paintings section, and would drop it completely—but many people might disagree with me. I also try to not use image galleries unless they are only 3 or 4 images. See Wikipedia Manual of Style for galleries.

TwoScars (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the citizens image and have replaced the Thulstrup duplicate image with the famous dead horse in East Woods image. Hog Farm _Talk 18:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Hog Farm has fixed the opposing forces section, as noted below. Donner60 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars and Donner60: - would y'all be willing to look over my work in overhauling the opposing forces section? Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:Vast improvement, although I did not fact check any citations. I would still drop the Lincoln-McClellan photo since it is hard to see, and split the army commanders where McClellan is with the Union and Lee is with the Confederates. TwoScars (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The group photo is gone, and I've split up the Lee and McClellan images - let's see if the changes stick. The material in there is about 98% new text, so the citations should be fine although I'm always open to someone checking my work. I expect the new Hartwig book is going to be useful for strength numbers, I'll need to look over the wikipedia library copy. I'm more concerned about citation checking having issues in the parts of the article where people have just been adding material periodically for 15+ years. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on the article

• I like subheadings that tell what each leader's plan was.
• The various "Phase"s are a little weird, with a wasted section header and non-sentence.
• From my battlefield tour long ago, I remember the Sunken Road/Bloody Lane and the bridge Burnside had trouble crossing — they must have been important.

TwoScars (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, TwoScars, and GabrielPenn4223: Looks good. Similar to what I ended up doing with opposing forces in Battle of Atlanta. Unfortunately I had to concede that although I have sources and knew what happened, I did not have time at that point to make the necessary revisions, mostly additions, very quickly. So I had to let it be demoted to C. I have a sandbox in which I have done a little extra work, but not enough to post any of it. Even with Two Scars suggestions, I think, or hope, this would take less work to bring it to a GA keep. I do have some sources but I suppose I will need to buy Hartwig's new, and expensive, book to have the most up to date source - and presumably a very important one. Donner60 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: - both of Hartwig's books are avialable for free through WP:TWL via the Project MUSE application. Hog Farm _Talk 00:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And all this time I have been using the Library for only JSTOR and newspapers—smacking my forehead right now! TwoScars (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was on Muse some years ago but dropped it, after downloading some articles, because of increased demand for a limited number of users from Wikipedia. I dropped JSTOR through the library eventually as well, but signed up for the 100 articles per month viewing during covid times. I can still read that many per month but can only download open access articles unless I want to pay the monthly fee. I need to look into getting back on the library. Donner60 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donner, I think any editor who has been reasonably active in the past 30 days and doesn't have any active blocks can access the Wikipedia Library without any issues. I believe they've removed the cap on number of users able to be on MUSE at a time. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another update: I'm working on adding citations where there was previously uncited text now. Everything through the end of the morning phase section now has a citation. I have not been regularly checking existing citations; that should probably be done as well but I for sure want to get all of the CN tags taken care of. Currently 4 CN tas and some lesser uncited stuff that isn't tagged remaining. I'm going to be busy this weekend and next week, though. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your work on removal of the galleries and additional text. Good work on the citations. I have been to Antietam at least twice that I can recall. I can attest to the removal of the non-period buildings but, of course, I am not a reliable source. I will eventually pay a little more attention to this. Between a new computer to set up, coordinator reviews, covid in the house, two meetings worth of minutes to write up and a few other real life matters, I won't be able to do much in the immediate future but I will look further as soon as I can. Of course, you may have finished everything that needs to be done by then. Donner60 (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donner and TwoScars - I'm going to be fairly busy this weekend and next week is going to be extremely busy with work for me, so I don't know if I'll be able to work on this much for awhile. I really have four main concerns at this point:

• Add citations for the remaining uncited text in the article including that text that isn't currently marked with a CN tag
• Consider the need to check that existing citations support what they are citing
• The article states that it is the battle with the 5th-highest casualties. The accuracy of this has been challenged on the article's talk page and the claim is unsourced. I don't know where to find good sourcing for such rankings
• I really don't like how we're presenting the casualties as a nice, precise number of what each side lost. Hartwig 2023, pp. 816-817 especially notes the futility of trying to pin down a precise Confederate loss number. We should express a bit better in the main article body that these are rather approximate figures.

I'll try to see when I can get back to this (it'll probably be a while - I'm about to get busy with audits of 12/31 fiscal year end entities), but this is definitely a lot better than what it was. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60 and TwoScars: - so I have found some extra time. The only CN tag left in the article now is the ranking in total casualties among battles. I have no clue where to source that to. I also turned up a failed verification chunk in the casualties section. My concerns about casualty precision remain, as well as the question of how much citation checking to do. There's a lot of the article cited to Bailey; I do not have a copy of that book. I don't anticipate being able to do much more on this maybe until enxt weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 20:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will look for casualty figures after I set up my new computer. I assume sources will vary. I don't have the Bailey book. It is available at a low price online. However, it is a Time-Life book and likely has an overview and many pictures. Perhaps it is reliable but I suspect it is not comprehensive. So I did not order it. The covid is clearing up but it will be some time before I know whether I may have gotten it, despite both of us having the latest shots. If things go well, I should be able to look at sources for casualties within the week. Donner60 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American Battlefield Trust ranks Antietam lower here. BTW, I will be out for the first week of February. TwoScars (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations and ranking info for now—do not hesitate to change or update. I think fifth is too high based on the other Wikipedia articles and the Wikipedia list List of costliest American Civil War land battles, but it is still in. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The failed verification bit I've removed - I tracked down the addition to being based on an unreliable source in the mid-2010s. Hog Farm _Talk 04:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be able to work on this any further in the near future; I'm moving in a little over a week and the Antietam books just got packed into a box. Hog Farm _Talk 22:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I altered the images: maps are bigger, some of the captions have small changes, at least two images are commented out. I like to be able to read the maps without clicking them -- so I can see the text and maps at the same time. If they seem too big on your computer, do not hesitate to make them smaller. I have added the "upright=", so they are easy to resize. TwoScars (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for two weeks so that's why I was absent. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60 and Hog Farm: About citations and sources.... I normally use a Harvard Style for citations, but I think it would be too much work to change the citation style for Battle of Antietam. However, in the Bibliography I don't understand the terms "Secondary sources" and "Primary sources" that are used. It seems to me that Primary should be listed first, and many of the sources (if not all) under Secondary are Primary. What is the difference between Secondary and Primary? What am I missing? TwoScars (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hlj used and promoted Chicago Manual of Style citation which is why that is often found in American Civil War articles, especially the many which he started or to which he was a main early contributor. I followed his advice and use that style too, unless the article already uses the other style, which admittedly has an advantage or two. Then I will try to conform to the existing style. Some articles have both styles of citation contributed by different users over time. I am not sure how much trouble that might cause but I suppose it might result in duplicate footnotes or some other confusion, or perhaps it may just look a little odd. Donner60 (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primary is participant-written sources, secondary is historian-written. I'll take a look at citation formatting tonight. Hog Farm _Talk 17:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes everything make more sense, and I think the secondary sources are probably less likely to suffer from "puffery" or hidden agendas. Does a typical reader understand that? TwoScars (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the primary sources, Tidball and the 1862 NYT article, were not even used as sources so I removed them. Antietam Creek in this sector was seldom more than 50 feet (15 m) wide, and several stretches were only waist deep and out of Confederate range. Burnside has been widely criticized for ignoring this fact is currently sourced to Douglas - I've marked this as needing a better source, as "Burnside has been widely criticized" needs a stronger source than the Douglas memoir. Dawes is the sole source for most of a paragraph of "Hooker and Hood attack" section; which also should be remedied, as well as part of a paragraph earlier in the article. I'd rather not use the participant memoirs for anything other than the quote boxes. Hog Farm _Talk 00:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply. I agree with Hog Farm on the meaning of these sources. Perhaps it is helpful but perhaps it is unnecessary to separate them. I think I don't use primary sources much but when I do I don't remember making a special effort to separate them if not already separated in the article. I think they may be self-evident at least most of the time. But maybe that is because I think of them as being included with attribution to some work or someone who is a primary source. That is in fact what I see Hog Farm proposing to do with respect to the memoirs. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy of Bailey on internet archive and did some source checks. Most of what I checked is in the source, which is good. A few things below: Text below in green is from the article, in red from Bailey:

• the Federals brought up a battery of 3-inch ordnance rifles and rolled them directly into the Cornfield vs the Federals brought up a battery of three-inch ordnance rifles and rolled the guns directly into the Cornfiled - close paraphrasing, which is problematic
• They were halted by a charge of 1,150 men from Starke's brigade, leveling heavy fire from 30 yards (30 m) away - Bailey doesn't provide the 1,150 men strength figure and describes a charge of two brigades led by Starke, who had acceded to divisional command
• (Corby would later perform a similar service at Gettysburg in 1863.) is an accretion not found in Bailey

Again, there were no significant issues with most of what I checked. Hog Farm _Talk 00:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector and got a 99.1% similarity. A Heritagepost.org page had 99.1% similarity, so it is probably a copy of the earlier Wikipedia version. Some of the other high scores were for things such as "the bloodiest day in American history", "Army of Northern Virginia", "Army of the Potomac", etc..... Probably a waste of my time. TwoScars (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, TwoScars, and Donner60: thanks for your extensive work. Do you think this article is now GA-standard, or close to it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what Hog Farm and TwoScars have done and reported, I think it is GA. I may try to add or replace a few citations when I have some extra time, but I think that should not hold this in reassessment any longer. Donner60 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to fix the unsupported 1,150 men detail mentioned above (the other two items in that block have already been addressed) but that's not going to happen until I can finish unpacking my books and get internet at the new house; it might be awhile on the latter front. So I guess this can be closed as kept; this is in much better shape than before. Hog Farm _Talk 13:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is vastly improved, and have no problem with it being GA. I think the three of us (Donner60, Hog Farm, and TwoScars) probably spend more time on American Civil War articles than anyone else—so we will always see small things that we believe need to be improved. For me, the fifth paragraph under Mansfield and Sedgwick has citations (current citations 75-79) that are too broad and need to be split to various sentences in the paragraph. I hope to eventually address that issue, but I don't think the GA should wait. TwoScars (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several uncited sections, including almost the entire first section of the History section. History focuses disproportionately on 20th and 21st century. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that the history weighting is a significant problem. Might require a minor rebalancing—-I’m not sure why John Paul II has his own section while other popes do not (aside from Francis, but the case for having a section on the current pope is strong)—-but that’s a modest edit, not a reason to delist. The several uncited paragraphs in the History section (which look to be the only significantly uncited section to me) do need fixed, but I note that History of the Catholic Church has a pretty well-cited early history section, so that shouldn’t be a hard fix. Reassessment seems a pretty big overreaction for these problems—-it’s pretty firmly WP:JUSTDOIT territory. El Sandifer (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on grounds offered. The first part of the History section appears to be a lede-style summary of the subsections afterward (a la WP:LEADCITE), with the relevant citations in the respective subsections. If truly desired, go and move the relevant citations back up, but this is a style that isn't unreasonable. As for focus - the Catholic Church is a topic where multi-volume books have been written on it, there is no one perfect amount to cover on each time period. I will say that random readers are probably more interested in the recent history aspect, so it wouldn't shock me if the 2424 article on the Catholic Church disproportionately focuses on the 24th century. SnowFire (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist 1) if the unsourced content in the history section is a sourced elsewhere in the article, it is redundant and needs to be removed per GACR#3b 2) obvious recentism in the history section. The Catholic Church has a really long history so the twentieth and twenty first centuries need to be covered in similar amount of detail as other historical epochs, and summary style needs to be used. Note that I did not look at the rest of the article (t · c) buidhe 17:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no obvious "recentism" in the history section. The 20th century section does not appear disproportionately long compared to the rest of the section. I also see no uncited sections. Note that my comments pertain to this most recent revision. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Zfish118's comment follows my examination and removal of the offending parts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work in trimming the history section! –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Seems to have been updated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not include post-2015 information and needs to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please check. 2001:8F8:172B:48CA:BC02:1AFE:B1EF:E267 (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was away from Wiki for a while. I will try to update the article as and when I get time over next 2 weeks. I hope we get that much time. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, meaning it fails GA criterion 2b); at close to 10,000 words, it may also breach criterion 3b) and might need to be trimmed of superfluous detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the lead is problematical in that it gives alien species as a synonym for invasive species. On the one hand, not all alien species are invasive - some only persist because of repeated reintroductions. On the other hand, some concepts of invasive species can include native species. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it didn't, it explained the concept of alien species and then defined invasive as a subset. But it was confusing and I've reworded it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general definition of an invasive species is one that has been introduced into a new biological community and has spread away from the point of introduction. The concept gets a little messy when dealing with alien species and there are a lot of strong feelings about the topic that make this page a magnet for bloat. Hardyplants (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need help to recognize what constitutes "This 2007 listing." Thank you for assisting me here. "Significant uncited material" certainly fails Good Article criteria. Regarding the considerable detail in the article, given the complexity of the topic and the multiple angles from which it can be responsibly addressed, the fact that the article has what for me is solid section and sub-section structure, and (again for me) is consistently well-written, makes the detail unobjectionable. For example, in section "Vectors," sub-section "Within the aquatic environment," an editor in the fourth paragraph of this subsection has noted a "loophole" in "ballast water regulations." The level of detail here might appear to some as extreme, but I find it informative and would not label it superfluous. Canhelp (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canhelp, "This 2007 listing" means that the article was first listed as a GA in 2007. Thank you for your excellent reasoning on the matter of detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who had brought two articles to GA status last year (and has two more GA nominations under review), I agree that this article is not in a good state. It seems much closer to something like Environmental effects of aviation or Effects of climate change on plant biodiversity (both C-level) than a GA-level article (i.e. Effects of climate change).

However, this article also receives a fairly significant amount of pageviews, so improving it is important. While I am hardly short of articles to attend to at the moment, I can start making progress on making this article live up to its status this week, if the reviewers agree to wait before taking away its badge. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InformationToKnowledge, GARs are kept open for up to three months as long as there is someone willing to work on the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29: It was certainly verbose. I've cut the length of the article body to 6000 words and fixed the citation problem. That would seem to have addressed the concerns here now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Closing Saadanius GAR as "keep" based on satisfied criteria based on recent article emendations. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So this article was promoted to GA class back in 2010, and I have to say that it doesn't seem to have aged well to remain in the same class. It doesn't follow the typical Cenozoic fossil taxon page format (taxonomy - description - paleobiology - paleoecology). It's also missing more recent sources made long after the genus name was established, so it has few sources. In addition, it says that anthracotheres and proboscideans were found which indicates a Paleogene range, but both extended to the Miocene in Africa as well, so it's pretty non-specific if it doesn't reference individual genera found.

Unless someone can drastically revamp the article, this article isn't up to Project Palaeontology's GA standards anymore. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PrimalMustelid sorry, I'm a bit confused. Can you clarify which part of the GA criteria this article does not meet? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article no longer meets criteria 1 ("Well-written") on the grounds that it does not comply with modern formats of recent Cenozoic fossil taxon articles, is a bit too detailed in "Phylogeny and significance" (should be a subsection of taxonomy/research history anyways), and lacks much academic sources after the year it was described, instead using several news articles (it only uses 2 academic article sources). PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only the second of those is part of the GA criteria, PrimalMustelid, but excessive detail is much easier to fix than too little—it can just be trimmed out.

An article is not well-written only if the prose is not clear, concise, or understandable, if spelling or grammar is incorrect, or if certain MOS pages are not satisfied; and unlike FA, GA does not require that reliable sources are high-quality. If you feel that the omission of academic sources leads to major aspects of the topic being left out, that is a different matter and comes under criterion 3a).

It is good to hear of Project Palaeontology's high standards, but the GA process is meant to be a common standard for all Wikipedia articles to follow. I don't know if your project has an A-class assessment process—perhaps you could think about setting one up? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Original author here. I wouldn't mind a reorganization along the lines of the Paleontology project's standards (are those written down somewhere?). The article was written not long after the taxon was announced in 2010, and it should definitely be updated to reflect more recent research. I'll see if I can find some time for that. Ucucha (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so far it looks better, but there are still major issues:

• "The discovery of Saadanius may help answer questions about the evolution and appearance of the last common ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes." That has an advertising tone, try changing the sentence.
• Have "phylogeny" be a subsection of the taxonomy section, they're similar enough as a topic.
• The description section should definitely be expanded upon more using the original source that described its specimens. Base it off diagnoses listed in the journal article source and explain more about how its anatomical features differ from other anthropoids. I especially recommend incorporating dentition information in addition to cranial information, perhaps make them separate subsections of the description section. PrimalMustelid (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha, have you seen the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I haven't had a chance yet to edit the article further. I'd prefer to keep the "Taxonomy" and "Phylogeny" sections separate as the article would otherwise look unbalanced. Ucucha (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd renamed the Taxonomy section to "History and naming" and Phylogeny to "Classification". Also, that list under Paleoecology, which should be in prose. Otherwise, the only big thing is that the article needs updating with any papers that have come out since its GAN. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the more recent papers have any hugely significant areas of information the articles don't currently mention, then that should be raised here. Otherwise, being comprehensive to the point of including all recent finds shifts towards FA considerations rather than GA. CMD (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through recent papers and didn't find anything too significant; mostly just brief mentions of the genus in comparisons with other new taxa. I will add some more discussion of anatomy though, as PrimalMustelid suggested. Ucucha (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ucucha, did you find anything usable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit some time ago. The original description doesn't go into a ton of anatomical detail. I don't think more is required for GA status. Ucucha (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that is satisfactory @PrimalMustelid, SilverTiger12, and Chipmunkdavis:? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not yet, it's leaving out a lot of diagnoses described in the original article (i.e. the medium size comparable to siamangs, the broad molars with thin enamel, etc), a fossil taxon is not adequate without mentions of its major diagnoses. The sentence "The discovery of Saadanius may help answer questions about the evolution and appearance of the last common ancestors of Old World monkeys and apes" has also not yet been addressed still, so I'll suggest something along the lines of "Saadanius has been of interest to paleontologists because of its potential evolutionary link to Old World monkey-ape divergence." PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I overlooked the part where the wiki article says that its size is comparable to gibbons, so that should be changed to "siamangs" to be more specific since they're the largest extant gibbons. Just pull information from the diagnosis paragraph and we should be good. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ucucha May you address these concerns? I'm sure neither of us want this reassessment up in the air for too long. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright look, given usual GAR protocols, I should have already set this article for delisting, but I do want to see it be improved. So, I'll give it until March 4th for improvements to be made, and if there are no improvements and no objections, I'll have to set it for delisting. It's really only 2 issues that you have to address. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you not do that yourself PrimalMustelid? In any case, I'm not sure I see a consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the author knows about their topic better than anyone else, and I made my concerns clear-cut. This isn't some minor grammar mistake, this is missing information here, so the author would be expected to patch these issues in either a GAN or GAR. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the breathless sentence in the lead and added a paragraph listing some diagnostic characters in the original paper, focusing on characters listed in the comparisons table in the supplementary material. Ucucha (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, think the article's in a better state, I'll consider it done now. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b).

This is likely to be fairly easy to fix if you have the relevant literature to hand, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is vague. I have been a GA reviewer, and I would never just wave my hand at an article and say, "not enough citations". Can you suggest where to look? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have several editions of the FIDE rulebook and the USCF rulebook. There are 101 citations. What in particular needs a citation? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, all paragraphs should end with a citation, unless it's a WP:SKYISBLUE thing. This article has a lot of paragraphs without a citation. Spinixster (chat!) 02:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay since I worked on this, real life gets in the way. I am compiling a list of places where the citation of sources is or may be inadequate. I will post it, and then, work on it.

There are a couple of citations of Eric Schiller's Official Rules of Chess. I do not have my own copy of this, but looking at this review (by a reputable critic), I am concerned that it may be a less than reliable source, especially for the things we are citing it for, such as the descriptions of the knight move and of checkmate. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the good work you are doing! I have a copy of Schiller's book, but it is packed away in a box. And, yes, is is not as reliable or authorative as other sources, like FIDE and USCF. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of possible citation issues

Citations of the USCF rules must be updated. We are citing Just 2014, which is the 6th edition. The most recent edition is the 7th. Moreover, the chapters that we cite in this article are available online.

I have updated most citations of (Just 2014) to Just 2019, except for some in the History section, which I could not find in either the old or the new editions of USCF. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial setup

First pgph looks OK.

Second pgph

Diagram, table of piece names, numbers, and symbols:

Description of placement of pieces:

I think the right way to support these is to give a reference to the FIDE rules at the start of this section, as is done in Chess. Instead we have a single citation of Schiller at the end of the section. I am not sure I like this, but it may be adequate for now.

Neither FIDE, nor USCF, includes a verbal description of the initial positions of the pieces (e.g. "rooks are placed on outside corners, etc."). They each just give a diagram. We may have made up the verbal description ourselves, or perhaps it is copied from Schiller or even some other source. It looks like a reasonable thing to include, although I am not sure the words "inside" and "outside" convey the intended meanings in this context.

Setup mnemonics: these are sourced to Schiller. They are in common use and I assume those pages of Schiller correctly support the citation.

Gameplay

First pgph, defining White and Black, specifying alternation, defining end of play, noting time control: does not need to be sourced.

Second pgph, determining who plays White: This needs to be sourced. Perhaps it came from Schiller? If not, some other source must be found.

Movement

Basic moves

If a reference to the FIDE rules is given at the start of the Initial Setup section as recommended above, it may be sufficient sourcing for this section as well. Instead, we currently have a citation of Schiller at the end of the last sentence.

Explanatory note a (about role of captured pieces in promotion): this should be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of moves of each piece, and of capturing: these are sourced to Schiller. They are correct, and I assume the pages of Schiller correctly support the citation. I am not entirely happy with these; I think clearer descriptions can be found elsewhere. But for GA reassessment, that would be optional.

The citation comes at the end of the last sentence, "The pawn is also involved ... promotion." This sentence is indented too far; and I am not sure it is clear that the citation applies to the whole itemized list of pieces.

Castling

There are some citations here. But, the description of the move, and the definition of "castling rights", need to be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

En passant

This paragraph needs to be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk)

Promotion

This paragraph needs to be sourced. The two existing citations are for the discussion of what to do if the desired piece is not available. This discussion, as it stands, is applicable only to tournaments with arbiters; this qualification should be stated.

Source for definition done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check

The first paragraph needs to be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Block" is not as common in English chess literature as "Interpose". The latter should be defined instead of, or in addition to, the former.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

End of the game

Checkmate -- this appears to be adequately sourced.

Resigning

In the FIDE rules, "resign" is just defined as "give up", and there is no discussion of exactly how to communicate this. In the USCF rules, there is some discussion, but it is much shorter than what we present here. Our text should cleanly separate what is in the rules (resigning means giving up) from what is common practice (e.g. tipping the king).

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping clocks is not applicable unless clocks are used, and writing on a scoresheet is not applicable unless scoresheets are used. Clocks and scoresheets are used in FIDE and USCF sanctioned games (except that scoresheets are not used in blitz), but readers of Wikipedia may not be aware of FIDE and USCF, and should not have to learn about them in order to learn the rules of chess.

Discussion of random gestures for resignation removed. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draws

This section is disorganized for maximum confusion. The citations are not adequate. The fifty-move rule and threefold repetition should be mentioned in the bulleted list, and should cite the relevant articles in the FIDE rules.

Reorganized, though not exactly as described above. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead position

The reference to "insufficient losing chances" should cite the appropriate section of the USCF rules, and should be clarified.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag-fall

This whole paragraph should be replaced by a forward reference to the "Timing" section. As mentioned above, Wikipedia readers should be able to learn the rules of chess without having to learn about chess clocks, score sheets, arbiters, and other artifacts of sanctioned play.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the pieces

This section appears to be adequately sourced. However, it doesn't make sense except in the context of the touch-move rule, and in particular, the touch-move rule as enforced in a sanctioned event. Thus, it should either come after the section about the touch-move rule, or within that section.

Moved to the beginning of the "Competitive" section. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Touch-move rule

The high-level description, in which touch-move is described as a "fundamental principle", and the placement of this section under "Gameplay" rather than "Competitive rules of play", are improvements. Even in informal, unsanctioned games, touch-move is widely respected.

The first paragraph must cite a source; and the "special considerations" for castling and pawn promotion must be described, not just alluded to.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive rules of play

"Competitive" is used in this document and in the FIDE rules to refer to organized, sanctioned, chess tournaments and matches. The word is used that way, although that may not be its dictionary meaning, or its meaning in non-sporting contexts.

The first paragraph should explain this usage, and should summarize the consequences: clocks (although these are also used in informal play, especially blitz), keeping score, arbiters (and directors), and adjournment.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other things currently in the first paragraph should be moved to one or more additional paragraphs, for clarity. These include OTB versus correspondence versus online, adaptations for disabled players, different rules for rapid and blitz, chess 960, and computer chess.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be implicit from the wording of the first paragraph, but perhaps it should be stated explicitly, that the rules given in the following sections, unless otherwise indicated, are applicable only to FIDE sanctioned events. Other governing bodies may have sharply different rules on the same topics.

Timing

The first paragraph should cite at least one source. The only current citation, by the last sentence, evidently applies only to that sentence. (In addition, it's wrong; it should be page 22 of the Arbiter's Manual, not page 54.)

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph referring to USCF Rule 14E should, of course, cite that rule.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recording moves

This section starts with a diagram and an indication of how to label the squares of the board, but it doesn't explain that this is relevant to algebraic notation. Of course, the diagram and text are simply copied from Algebraic notation (chess). It may be an improvement to just remove them from this article.

Not done; this is outside the scope of the GA reassessment, and I don't want that to get bogged down in discussion of controversial changes. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is an illustration of a score sheet by Capablanca in descriptive notation, but no further explanation of descriptive notation, so the score sheet would be completely illegible for most readers. This score sheet illustration should instead be used in Descriptive notation. A better choice of scoresheet for the present article would be the scoresheet from Reti vs. Capablanca, New York 1924, which is in German algebraic notation (Planilha Réti e Capablanca.gif).

Not done; this is outside the scope of the GA reassessment, and I don't want that to get bogged down in discussion of controversial changes. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated a citation of USCF rules, section 15A variation 1, to cite the most recent and accessible version. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjournment

This section must cite the relevant section of the FIDE rules.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irregularities

These sections look OK (at first glance).

Equipment

This section has only two citations, and needs several more.

Quite a few citations of sources added. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

These sections look generally OK.

Bruce leverett (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have covered all the sourcing deficiencies mentioned above. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article exposition

There is a fundamental problem in the article setup. The article title is "Rules of chess". Then, the article declares the FIDE rules as the "Rules of chess", which is improper. Further, the article refers to the FIDE rules throughout without making this explicit in the beginning. I think it would be more appropriate to rename the article "FIDE rules of chess" and redirect "Rules of Chess" to it to reflect the content. Besides USCF pointers, the article focuses on FIDE rules alone and is not as general as the title suggests. Dlbbld (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that describing other sets of rules besides USCF and FIDE would fall under the heading of "comprehensive". I was under the impression that comprehensiveness is explicitly excluded from the GA criteria, but is more appropriate when considering the FA criteria.

Not that I would object to a better exposition of the differences between different rule sets, worldwide and for different flavors of chess (correspondence, internet server, etc.). But achieving this should not be in the critical path of the GA reassessment. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the "Rules of chess", so at the universal level, are. For example, I know that the Touch-move rule in my country is commonly known. Even in the most informal games, the players know this rule, though they often do not enforce it. I would really like to know how this is in other countries. Is it a universal rule? An article titled "Rules of Chess" should answer that. For it does not, it does not hold what it promises. This is why I say the exposition is wrong.

Again, to declare the FIDE rules as the "Rules of chess. " and then the problem to be solved is wrong.

The exposition must be correct and clear. Something like mentioning that is nearly impossible to specify the "Rules of chess" at an universal level. The FIDE rules sort of coming most closest. So, the article now describes the FIDE rules. But then it needs a discussion about why not to title the article "FIDE rules of chess" to start with. Dlbbld (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AT the risk of repeating myself, the article can be helpful to readers, and can even meet the GA criteria, without answering all interesting questions about the subject. Carefully read those criteria, and compare them with your own expectations for this article.

Suppose that, indeed, the article must answer the questions you asked about the touch-move rule. Do you think you can find reliable sources which would give those answers? If you have already found such sources, or know where to find them, then I will not hinder your efforts. But if you don't know where to find such answers, you are turning a routine Wikipedia clean-up procedure into an open-ended and perhaps never-ending quest. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, you are concerned about the process. I am actually concerned if it's a good article. That's a clash! It's so funny that the GA criteria don't even require correctness. So there is not much that I can help. It's such an obviously terribly bad article (in respect to Wikipedia), I cannot even be too serious about it :-) Dlbbld (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too found it amusing, when I was a GA reviewer, that the criteria omit many of the factors that can make an article better or worse. This doesn't mean, however, that you can't go in and fix things; it only means that you should do your fixing in a way that doesn't disrupt the GA process; sometimes this means just waiting until that process is over.

I was particularly interested in some of the agenda items you listed, but have since deleted, such as the distinction between "basic" rules and "competition" rules, in which we are drawing the distinction differently from how FIDE draws it, and FIDE and USCF also differ from each other about this (and differ from us). Also, I'm glad you noticed that all of our citations of FIDE are about 15-20 years out of date. As you can see, the level of attention that has been paid to this article over the last 20 years has not always been satisfactory. There is more work to do in Wikipedia than there are editors to do it -- quite a bit more. When I saw your agenda, I was very heartened: maybe somebody will actually do something about this article. I assure you that if you can find time for that, I will pay attention to it (the article is on my watch list). Bruce leverett (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I should have guessed, it's more complicated than just a bunch of citations that say "FIDE 2008" instead of "FIDE 2023". Many of the FIDE citations refer to the 2018 version. Also, "FIDE 2008" is a book citation, with an ISBN. However, this ISBN isn't very useful; doing an Amazon search with it gets no results, while doing a "Google Books" search gets me apparently to a 1997 version of the rules published in Australia. The citation itself includes a URL, which takes me to the current (2023) rules on the FIDE website.

I will try to bring some uniformity to the FIDE citations. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the citations of the FIDE rules, fixing them to cite the latest (2023) version and to use the sfn template. I have also fixed the citations of the Arbiters' Manual to use the sfn template. I found a couple of places where I did not think the citation was correct, so I used cn templates; of course, these must be fixed to get past GA reassessment.

I haven't yet addressed the original complaint, that there were some paragraphs that didn't end with a citation (or didn't have any citations). Still planning to get to that, of course. I do not mind if other editors "get there first" and fix or add some citation before I get to it. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlbbld: Regarding this edit, the reason I did not cite 7.5.1 for this, was because neither 7.5.1, nor any other section, explicitly says that irregularities cannot be corrected after the game; one can only infer that from what those sections don't say. Inferring some conclusion from what a source doesn't say is similar to WP:SYNTH, in which one infers a conclusion from what two sources say, when neither source explicitly states that conclusion. I don't know if Wikipedia guidance explicitly forbids this, but as a reader, I noticed it immediately, and if I were an inexperienced chess player, I would still be puzzled. However, if other editors think this is OK, I'll go along. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. Thank you for pointing it out. On a high level, I agree that the statement cannot be inferred from the article. As such, I consider it best to remove the sentence altogether, for I have never seen a source stating this explicitly.

However I would still clarify this on a rule technical level. The FIDE rules are tournament rules. One main goal is maintaining a good tournament flow.

The wording "during a game" is also used for piece displacement, clock setting and initial piece placement. There is also no explicit wording for how claims in such respect should be treated after a game. It's, however, common sense that if players start to claim such things after the end of a game, tournament flow would heavily suffer, so implicitly, it's not intended. That checkmate, resignation, stalemate, dead position and mutual draw agreement all contain the wording "This immediately ends the game" is relevant in this respect. As it makes any claims after such an event as after the game, so not "during a game".

To summarize, the wording is undoubtedly meant exclusively. Otherwise, it would be in opposition to maintaining a reasonable tournament flow. But the wording fails to convey this as understandable to the reader. As there is no rule clarification from FIDE (they stopped that fifty years ago), it cannot be part of Wikipedia. Dlbbld (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett: Edited too less specific, matching reference. Agree that an encyclopedia must reflect blurryness of the source and not clarify without references.

Comments related to USCF rules

For a standard article, the many comments regarding USCF should have better exposition. Only at the end, it is explicitly stated that the list of differences is not complete: "The rules of national FIDE affiliates (such as the United States Chess Federation, or USCF) are based on the FIDE rules, with slight variations.[99][i][100] Some other differences are noted above."

Additionally, the article omits major differences to the USCF rules, such as in relation to dead positions and piece displacement, while including other, less game-decision-relevant points. This information is fundamental for not being misleading. Dlbbld (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The FIDE vs. USCF issues are touched upon above in Talk:Rules of chess#Types of dead position. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion does not change the situation. It is only touching on one issue, and is even wrong. First, I must call you on your statement in this discussion: "The FIDE rules define "dead position" (5.2.2). The USCF rules do not."

The USCF rules under 14D specify, "The game is drawn when one of the following endings exists as of the most recently determined legal move, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side (effective 1-1-19)".

The above is exactly the FIDE definition of dead position. So, while the USCF rules do not give it a name (right), they crystal clearly use what is meant by dead positoin to define the rules.

The statement objected "There are two kinds of dead position" is written by me and is correct. The unclarity in the discussion shows, however, no common ground. Dlbbld (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I linked to Talk:Rules of chess#Types of dead position, I was not trying to cut across what you were saying, but to reinforce it. I figured that you would already be familiar with that discussion, but other readers, not already embroiled in editing of chess articles, might find this context useful.

The language of USCF rule 14D4 does indeed correspond to the language of FIDE rule 5.2.2. But the USCF rule does not call this a "dead position". The USCF also has rules for "Insufficient Material to Win on Time" (14E), which are completely separate from "Insufficient Material to continue" (14D), and do not recognize dead positions. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both FIDE and USCF draw the game immediately for a dead position. That makes the term relevant when speaking about USCF rules and makes me so obsessed with finding good wording up to personal research.

As you mentioned on timeout, there are differences. Thanks for going into that, though.

I really assumed "GA criteria" also mandates the article to be good in the general sense. Thanks for the friendly explanation. So, getting the invitation for the "Good article reassessment, " I mentioned all the points I found not good with this naive assumption. I'm sorry to clutter up your process. Dlbbld (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete sections like "Illegal position"

It's crucial for the article to address incomplete sections that fail to fully explain key concepts, like 'Illegal position'. A detailed explanation of its importance, as specified in FIDE's article A.5.4, should be incorporated to ensure comprehensive coverage. While I added the term because it's essential, it was uncomplete and also not completed. That shows to me the need for a closer review and completion of all sections. Dlbbld (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished section "Variations"

This section is unfinished. It is also important that one can relate to "variation" only in the general sense; it is not a term used in the rules.

What is here mentioned as "variation" is one of the several possibilities the FIDE rules foresee to parameterize a tournament. Other examples are the default time for losing the game when not arriving at the board (default zero) and applying the rules from Guidelines III (default no), possibly one or two more. So, the section must mention all these "variations" to be complete. Or simply just remove it. Dlbbld (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "Illegal position" and "Variations" sections have the problems that you described. For the purpose of GA reassessment, one could consider getting rid of them altogether. I agree that a proper exposition of "Illegal position" would be an interesting addition to the article, especially as it relates to retrograde analysis problems, etc. However, this is another thing that shouldn't be in the critical path of GA reassessment. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bounce away the two. But still. What concerns me is that such sections have existed for years, and there has been no improvement. I can only speak for a few sections. So, I can't say for other sections, but I fear there might be the same. For example, the History and Codification sections are heavy in length and poor in structure. From constant work, I would expect at least some structure, like subsections. I am not too optimistic here. Now, maybe fear is not a good enough argument.

But in general, from such observations, I come again to the conclusion that the article exposition is not clear. Why must the FIDE competition rules even be part? I think when one relates to "Rules of chess" in very general, whatever that is, the part until that is well. But why then to include the FIDE competition rules? That is surely not universal anymore. Have such discussions been held? Dlbbld (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bruce leverett, thank you very much for your work on this article; it is much appreciated. I have tagged just a few places which need citations—they are generally for the simplest things which don't fall under WP:SKYISBLUE, so it shouldn't be too onerous. After those are fixed, this GAR can be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest a lot of these tags do look like "sky is blue" stuff to me. A source for the initial setup, for example, is any book ever written about chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have been traveling since 24 Feb and will not be able to get to this until 29 Feb. Looking forward to it; but I would not object if MaxBrowne2 wants to step in in the mean time. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I admit that for an actual chess player, such as MaxBrowne2 or myself, it looks and feels strange to be citing chapter and verse while describing the rules of the game. One must consider where we are and why we are doing this. I didn't learn chess from an encyclopedia, and I don't think anyone else does either. (One of the reasons I seldom edit the articles about chess openings is that I didn't learn chess openings from an encyclopedia, either.) But if an experienced Wiki editor asked for more citations, that means to me that people are reading this article and taking it seriously, and the only constructive thing for me to do is put in the citations. The silver lining is that I have found some errors and some places where we say things that aren't warranted. Also it is an interesting exercise to explain to non-chess-players why one is expected to capture, castle, and promote with one hand. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've worked through your list. I'll wait a day or two for objections, then I'll close this. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing colors

In the second paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, we describe the method of choosing colors by concealing a pawn in each hand and having the opponent pick a hand. Strictly speaking, this is not part of the rules, and it could be left out of this article. I am interested in keeping it, though, because it is such an ancient and yet completely up-to-date part of the lore. My problem is finding a source. I could probably find it in some chess book for beginners, but I don't have any of them in my home library. When I looked online, all I found was stuff about online chess, where this obviously isn't applicable. Can anyone find it? Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it in the rules that came with my first chess set, $2.99 from Holdson (note incorrect setup). But it's a strictly informal practice. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That website has a "download the rules of chess" button, and the rules I downloaded didn't mention choosing colors. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you manage to find a source for this Bruce leverett? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot to return to this before declaring victory.

Searching just now through "reliable sources" that I could think of, I didn't find it. I guess it is in the oral tradition. (It was added to this article in this edit.) I will remove it. But if someone finds it in the literature, who knows. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quale has added a source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead positions

I think it would be satisfactory to treat king v. king, king and knight v. king, and king and bishop v. king as WP:BLUE. I may add a sentence to explain what I am doing here. Examining Fine's Basic Chess Endings and the endgame sections of Philidor and Staunton, they do not even mention these three endings; that is, they are counting on their readers, who are expected to be complete novices, to understand these endgames without being told.

On the other hand, I don't think the same way about king and bishop v. king and bishop, both bishops being on the same color. I had never thought of this endgame before I read this part of the Wikipedia article, and having done so, I had to think for a minute to convince myself that it is, indeed, dead. I don't see this mentioned in endgame texts, but I don't think it is WP:BLUE either. I think the right thing to do is just remove this from the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the glossary of chess article in a long time, but I think that a deal position is defined there. The Rules article could just say that a dead position is a draw and link to the glossary, without giving examples. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19th century

I do not know what source or sources the paragraph about the history of the rules during the 19th century was based on. I have added a citation to the corresponding chapter of Murray's A History of Chess, but I am not sure that this covers all the ground. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues have been fixed. Spinixster (chat!) 10:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article from 2007, reassessed in 2009. Alongside the 5 citation needed tags, the article has many more unsourced paragraphs. For example, in the lead, Scholar and writer J. R. R. Tolkien called him the "most difficult character" to interpret in the introduction to his edition of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight., is unsourced and not seen elsewhere in the article. Spinixster (chat!) 09:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've filled in the citations that have been tagged. The "most difficult character" is from Burrow (now cited), not Tolkien. It should be straightforward for anyone to cite anything else that is challenged here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spinixster: I've supplied citations for the (few) unsourced paragraphs, mostly primary "plot" material which we normally don't consider needs to be cited actually. Anyway, the whole text is now cited. The article is in good shape so I suggest we close this as Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs a tremendous amount of work. 13 citation needed tags. The "Professional wins" section is completely uncited. Schierbecker (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

All results are here

Source:

I placed the ref in the Professional wins section.

Ryder Cup controversy source also in place.

Regards, EEJB (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[svara][reply]

1. ^ "Spelare, Annika Sörenstam, Samtliga tävlingsresultat i kronologisk ordning" [Player, Annika Sörenstam, All tournament results in chronological order] (in Swedish). Swedish Golf Federation and Golf Data AB. Retrieved 21 February 2024.

EEJB (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEJB, do you think this is worth saving? I have limited time, but I can lend a hand in improving. Schierbecker (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like the nominator's concerns have been mostly addressed. Just about everything looks cited. I see only one cn tag left. If it can't be addressed, worst case that sentence could just be removed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is coming along, but the Professional wins, Major championships and LPGA Tour record sections are almost completely uncited. Schierbecker (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Professional wins" section already has two citations that cover the whole section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Sources put in place. Hope it's enough. Regards, EEJB (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updates are needed to keep this as a GA. ChessEric 01:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: using a GAR to prompt article updates is a bit like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly, especially when your nomination statement omits what updates are needed. A better tactic would have been to post a list of needed updates on the article's talk page. A best tactic would have been to make the updates yourself if you could, and request assistance on the talk page only if you could not, say if lacked access to a source or sources for information you know warrants inclusion.

Now that we're here, what needs updating? Since I'm not clairvoyant, I need you to give me some indication if I'm going to help. Imzadi 1979 → 07:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was bouncing around and editing many things at once and didn't put in a detailed description.

The updates are needed in the future section; it is outdated as the scheduled completion dates listed have either passed or are about to be passed. Additionally, some of the info within the section belongs in the history section. There is also, in my opinion, not enough information regarding Otay Mesa East Port of Entry border crossing, which is going to be the eastern terminus of this route. I would edit it myself, but I've also been busy with schoolwork and don't have time to look things up. However, I did find this article to help out with the update. ChessEric 01:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: I would reiterate the suggestion that trying some basic edits yourself would have been a much better course of action than initiating a blunt-force demotion discussion, especially since it looks like your issue is with a pair of sentences. (Please note that per WP:SS and other factors, we shouldn't add too much content about the PoE here as that is not the subject of this article.) Imzadi 1979 → 08:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to demote it; I'm just saying some things need to be updated. You're right that the GAR was a little too much, but I also didn't want to put an "update section" tag on a GA. ChessEric 21:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric and Imzadi1979: where does this GAR stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure at this point. ChessEric 20:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Article tagged for notability. Further action may be taken on that point, but GA concerns resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest qualm is with GA point 3b: this page is full of unnecessary detail. Ɱ (talk · contribs), the article's main contributor, appears to have had worked for Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society at the time, which might explain why this page is full of details only a local would find useful. Also, Abductive (talk · contribs) had raised questions about whether this GA was done properly in the first place, and whether it is properly covered by secondary sources, so throw point 2b in there.

This article is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Briarcliff Manor, and I'm suspicious of a few of those articles, but let's start with this one. Apocheir (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to take a stab at this, but Apocheir, are there any specific examples of passages you think are too detailed? I see a few examples, like this, but wanted to ask if you had other examples in mind.

• 1951 was the 50th anniversary of the fire department, and so the village held a week-long celebration beginning on July 1, 1950, with a morning service at the Briarcliff Congregational Church, a band concert at Law Park, and a Fourth of July parade with 5,500 spectators, with a march led by Fred Messinger, followed by eight ex-chiefs. The parade included Scarborough's first fire engine (the red hand-pumped 1901 truck), many bands, and twelve fire departments from Westchester County municipalities. The ex-chief's dinner that evening drew 85 guests. In that year, it was noted that there were not yet any resident deaths from fires within village boundaries. - Honestly, I would have condensed this to one or two sentences.
• A year later, one of the most notable fires in the village happened at about 10 pm on January 22, 1982, in the village central business district. The fire began in the basement of Briarcliff Stationers and destroyed the Briarcliff Country Store, Briar Rose, and the Shoe Bazaar. More than a hundred Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville, and Ossining firefighters assisted to control the fire, which continued to burn at heights of 30–40 feet at midnight, but was under control by 1:30 am. Damage was estimated at $500,000 ($1,516,200 today[9]). - Again, this could be one sentence.

If your main concern is specifically with over-detail, I could try to remedy this. However, if sourcing is the other major issue, it would be much harder for me to find sources for this. Ɱ, who presumably added the main source for this article (A Century of Volunteer Service: Briarcliff Manor Fire Department 1901–2001. Briarcliff Manor Fire Department. 2001.), has unfortunately retired, and he probably has access to news sources that I don't. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished cutting the unnecessary detail. Anyone is free to restore details that they think are relevant, or to make further cuts. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really encyclopedic to have a list of retired apparatus? How far back do you go with such things for completeness? Is it really encyclcopedic to inform the reader about equipment that isn't used anymore? I work with governments, and some cities tend to burn through a lot of equipment. I can only imagine if we were to keep a list like this for the police department, listing every Crown Vic they ever had 10 years ago. I will also note that the source for the current apparatus does not support the various Tahoes, Expedition, or utility truck. Hog Farm _Talk 15:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "Retired apparatus" section and integrated the prose into the "history" section. I'm not even sure what to do with the current apparatus that's not backed up by this source, since I doubt whether these pickup trucks or the utility truck even count as firefighting apparatus. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Apocheir, do you have any other concerns besides the sourcing? I see you pinged Abductive to this reassessment - I'll try to fix anything that comes up to the best of my ability. However, if the fire department indeed is not notable due to a lack of secondary sources (as was alluded to in the original GAN), a merge discussion might be merited. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I think the sourcing is the most important issue. If it's going to be merged, we're going to need to trim a lot more than if it remains a stand-alone article!

That said, let me respond to your earlier question. I agree with Hog Farm about the chief and assistant chief's vehicles, and I also question whether we need to state every single vehicle purchase that this fire department made, and how much it cost. It seems like every run-of-the-mill transaction the department made is mentioned. I'm suspicious of the second paragraph of the lede, outlining what seems to be an arbitrary collection of mergers and moves. In general there's a bunch of stuff that's the same as any other fire department in the US. Every fire department in 2024 uses radios, for instance. On the other hand, I wonder if the material on the 2018 embezzlement and the 2021 law giving them a carve-out could be expanded. Apocheir (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have trimmed down some of the info about the vehicular purchases (in particular, removing the cost). I've also added some more details about the embezzlement. There really isn't much to add about the 2021 legislation, though.

In regards to the second paragraph, it summarizes the history section. I'd argue that the mergers and moves are one of the few notable aspects of the history section that will remain if one takes out the info about the vehicular purchases. If the mergers and moves are removed from the article as well, I do not think the article will meet WP:GACR criterion 3a (i.e. the coverage would no longer be broad). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are still notability questions that haven't been addressed. Each point of WP:SIRS is in question for most of these sources, as well as WP:AUD. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to some of the sources that aren't available online, but certainly not to the history of the fire department written by the fire department itself. Apocheir (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of my concerns have been addressed. While the unsupported ancillary vehicles have been removed from the table, they are still referred-to in text in the sentence The Briarcliff Manor Fire Department has one tower ladder, three class-A pumpers, one heavy rescue vehicle, two ambulances, three chief's cars, a utility truck, and an antique engine. The department also has a trailer for safety demonstrations with a source that does not mention the chief's cars, the utility truck, or the trailer. Additionally, I don't see how it's possibly a due detail to reference the $7,000 trade-in value on the ambulance, especially when it can apparently only be cited to the board minutes that approved it. Hog Farm _Talk 00:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, I think notability might be an even greater problem. I was really hoping that I would be able to add reliable secondary sources, such as the NYT, but most of the mentions of the fire department that I could find on ProQuest, newspapers.com, and fultonhistory.com are passing mentions. Even The Journal News, which serves this region, doesn't talk about this much. Like I said, Ɱ, the main contributor, probably has access to news sources that I don't; he hasn't edited in months, though. It is a shame, as I was really hoping to save this article by replacing many of the instances of the fire-department history source. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius and Apocheir: if notability is a problem, does one of you want to take this to AfD? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have we hit all the points of WP:BEFORE? Someone might want to fill out {{Source assess table}} or {{ORGCRIT assess table}} as well. We should have a pretty well-developed case before bringing a good-rated article to AfD. Apocheir (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails to meet WP:NPOV (WP:GACR #4), specifically WP:AESTHETIC. For example, the second paragraph begins by saying "The song features some of Dylan's most memorable lyrical images." This would maybe be appropriate in a review, but it's not up to Wikipedia to decide which lyrical images in a song are the most "memorable". Other lines I'd call attention to are "Dylan sings in a new prophetic voice that would become his trademark", "...the critique in [the song] is more direct and less allusive", and "These lines seemed particularly prescient...". The first and last of these are WP:PUFFERY, and the middle is a subjective analysis. The prose of the article needs to make clear that these are the viewpoints of certain writers. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article way back in 2006, and it was just a brief account of the song's origins and a list of albums where it had appeared. In fact, my last act with regard to this article was reverting an edit with an unsourced opinion about the song's meaning. I had no idea it would grow into the current immense article, but I'm very impressed. I take your point about WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY, but I'm sure the article could be repaired to remove that without sacrificing the - to coin a term - encyclopedic sweep of its contents.ubiquity (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the article could be fixed without removing much information, the opinions just need to be attributed properly. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if User:BennyOnTheLoose, having had a recent TFA on Dylan, would be interested in taking a look and giving a view? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like the article can be fixed up to GA without too much effort, but I haven't checked it against sources. (There could be a some examples of OR, a common issue in Dylan song articles.) Some of the covers may not meet WP:COVERSONG. A couple of the sources (e.g. genius.com, imdb.com) aren't appropriate. If anyone would be able to add inline tags I'm happy to check specific examples; I've got immediate access to most of the Dylan books cited. Regards, 23:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Above comment was from me but I think I messed up the signature. I've made some changes to the article, and would be happy to work on any specific issues identifed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a citation needed tag, and a few places where the prose could do with tidying up, but to my eyes the WP:AESTHETIC, WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY concerns are dealt with. The article does need to be fully cited to meet the GA standards, but once that's done I think it would be over the bar. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation and tweaked the text (removed the lyrics) to match what the source supports. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly happy: two points on the citation note:

• (the false start can be heard on both the 6-disc and 18-disc versions of The Bootleg Series Vol. 12: The Cutting Edge 1965–1966, released in 2015): artistic works can be used to cite their own contents (and we don't normally use a footnote in that case), but as we're doing a bit more than simply describing what any idiot can hear (that is, interpreting what can be heard as a "false start"), I think we need a secondary source here.
• The author of Ecclesiastes laments (2:15–16) "The fate of the fool will befall me also; to what advantage, then, have I become wise? But I come to the conclusion that this, too, was futility, because the wise man and the fool are both forgotten. The wise man dies, just like the fool.": if nothing else, that inline citation should be a footnote (WP:PAREN), but to keep WP:SYNTH happy, it would be ideal to have a secondary source cited which has explicitly made that connection (I assume the Rogovoy citation above would do the job?)

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, did you see the above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't. Added sources (Dylan's own site) for the false start. Added an additional citation from Rogovoy, as the quote above is in the book and he makes the connection. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, I'd be happy to close this as keep. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 Good Article has many unsourced statements, including parts of the "Critical view and influence" section. Additionally, I think some of the sources used are questionable, such as sources 7 and 9. Spinixster (chat!) 12:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can fix these issues and also give the article a general overhaul. But I won't have time to work on it until later in the week. Also, hard to believe it's been 17 years since I created this article. SMDH. SouthernNights (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SouthernNights do you still intend to get round to this? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad. I got slammed with life stuff and simply forgot. I'll work on this in the coming days. SouthernNights (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've now addressed all the issues raised here along with giving the article a good rewrite, adding new information and citations, and doing a general cleanup.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SouthernNights, if you wouldn't mind, there are a couple of uncited statements that still require a citation; if those are appropriately sourced I think we can close this as keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm happy to fix those. Give me a few days, though, b/c I'm slammed with work through the weekend. SouthernNights (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I've fixed all theses remaining citation issues. SouthernNights (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues appear to be fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 Good Article has three citation needed tags and some MOS:EDITORIAL problems. Spinixster (chat!) 01:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have handled the CNs (see edit summaries).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Per Kusma, no reason to delist; GAR is not peer review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a moderate expansion/rewrite on the article in order to prepare it for FAC, which thus ended up quite distinct from the older version. I'd like to have someone check if it still meets the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" gadget in your preferences will show you numerous links which need to be specified. I would suggest having a look at links more broadly: e.g. he Inka/Inca (the former spelling is used more often in article, but the latter seems to be preferred generally on-wiki) are mentioned in the first section but are not mentioned until the archaeology section. You have some citation issues: #1 is not defined, while Ceruti 2012 requires a journal name.

More relevant to the GA criteria: adherence to WP:LEAD appears to be spotty—quite a lot of the article is not adequately summarized by the lead. You may also take a look towards copyediting, perhaps through WP:GOCE: sentences such as "Politically, it is located in the Antofagasta Region of Chile and the Potosí Department of Bolivia; the Treaty of Valparaiso establishes the border between Bolivia and Chile as passing over the mountain" could be trimmed of duplication, while "The slopes of the mountain are notably unstable; anecdotally, the noise can be heard all around the mountain" is a slight non-sequitur, as the connection between the instability and noise has not been directly made (and indeed, being mentioned only in Rudolph 1955, could it really be described as "notable"?)

However, these are minor issues which I know well arise after a complete rewrite; I have no doubt that the article meets the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Took care of some issues. In my experience, GOCE is not really the right place for pre-FAC copyedits; I think I'll ask @SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm:, when they have time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few general comments:

Try to avoid "5 – −25 °C (41 – −13 °F), decreasing to −25 – −40 °C (−13 – −40 °F)", it is quite unpleasant to look at and MOS:RANGE recommends not to do it.

• Done, is it better now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The summit at 5,916 metres (19,409 ft) elevation[26][c] is capped by a summit crater is 500 metres (1,600 ft)[19]-400 metres (1,300 ft) wide summit crater that lacks large flat areas" apart from the obvious editing debris grammar problem, perhaps better to untangle this into several sentences ("The elevation of the summit is 5916 metres. It is capped by summit crater with a diameter of 400–500 metres and does not have any large flat areas").

• Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images: perhaps try to improve captions? Licancabur Lake is the black blob in the centre? The Laguna Verde photo is amazing, perhaps tell us in the caption that this is at 4000+m elevation?

• Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna: list of animals looks a bit random; are any of these particularly important / rare / only occurring at the mountain?

• It's essentially these species which have their names listed out in sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Inka people you link to different from the Inca?

• No. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "the mountains cover each other during the equinoxes" mean?

• Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it looks like it could do with some copyediting and some work on the lead, but no reason to delist. —Kusma (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]