Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 77

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done anything related to a good article reassessment before, but I'm interested in crime, so I'll give it my best shot to bring it up to snuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, do you intend to continue working on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Yes I do, and will get back to working on it now. I acquired some of the book sources and am looking through them. I'm unsure if I can get it good enough to maintain its status but I will try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PARAKANYAA, are you planning on returning still? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Yeah I don't think I can save this. I could probably fix the citation needed issues with enough time but after reading some of these books there are more severe structural/content issues with this article that I can't fix in any reasonable amount of time. Should probably be closed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisting, a week has passed and no clear interest in fixing the major issues of this article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GA status of this article is very old, dating all the way back to 2008. As a result, it's not up to standards in a couple of ways. For one, there's a glaring lot of uncited paragraphs, which fails criteria 2 of the Wikipedia:GACR criteria. Another is that there is clearly much more that could be written about the impacts of dinosaurs on culture and vice versa, as the ~169,000 results on "culture" plus "dinosaurs" on Google Scholar demonstrate. This article needs to be improved drastically to meet the GA criteria again. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has the same problem as the parent dinosaur article - everything from 1980 onward is given such a brief and rushed treatment that it does the subject matter zero justice. But, more fundamentally, where should and shouldn't this article overlap with paleoart? It's really many of the same key players and events with both. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it proves to be especially important to cover cultural depictions of dinosaurs in the 1980s onward considering that they've gained increased relevance and interest amongst public audiences, and it looks as if such high interest is here to stay for the time being. I think this article can stand if it extensively discusses dinosaurs in literature (writing, fictional media, public engagement with science, etc.), but this article currently does that very poorly which proves highly problematic. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current state of the article, if it receives no interest for GAR by other editors by the 10th of April and there is no opposition, I will mark it off as a Delist for GA for major unaddressed issues of the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant unsourced text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 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 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to substantial uncited text, the lead of the article is a bit too difficult and the body contains large numbers of external links. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request to make the lead image smaller from GA1 doesn't seem to have happened. It is still too big for MOS:IMGSIZE. As well as the unsourced sections and inappropriate extlinks there is a lot of material that appears to be primary-sourced and promotionally worded about individual research projects or implementations, rather than being based on published works by disinterested parties surveying and reviewing the methods that are available, I think maybe problematic with respect to WP:GACR#3b (going into excessive detail). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make time to go over this article this weekend, and I'd appreciate the reassessment remaining open for just a few extra days. Thanks ― Synpath 04:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and removed external links in the body of the article and adjusted the lead, but that only amounts to cosmetic changes to the article. I can see now that handling the citations and removing the conversational tone of the article is more editing than I'm willing to spend time on. Thanks for keeping the discussion open. ― Synpath 06:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite significant unsourced text, especially in the history section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues unaddressed, delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pre-GAR notice on the article's talk page listed specific concerns with uncited text and source-text integrity issues. These issues are substantial and have not been addressed; in fact more uncited text has been added to the article since my notice. Hog Farm _Talk 18:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few unsourced or semi-spurced paragraphs. Hasn't been kept up-to-date: for instance the jargon section is largely based on 1996-2007 sources, and it's unclear these terms are still in use. There is a private YouTube video link in the middle of the text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 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) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not an article needing the most dire work, this article has clearly rotted since first being listed back in 2008. My following concerns are:

• Some sources I'm also unsure on the reliability of, such as " classicgaming.com" (not listed at WP:VG/S). There's also a not verified in body tag in the lead (which was previously a citation needed tag from 2023 before being replaced mere minutes ago).
• The entire Master Collection version section is unsourced.
• Some unsourced statements that aren't marked as such right now, but are still unsourced.
• I don't think the "Related media" section has very encyclopedic writing.
• Reception could easily be expanded upon for a game that was so influential and got as many reviews as it did. It doesn't necessarily explain very much of why critics liked the game, and rather just focuses on the headlines. An example is below.
• Just extremely weird writing throughout that I can't see being very beneficial to a general reader. For example, "Next Generation reviewed the PlayStation version of the game, rating it five stars out of five, and stated that "rest assured that this is a game no player should miss and the best reason yet to own a PlayStation." is its own line. λ NegativeMP1 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just look at the reception and found how bad it's layout for example, the legacy section could be it own section similar to Banjo-Kazooie, and some of paragraph in the reception could easily be merged with other and be expanded in which I agreed with you so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some comments from a cursory review that may be of value:
  • The lead section for the Gameplay could benefit from a more general description that it is an action-stealth game and generally what this encompasses, given this is a genre-defining game.
  • There's an overuse of leading sections and paragraphs in passive voice (Despite, Except) etc.
  • The reception section really needs a thematic rewrite as per the WP:VG/MOS. Listing the praise from every review source, one by one, is not really best practice or organised to read.
  • The 'Windows version' section is crufty. The reception should be integrated with the main section, and given there isn't much sourcing for it, it does not stand to reason to provide technical details on the nuanced differences. The executable files are not really worth discussing! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. There's also a problem with WP:LEAD. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 13:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article hasn't been updated recently, and so fails criteria 3a, as it isn't broad enough in coverage. And also fails 3b by being overly detailed in places. Domestic career section has too much coverage of 2010-2013 and almost nothing since (and absolutely nothing about the 7 seasons he's played for Lancashire). International career section hasn't been updated since 2022. There are numerous sentences of unsourced text, some of the teams listed in the infobox aren't mentioned in the text at all (e.g. Paarl), or with more than one sentence (Originals). Also, the T20 franchise sections have way too many headers for one paragraph, which aren't needed, and looks to be bordering towards IPL excessive stats and focusing only on incidents too, rather than encyclopedic, WP:NPOV content. So in conclusion, it fails criteria 1b (MOS violations), 2b (unsourced content), 3a and 3b (lacking details in places, overdetailed in others), 4 (IPL section is POV). Looks like it just about survived a GA review in 2018, but the article has got significantly worse in quality since then, and cannot be considered a GA anymore in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified everyone who participated in either the GA promotion and/or first GA re-assessment in 2018, as well as WP:CRIC, and mentioned this on Talk:Jos Buttler where I raised some of these concerns earlier this year. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - article is nowhere close to GA status on a number of criteria. I did some work on it in 2017 but it was hard going and it's much, much worse now. Huge amounts of over detail, far too many subsections, many of which are unnecessary and entirely unsourced - it would be easy to do so, but there's just far too much detail. The lead and domestic section are fine and the playing style bit is probably OK as well. They'd make the basis of a decent article - with a bit of an update in the domestic bit. But the rest is a pretty epic fail as Joseph says above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Keeping any article of a current player of such prominence to GA/FA standard is virtually impossible. Currently, it falls a long way short of the standard required, having been hijacked by IP's and editors of poor competence. AA (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was assessed 16 years ago and it underwent a lot of edits since then. There are a lot of citation-needed templates, along with unsourced filmography sections, a lot of grammatical, (especially punctuation and wording errors), as well as factual discrepancies and poor sourcing. For example, as of this nom, it incorporates her birthday being on two different dates and years. In the lede and infobox, it is listed as 24 January 1989, but in the personal life section, it is listed as "Born on 24 January 1981." It also does not follow conventional section ordering and manual of styles. Right after the lede, there's the "Acting career" section, wherein, it should've been another section, such as Early life and family. But these details are listed sporadically in the latter sections.

It is also generally not well written.

Anyone with a cursory look can tell this does not meet the standard of Good Article we have set here. X (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons four and five, which premiered after this became a GA, are not meaningfully covered Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Fails criterion 5b "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Not in the worst shape though; it could probably be kept as a GA with the right attention. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the only section you have a problem with seasons four and five? If so I could probably throw together a plot summary within the next few days. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the plot summary. A lot of the article is frozen in time. Production is about the production of seasons 1-3 with one paragraph tacked on to the end just mentioning that seasons 4 and 5 exist. Characters and reception don't acknowledge that they exist at all. Right now the article looks like it was written in 2012 and then a few season 4/5 details were added on after the fact, which is exactly what happened. If I were reviewing the article at GAN, I would also take issue with the "controversies" section, giving undue coverage to certain events during production solely because they are controversies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant do you intend to continue addressing the issues? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to but my focus has shifted to my ongoing GA. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist unless the seasons 4 and 5 sections are meaningfully expanded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant amount of the article, including almost the entire "Importance" section is uncited. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 it looks like most of this "Importance" section is uncited because it was in the lead section, as it had been added in edits like [1] or [2] decades ago, but was then broken out in this unexplained edit in 2013, by an account that was later indefinitely blocked for other abuse (I found this using the "Who Wrote That?" extension). Maybe the logic of that needs to be reassessed first. --Joy (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've re-integrated the old lede into the lede and edited it mildly for concision. The nomination does not appear to be correct that a "significant amount of the article is uncited" - can you clarify where exactly these uncited parts are, if you're standing by that?
• While I'm not sure if it's GAR-worthy, the prose is not particularly tight, and it seems to have some Croatian nationalist vibes in parts (which I'm sure is in the sources, but it doesn't mean that has to be transmitted here - I removed a "Turkish menace" for example). I'd argue that would be a more productive area to examine and spruce up in this. SnowFire (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One thing I noticed as well was the quality of the supporting materials - I swapped out the top image immediately. The laundry list of historical years in the infobox also doesn't strike me as well documented or a good use of screen-estate. --Joy (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed now that @Edgars2007 noticed this in 2015 (!). I've moved it around a bit, is this better? --Joy (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to SnowFire's recent edit, I had a look at one of the main sources, the municipality's history page:

• Listeš, Srećko. "Povijest Klisa". klis.hr (in Croatian). Službene stranice Općine Klis. Archived from the original on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2010-05-16.

This archive link implies that the text was taken from a 1998 book called Klis: prošlost, toponimi, govor published by an NGO called Croatian society Trpimir Klis. It would be better to get this referenced to the actual work, which seems to be ISBN 953-96751-3-8, with page numbers.

At the same time, the current website's history link goes to this:

• Firić, Valter (2018). Klis: Kulturno povijesna baština (PDF). Narodna knjižnica i čitaonica u Klisu / People's library and reading room of Klis. p. 112. ISBN 978-953-59767-1-4.

--Joy (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would request that this GAR not be closed too aggressively - I do think that this article could use a tune-up, even if not for the reasons the nominator cited, but it will probably take more time. SnowFire (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I haven't had the time to come back to this like I'd hoped. I think this article has the bones of being in great shape and only needs some minor work to get back to GA quality - just some rereading of the sources and rephrasing, mostly. @Joy:, would you have time to take a go at this? If not, I suppose I'd be fine with a reluctant delist-by-default. SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 15 April 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) 12:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Contains quite a fair amount of uncited material. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Regardless of whether Untitled740's edits were disruptive, there is massive amounts of uncited material in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. Just a disgusting amount of things to fix according to the multitude of notifications in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Onegreatjoke: There are a lot of false positives, I see the hand of the disruptive editor Untitled740 and frankly I don't trust this editor, there are probably a lot of things to be fixed. One of them is to remove all the crap that Untitled740 added which ruins the enjoyment to the reader. So I am not sure about a reassessment is truly needed at current, the vandalism needs to be fixed first. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the talk page back in March, this 2009 GA promotion contains significant uncited text, as well as lesser source-text integrity issues. In addition, the material on the administrative history of the site seems underdeveloped. Hog Farm _Talk 14:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. The Sydney Morning Herald 07:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing includes numerous unsourced paragraphs, some punctation errors, and some single-sentence paragraphs.  750h+ | Talk  08:32, 17 April 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) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Contains expansion needed tags and numerous uncited areas. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:09, 21 April 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) 10:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs major work to meet the broadness criteria:

• WWI section is empty.
• Article states, "About 50,000 people were executed there, including more than 60,000 Jewish victims of the Holocaust." those things can't both be true
• No information about the use of other forts besides the ninth during WWII—the sixth fort was a notorious site of abuses against Soviet prisoners of war and apparently held Polish prisoners at a different point.

(t · c) buidhe 04:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 promotion was last reassessed in 2009 and is so old the initial promotion was literally just "I trust the printed sources are sound" [5]. Substantial passages are uncited and the article's prose is not really up to modern standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: All users involved have declined to improve the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is an advertisement. Much of the article focuses excessively on the trim levels and violates WP:NOPRICES. Lead is five paragraphs, and some parts do not summarise the article. Also, some of these references do not seem reliable.  750h+ | Talk  13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the vehicle is encyclopaedic then so are the differences - the trims in this case. I have no opposition to the prices being taken out, and included them only as they seemed valuable at the time for historical information. They certainly weren't added for sales, since the vehicle was discontinued long long ago. The original GAA had no issues with any of this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that content wasn't in the article at the time of the original GAA - here's the diff between then and now. I'm not expressing a view on that content btw, just pointing out it wasn't part of that GAA review. WaggersTALK 11:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prices were clearly in the article at the time it was passed as a GA without any issue, and that's present in the link above. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Jenova, please go ahead and remove the prices. I would also recommend removing the "Full model line-up and engine availability" table since that's literally just an advertisement in itself, ensure the lede summarises the article (some parts of the lede are not in the article itself), replacing references of questionable quality with those of good quality. By the way, when this article was promoted, it fell well short of GA standards. Given the tightening regulations, the articles should maintain a high level of quality. Best,  750h+ | Talk  05:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to edit it as you see fit. I'm semi retired, and not here to obstruct - rather i'm here to see what the result of the assessment is. Giving detailed or technical information isn't the same as an advert, or everything would be considered an advert - and the vehicle hasn't existed for sale since 2017, so that just strikes me as an odd line to take. I gave historical information that was available to state what variants Citroen offered worldwide - a common practice with vehicle articles, and a thorough attempt to stop the article from becoming centric to just the US - which is prevalent throughout all of Wikipedia. The article isn't different from any other vehicle article. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenova20, I'm sorry but this burden isn't on me. Unless you or another editor would like to help bring this back to GA status, this will see a delist. I understand your point about trying to make this article comprehensive, but if a buyer would like to buy one, they would go to a catalogue territory--which no offence, but is what some of this article looks like. Eg this Code Red/Code White was released in January 2012. The limited edition C3 Picasso Code Red and Code White replaced the Blackcherry in the UK. The Code has the same engine as the Blackcherry and has been finely tuned for a marginally increased fuel economy and lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It features obsidian black bumpers and 17-inch (43 cm) Polar White or Cherry Red "clover" alloy wheels, and can be equipped with extra features, which include roof bars, curtain airbags, cruise control and a speed limiter. Body colours exclusive to the trim are Belle Ile Blue, Shark Grey and Cherry Red. sounds like an advertisement to me. Pinging @GAR coordinators: to see their opinion.  750h+ | Talk  12:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I have seen this ping. I will need to get back to you once I've had a chance to look over the article fully (hopefully tomorrow). There is also the caveat that I am not carsandotherthings but I'll try my best. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing immediately stands out to me as advertising as I know it, could you pick out examples of passages you believe are advertising? I'm not familiar with trims as a concept (in the train corner of the encyclopedia I deal with people obsessing over locomotive paint schemes in unencyclopedic manner all the time, not sure if that's an equivalent or not) but far as I can see everything there is cited appropriately, so it's a question of is the content appropriate for inclusion. I could definitely see an argument for trimming (pun not intended) the text in that section particularly for trims where it appears only minor changes were made. Clever reorganization could likely convey the same basic information in fewer sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTPRICE.  750h+ | Talk  03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking the time to engage with your concerns. I asked you for examples, and all you do is link some policy pages. Please meet me halfway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I will supply some instances alongside other things I found wrong.

Examples:

• "C3 Picasso went on sale in France in February 2009 for €14,950"
• "The LX was the most basic and least expensive model, with a 71 kW; 96 PS (95 bhp) VTi engine, priced at €12,590, while the Exclusive model was most expensive with a 82 kW; 110 PS (110 bhp) HDi Airdream engine at €18,650. The C3 Picasso was launched in the United Kingdom on 9 April 2009, where it went on sale for £11,495 for the 1.4-litre VTi, the most basic model with 6.4 L/100 km; 37 mpg‑US (44 mpg‑imp), while the most expensive was the 'Exclusive' with a 1.6-litre HDi engine and 4.6 L/100 km; 52 mpg‑US (62 mpg‑imp) at £15,595."
• "As bonus, it came equipped with £1,000 of extras and was released..."
• "..comes with a free white Samsung Galaxy Tab 16 GB.."
• "...the least expensive being the Attraction with a 95 bhp (71 kW; 96 PS) VTi engine at €12,250 and the most expensive being the Exclusive with a 115 bhp (86 kW; 117 PS) HDi engine at €18,475."
• "In September 2010, Citroën do Brasil launched the Citroën C3 Aircross in Brazil and Argentina. The car is a C3 Picasso-based mini SUV with styling differences including: raised suspension, chrome roof bars and mirror covers, side skirts, and a rear spare tyre." isn't sourced

Prose is fine in my opinion. Self-published sourcing, I believe, is okay every once in a while. But this article excessively uses it, as well as some unreliable sources.  750h+ | Talk  10:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's blatant advertising, but I can see where the impression comes from. The prose could be shaped up, especially with regards to writing the WP:LEAD as a summary. CMD (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blatant, a lot of the content just feels more catalog-ish than encyclopedic, I think.  750h+ | Talk  06:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment but didn't reply because i thought it was ridiculously arrogant and hostile for a public forum. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenova, I then apologise if I've used an aggressive tone and will try to keep it mild for the rest of this conversation. I'm not actually trying to sound arrogant or hostile, but if is to you, then I will milden my tone.  750h+ | Talk  10:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that doesn't seem to have aged well at all. I don't think it's worth mentioning that it came with a free tablet for example. Not sure how that was ever worth mentioning. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h+, do you intend to remove the material you find objectionable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this. I'm not the main editor of this page and I'm not particularly interested in this car either, so probably not, but maybe in the far future. I'd be willing to stay and watch the page's issues get rectified though. 750h+ 15:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple passages missing citations. Several existing citations are missing page numbers. I am not convinced that "Southern Railway E-mail Group" is a reliable source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a CCI request that includes as evidence some diffs leading up to this article's original GA promotion. It appears that widespread copyright issues were introduced at that time and unfortunately not caught, with the result that the present article includes some direct and some derivative copyvio from multiple sources. Examples:

• Current article: "The university is governed by 24 trustees, customarily including the president, who serves ex officio. The trustees themselves are responsible for choosing their successors. Six of the 24 are nominated from a pool of candidates recommended by the Columbia Alumni Association. Another six are nominated by the board in consultation with the executive committee of the University Senate. The remaining 12, including the president, are nominated by the trustees themselves through their internal processes. The term of office for trustees is six years. Generally, they serve for no more than two consecutive terms. The trustees appoint the president and other senior administrative officers of the university, and review and confirm faculty appointments as required. They determine the university's financial and investment policies, authorize the budget, supervise the endowment, direct the management of the university's real estate and other assets, and otherwise oversee the administration and management of the university."
  • Source: "The University is governed by 24 Trustees, customarily including the President, who serves ex officio. The Trustees themselves are responsible for choosing their successors. Six of the 24 are nominated from a pool of candidates recommended by the Columbia Alumni Association. Another six are nominated by the Board in consultation with the Executive Committee of the University Senate. The remaining 12, including the President, are nominated by the Trustees themselves through their internal processes. The term of office for Trustees is six years. Generally, they serve for no more than two consecutive terms. The Trustees appoint the President and other senior administrative officers of the University, and review and confirm faculty appointments as required. They determine the University’s financial and investment policies, authorize the budget, supervise the endowment, direct the management of the University’s real estate and other assets, and otherwise oversee the administration and management of the University."
• Current article: "McKim, Mead & White invited French to build the sculpture in order to harmonize with the larger composition of the court and library in the center of the campus. Draped in an academic gown, the female figure of Alma Mater wears a crown of laurels and sits on a throne. The scroll-like arms of the throne end in lamps, representing sapientia and doctrina. A book signifying knowledge, balances on her lap, and an owl, the attribute of wisdom, is hidden in the folds of her gown. Her right hand holds a scepter composed of four sprays of wheat, terminating with a crown of King's College which refers to Columbia's origin as a royal charter institution in 1754. A local actress named Mary Lawton was said to have posed for parts of the sculpture. The statue was dedicated on September 23, 1903, as a gift of Mr. & Mrs. Robert Goelet, and was originally covered in golden leaf. During the Columbia University protests of 1968 a bomb damaged the sculpture, but it has since been repaired".
  • Source: "Draped in an academic gown, the female figure of Alma Mater wears a crown of laurels and sits on a throne. The scroll-like arms of the throne end in lamps, representing Doctrina and Sapientia. A book signifying knowledge, balances on her lap, and an owl, the attribute of wisdom, is seen in the folds of the gown. Her right hand holds a scepter composed of four sprays of wheat, terminating with a crown of King's College which refers to Columbia's orgin as a Royalist institution in 1754.... Architect of the Low Library, Charles Follen McKim of the firm McKim, Mead & White, invited French to execute this sculpture which was to harmonize with his larger composition of the court and library. The base was designed by McKim, Mead & White. The sculpture was a gift of Mr. & Mrs. Robert Goelet, Jr. Originally, the sculpture was coated with gold leaf. During a student demonstration in 1968, a bomb damaged the sculpture, but it has since been repaired. The actress Mary Lawton was said to have posed for parts of the of the sculpture."
• Current article: "With a design inspired by the City Beautiful movement, the steps of Low Library provides Columbia University and Barnard College students, faculty, and staff with a comfortable outdoor platform and space for informal gatherings, events, and ceremonies. McKim's classical facade epitomizes late 19th-century new-classical designs, with its columns and portico marking the entrance to an important structure."
  • Source: "With a design inspired by the City Beautiful movement, the steps of McKim, Mead, and White's Low Library provides Columbia university and Barnard College students, faculty, and staff with a comfortable and spacious outdoor platform and space for informal gatherings, events, and ceremonies. McKim's classical; facade epitomizes late 19th century new-classical designs, with its columns and portico marking the entrance to an important structure."
• Current article: "The InterGreek Council is the self-governing student organization that provides guidelines and support to its member organizations within each of the three councils at Columbia, the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, and Multicultural Greek Council. The three council presidents bring their affiliated chapters together once a month to meet as one Greek community. The InterGreek Council meetings provide opportunity for member organizations to learn from each other, work together and advocate for community needs."
  • Source: "The InterGreek Council (IGC) is the self-governing student organization that provides guidelines and support to its member organizations within each of the three councils at Columbia, the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, and Multicultural Greek Council. The three council presidents bring their affiliated chapters together once a month to meet as one Greek community. The InterGreek Council meetings provide opportunity for member organizations to learn from each other, work together and advocate for community needs."

Etc. It also appears that there may have been some copyvio predating the GA run, particularly in the history section compared to this archive. I do have other concerns wrt the GA criteria, but the copyvio issue will require a significant rewrite anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nominator. Article has a significant amount of plagiarism/copyvios, failing GACR 2d. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:03, 30 April 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) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 promotion has a number of uncited passages, severe sandwiching throughout the article, and a lead of insufficient length to summarize the body of the article. I also question the relevance of the schedule table which seems like excessive and inappropriate detail to me. One might also expect some basic detail on Amtrak's version of the train; the current article says almost nothing about it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've axed the schedule table. I have no comment on the other points raised, which do seem valid. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No improvement; has two citation needed tags and an SPS tag. Closing as delist. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13 years since original review, now contains self-published/unreliable citations which I've removed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So are the issues resolved Traumnovelle? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citations, not the content. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No comments or improvement in two weeks; closing as delist Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

promoted in 2008. among other things, cites imdb and amazon, and has out of place sentences like The American director Steven Soderbergh is regarded as a fan of the film and one of the more fantastical elements of science fiction is central to the film. ltbdl (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article is uncited, including the entire "Wartime service" section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There was just a GA reassessment in 2022. @Redrose64 and Whiteguru: Do you have any thoughts or input on this? SnowFire (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is a GA reassessment, and Talk:LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3/GA1 is also a GA reassessment, why are their names so different? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whiteguru used the individual reassessment process, which is now deprecated. Beats me if that was the right location for an individual reassessment. But I don't think GAR page location is the most relevant concern here anyway - do you have any comment on the quality of the article? SnowFire (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist; sourcing issues and shouldn't've been kept in 2022. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: There seems to be consensus that the article does not cover essential aspects of the character in enough detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive usage of primary sources, aritcle isn't broad in coverage (lacking scholar sources, copy the article like Slender Man), unsourced statements, lack of Folkloric qualities or reception section, and the usage of some unreliable sources in the concept/creation section like Youtube and Reddit and primary sources in the popular culture section. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

1. Excessive use of primary sources? Are you referring to the plot section being sourced to the films? If you're referring to interview books and documentaries, they would be the best sources for information pertaining to the creation of the actual character.

2. Broad coverage is defined as "main aspects of the topic". The main aspect of the topic would be the creation of the character and his impact on popular culture. The article covers those (the former in great depth). This is a GA article, not an FA article. The criteria for "broad" certainly didn't change between 2008 and now. What I can tell you from going through the history is that sometimes in 2009 some IP vandal successfully deleted a huge section of information and it was never caught.

3. What unsourced statements? The only unsourced part of the article is in the plot section, and it isn't technically required to have an in-line citation for a film summary. It's a fixable issue.

4. Lack of folkloric qualities and reception? I don't know what you mean by folkloric qualities. Michael is a film character, not an urban legend.

5. Youtube and Reddit were used for one source as confirmation of a Halloween film appearing in another film. the entire thing is removed because it's not relevant. That was a single instance for both Youtube and Reddit (as it was the same source). Your statement makes it seem like the article was riddled with the use of Youtube/Reddit pages.

If you're going to request a reassessment, you need to provide more specific issues and not vague statements that force people to guess at what you're referring to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that my statement is kinda exaggerating, I'll redo again. Oh btw, I already raised my concern here [12] before, so I wouldn't even know that the IP removed a lot of content way back from 2009. So, if this article wasn't sent out to GAR does it mean that the content will never be restored? This is the problem with some Old GA articles being forgotten. I also disagree with "the criteria for broad certainly didn't change between 2008 and now", the article easily passed the GA process before unlike now. There are some sources doesn't have author's name that should be implemented. ref51, ref53 ,ref55, ref56, ref58 sources should be replaced into reliable, ref 57 dead source, and instead of using unreliable source like ref61 just remove it and add other merchandise instead with these sources [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. There are some recent sources that could potentially expand the article [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and maybe this two also? [25] [26] Note: I understand your frustration, but I'm not here just to destroy the GA icon. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ There were no mentions about the novelizations of Halloween: The Official Movie Novelization (2018), Taking Shape: Developing Halloween from Script to Scream (2019) and Halloween 3 - “Where the Hell is Michael Myers?”: A definitive history of horror’s most misunderstood film (2022). The lead should also be updated + the infobox image rationale should be improved. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 05:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue there are several statements in the article that are not backed up by their respective sources. The infobox lists several actors (Chris Durand, Brad Loree, Tyler Mane, etc.) who are not mentioned anywhere in the prose. Other infobox details like his "choice weapon". Some statements such as being seen in a commercial in Halloween III are unsourced. Halloween H20: 20 Years Later says it ignores the events of the first three films, but is that stated on the DVD? There are curious highlighted information about the differences between the novel and the book (i.e: Myere's having an erection) that just cites the book, but if this is a big deal or notable, we should have a source discussing the character variations from the novel and film. Some of the more specific video details sourced to dvds in the creation section have no time stamp, which is kind of expected nowadays in sourcing for this kind of material. The statement "Michael Myers is regarded as one of the most recognizable and most iconic horror villains, alongside..." is cited to just a dozens of "Top 10" or "Best---" lists, which isn't quite stating what the sources say. All the trivial mentions of him appearing on tv shows that cite the show itself are basically trivial and feels like a bulleted list written out as prose (Michael Myers is seen in this show. He's also been sold as prop from Spirit of Halloween. Michael appears in...") we can't list every piece of outside media citing Michael, so why hunt and choose? I would agree with Greenish Pickle that there is no reception section and it's mostly down to top 10 lists that summarize "oh he's one of the most iconic of all time", which, no matter how many lists you find, doesn't quite state that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at work, but when I have time I'll go through the article line by line and see what's there. I've only monitored the page for basic vandalism (which, obviously, I didn't do a good job of back in 2009) and haven't paid that much attention to what's been added over the years. That said, "broad coverage" is NOT "comprehensive coverage", which is an FA criteria. So, listing things that aren't used in the article doesn't mean that it isn't broad in its coverage. There doesn't need to be a source in the info box for actors that have portrayed the role, as basic IMDB credits have always been accepted for essentially demographic information about a film. Again, I'll go through it line by line to see what doesn't make sense (I'm not sure why someone put anything about an erection in there for example, but random editors will be random editors).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue definitely need sources for material like that. Even going beyond WP:RS and WP:OR, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article." And yeah, this is what I mean by some trivial mentions. I'm not expecting a featured article content as I barely touch those, but based on the information I suggested, if this was being submitted as a good article today, I think it would be close to passing, but its reception section and infobox material would hold it back for me. No rush on getting back to me if you are at work, I'm definitely not in the market to try and say remove the good article status for this article within a day, week, etc. There are just some things we could definitely work on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have been watching this article for a while now, I have noticed that the scope of the article is incomplete. There is not a lot of information going into the creation and the development of the character. I see a lot of information on the people that played him and some characterization that could be associated with the creation of the character. I do agree that there are plenty of sourcing issues and the article is long overdue for an update and expansion.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You said there is NOT a lot of information going into the creation and development of the character? Are we reading the same article? There are 3 rather extensive sections on his creation and development. Not having information from the last 3 films (which is probably on their respective pages...I haven't looked at them), does not mean that there is "not a lot" of information. What sourcing issues? So far, this GAR has been a lot of vague ideas of problems and not real, specific issues. The only sourcing issues that existed that have been pointed out were a deadline (which isn't as relevant because it was a journal article, the link was for ease of access), the use of primary sources to cite an episode of a show (nothing wrong with this, so long as the information isn't an interpretation and in those cases it was not). I think people are confusing "unreliable" with "primary" and thinking that all primary sources are either unreliable or unusable. I would point you all to WP:PRIMARY. The problem that exists is that when you're talking about fictional characters, movies, tv shows, etc. you're going to use a lot more primary sources than a normal article because that's where the real world, behind the scenes information is going to come from. It isn't going to come from secondary sources. Secondary sources would be used for interpretive, analytical information that is being used to support the article. Context is important when it comes to the breakdown of the categories for sources in an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What @Paleface Jack: is saying isn't complicated to understand. There is a ton of information about what actors brought into the role (paragraphs upon paragraphs), but little about what was involved with creating the character from the writers or anyone else involved on the set. You also just said it's lacking information on the last three films. And yes, third-party sources would be interpretive, but that is art and we require more third-party interpretations of the character. There is a ton of material here from the people who made them, but barely anything outside the bubble of people who made it. As for your citing WP:PRIMARY, dont' forget "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents." In short, you need more input from outside sources. The journal link is a good start, but just saying "he's one of the most recognized and iconic horror villains" means nothing when you just cite a bunch of top 10s. These kind of statements need context, and you can add a dozen more "best of" lists, but that doesn't really help much here. How does he fit into the pop culture? Why is he iconic/recognizable? Were there tests done? These part needs a re-buff. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I wad meaning. we have some of the lore but a lot of information going into the creation of the character is absent. I always look to the article on Jason Voorhees as a shining example of how to structure articles like this and have used that as a template for my own contributions. Michael, being the influential slasher villain that he is, there needs to be balance and consistency with how the article is structured and written without going overboard with the information. As to the sources, there are a lot of new sources both literary and web that can be used here. Video and periodical citations are good too if they are reliable enough. As it stands though, the article, I am sad to say, is not GA material as it once was. I am certain though that is will be in the future. just not in into current state.Paleface Jack (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: I am closing this with a consensus to delist. I count three editors in favor of a delist, versus one opposed, and most editors who have weighed in are not convinced that the article has been fully cleansed of close paraphrasing. Let's not get into a WP:FIXLOOP situation here - the article may be renominated for GA status when involved editors are in agreement all copyvio has been removed and any other issues precluding GA status have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During the article's FAC review, it became apparent that the article does not meet all GA criteria: 2c. it contains original research; 2d. it contains copyright violations and plagiarism; and 3a. it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Furthermore, its prose is not clear and concise as a consequence of copyright violations and plagiarism. Although the article could be delisted without further review because it is a long way from meeting criterium 3a, and contains copyright violations, I think giving a last chance for improvement is a better approach. Of course, the article should be cleaned of copyright violations and plagiarism as soon as possible, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 This discussion was closed as delist by Borsoka; I have reverted the close as a WP:NACINV-breaching action which contravened the WP:GAR instructions. I suggest, to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, that Norfolkbigfish attempt to eradicate all plagiarism from the article and ping Borsoka when they feel this is done; if Borsoka feels that the article should still be delisted, they can simply !oppose and their !vote will be taken into account by an uninvolved closer. This will not only avoid excess use of other's time and energy, but will also demonstrate if Norfolkbigfish properly understands the copyright policies, which may be helpful in deciding whether the other articles they have contributed to need immediate reviewing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To begin the process, I copy my remarks from the FAC review page here:

• A general remark on sourcing: more than 30% of the article is verified by references to individual articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Our relevant policy says, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I think the use of a tertiary source goes beyond this boundary, and the rationale beyond the selection of individual encyclopedic articles is unclear. As a consequence of this approach, the article looks like an encyclopedia with individual articles following each other without much connection between them. I am not sure that this method can secure that the movement is presented in WP as it is presented in relevant scholarly literature. Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica?

The Encyclopedia is WP:RS. Where particular facts are insufficient this can be addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the encyclopedia is a reliable source. I have never questioned its reliability. However, we need a coherent encyclopedic article about the crusading movement, not an abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, with individual articles within it. Right now, this article could hardly be regarded more than a collection of individual articles on topics like "Penance and indulgence", "Knights and chivalry", etc. Even the seemingly chronologicaly organised "Evaluation" section is a mostly incoherent mixture of texts from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia (often with texts copied from its articles about indvidual popes). For the time being, the article does not introduce the crusading movement as it is presented in scholarly literature: arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another can hardly be regarded as an encyclopedic article. Therefore, sourcing must be changed radically. Not only because the extensive use of tertiary sources contradicts our relevant policy, but also because editors' task is to present an article's subject as it is presented by scholars writing of the topic. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While an issue for FA, I am not sure this is as important for GA. If 30% of the article is sourced to a tertiary source, 70% is still cited to secondary sources. I am uncertain how an article 70% based off secondary sources can be described as "arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another". Could you please clarify? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no separate policies for FA and GA, we need to meet the same standard. If you review the article, you will find that it is structured around the encyclopedic articles arbitrarily selected from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. These are placed one after another, and all other information is organised around them. The encyclopedic articles form this article's backbone. This contradicts our principal logic: we write articles based on high-quality comprehensive studies, present topics as they are presented in these studies, and in some cases we add some supplementary information citing encyclopedias. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "There are no separate policies for FA and GA, we need to meet the same standard." That is undeniably incorrect, Borsoka; you may wish to acquaint yourself with the GA criteria, the FA criteria, and the difference between them. You have perfectly outlined the reason why this article is not an FA, but over-reliance on tertiary sources is not a reason to remove GA status. Copyright, on the other hand, is. If your next argument is that by "policies" you refer to the formal policies and guidelines, please point to where we write articles based on high-quality comprehensive studies is in WP:CONTENT.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • With regard to secondary and tertiary sources, we do not have separate policies. GA requires reliable sources, FA high-quality reliable sources: The Crusades: An Encyclopedia is without doubt a high-quality reliable source, so it could be cited in a FA, but only in accordance with our relevant policy: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight...". How randomly selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia could provide broad summaries about the whole crusading movement? For instance, the encyclopedic articles "Finance of the Crusades" and "Women" are ignored, although these are two major themes in books about a crusading movement. On the other hand, each encyclopedic article about an individual pope is cited, even his original name is sometimes mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A point on the first sentence, there are 35 citations to the Encyclopedia in this article out of a total of 169, a fraction over 20%. None of these citations are particular contentious and all are written by academics who quote their own sources. There are 41 citations to the Oxford Illustrated, so the the Encyclopedia is not even the most popular source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are more than 169 citations: for instance, citation 2 verifies two statements, citation 12 three statements. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sudden changes in tone and vocabulary and redundant content suggests that significant texts may be closely paraphrased. Has the article been reviewed from this perspective? I have only reviewed about one fifth of the article, but I have found several cases of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can be dealt with on an incident by incident basis. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is an extremly urgent task. For the time being, I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism. I think you know which texts were copied from the cited sources, so you are in the position to solve this problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think the article is eligible for WP:G12 speedy deletion or WP:AFD, you should nominate it there at once Borsoka; as you have kindly pointed out, copyright is a serious issue, so playing around with GA reassessments is like passing the buck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is a serious issue. You may not remember but it was me who first raised it about a week ago during the FAC review. However, I have not reviewed the whole article, so I only assume that it will be deleted due to plagiarism. After reviewing about one third of the article (or rather collection of texts), I need some time for recovery to continue this exceptionally irksome work. Moreover, I would give a chance to the nominator to clear the article, because a version free of plagiarism could be kept. Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Borsoka, the versions of the article you believe are irrevocably tainted will still reside in the page history even if a version free of plagiarism is created, and will need to be WP:REVDELled. As someone who has nominated many pages for CSD, it is easier to nominate now then later. I will not do this myself as I personally believe there is 0% chance of either G12 or revdel deletion, but if you really think it's needed, it is legally proper to do it now and not later; otherwise, you are knowingly cooperating to keep copyrighted material on WP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I am not knowingly cooperating to keep copyrighted material on WP, because I have listed several cases of probable copyright violations during the FAR review. I shared all my knowledge with the community, including yourself. I assume that Norfolkbigfish's other articles, like the House of Lancaster also contain copyvio, because I have more than one time had to remind him to the dangers of plagiarism since the first time we met during a FAC review years ago. Should I review that article as well because of my assumption? Could you quote the relevant policy? If there is an obligation, I will do it but I sincerely hope that Norfolkbigfish will be cooperative and achieve the deletion of versions filled with plagiarism. Sorry, I do not understand the terms "CSD", "G12", and "revdel deletion". Sometimes links are helpful for stupid people like myself. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just for curiosity: if you "felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing" during a previous review[27], why did not you investigate it? When I feel close paraphrasing, I always compare the texts in the article and the cited sources during a review. Borsoka (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did: see Talk:Crusading movement/Archive 2#Recent Edits, a discussion you were very much part of Borsoka. The reason I did not take it further then is that it took place in April 2022, and I had begun to edit WP a couple of months earlier—I was still unsure of many of the finer details. Ignoring the "stupid people"—you are well aware that I think you precisely the opposite—CSD refers to WP:CSD: criteria for speedy deletion, of which one is WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement); if not all versions of the article contain close paraphrasing, we might need WP:REVDEL (revision deletion), where versions in the page history get deleted for copyright infringement.
          • Right now, the close paraphrasing is far less blatant than it was in April 2022, when I provided this link as an entire paragraph which was plagiarised. From what I can see below, the close paraphrasing is now restricted only to sentence fragments—as such, G12 deletion is out of the question. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Borsoka-I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that. Will work through this from the top, line by line, and ping you when complete Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach?

This article is not about the crusades, it is about the crusade movement e.g. the ideology and institutions of crusading. For this reason there is no MILHIST is this article, as suggested by another editor. It is a Latin Church institution.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not suggest that MILHIST should be added. The development of the crusading movement should be presented as it is presented in reliable sources. Right now, readers who consult with this article will not understand why the crusading movement began. The presentation of one single scholar's PoV does not solve this problem (I refer to Latham). Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above named works are narrative histories of the crusades and go on to detail numerous campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is natural that they give background on the political and military situation in the East. This article is a subtly different topic, it is about the institutions and ideology that was developed to support crusading that almost entirely occurred in Western Europe. Bull for one saw no need to mention the Turks in any detail when discussing the Origins of crusading because they weren't relevant. Christian Muslim warfare existed for hundreds of years prior to the crusades and would have continued for years even if the crusades did not exist. By definition the instituition of crusading only came into effect because of reformists within the church. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really say that rhe article's non-encyclopedic sources do not cover the article's topic? Why are they cited? Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited, are cited because they contain valuable information on this article's topic. That does not mean or imply that everything written in them is relevant to this article's topic. Equally, just because information is not included in those works should not be taken to mean or imply that it is not relevant to this topic. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bull's perspective differs from your above summary: "What the Mediterranean theatres of war [between Muslims and Christians] had in common ... was that formerly Christian lands were being wrested from infidel control. Consequently the Holy Land, which had been overrun by the Arabs in the seventh century, was bound to attract the Church's attention sooner or later. ... The perspective of a Mediterranean-wide struggle was visible only to those institutions, in particular the papacy, which had the intelligence networks, grasp of geography, and sense of long historical tradition to take a broad overview of Christendom and its threatened predicament, real or supposed." [Bull (1995), p. 19] Jonathan Riley-Smith - who is the editor of the book to which Bull is a contributor - emphasizes, after mentioning Pope Urban II's call for the First Crusade, that "The crusading movement had begun in the melodramatic fashion which was to be typical of it thereafter. ... Now about 60 years old, [Pope Urban II] had embarked on a year-long journey though southern and central France. The summoning of an expedition to the aid of the Byzantine empire had probably been in his mind for several years and it had been aired at a council held at Piacenza in March which had heard an appeal from the Byzantine (Greek) emperor Alexios for aid against the Turks, who for over two decades had been sweeping through Asia Minor and had almost reached the Bosphorus." [Riley-Smith (1995), pp. 1-3]. We can conclude, there is no book cited in the article that ignores pre-Crusades Muslim-Catholic clashes or the Turks' expansion in the Levant. Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, all this does is rather proves the original point. Rather than an idepth summary of several centuries of military history Bull and Riley-Smith feel only a reference or two is necessary. And only the regarding events during or subsequent to the Gregarian reform. This point remains irrelevent and against consunsus on this article. An aricle that has successfully passed both a GAR and a ACR without a single other editor raising this point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on this article. That a point was not raised during the article's reviews does not indicate that it is not relevant. Bull dedicates about 1 page to both pre-Crusades Muslim-Christian conflicts and the Gregorian Reforms. Again, the article should present the movement's background as it is presented in the cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 page on Muslim-Conflicts demonstrates an appropriate weight for this. You have rathered made my point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my above remark again. In a chapter containing nineteen pages, one page is quite significant, or at least as significant as the one page about the Gregorian Reforms in the same chapter. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather 1 page in a book of 436? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not counted the pages about pre-Crusades conflicts between Muslims and Christians, but there are at least two pages in two chapters. The Gregorian reforms are mentioned also on two pages in the book, according to the Index. If you think pre-Crusades conflicts can be ignored, you should also ignore the Gregorian Reforms. Can we agree that it would be a quite original approach? Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, Riley-Smith in his chapter "The crusading movement" in "War, Peace and World Order" didn't think to mention those pre-Crusades conflict at all. What is novel is you thinking you know more about the subject than he did. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite unusual that you are referring to a source you do not cite in the article. Nevertheless, Riley-Smith neither mentions the Council of Clermont or the Gregorian reform in his chapter. Do you suggest that references to the Council of Clermont or the Gregorian Reform should be deleted from this article? I rather think that he does not refer to the origins of the crusading movement because from the perspective of "War, Peace and World Order in European History" this is irrelevant. No, I am not thinking that I know more about the subject than Riley-Smith does. Above, I quoted a text from his work cited in the article proving that he also emphasises the Turks' invasion of the Byzantine Empire when writing of the beginnings of the crusading movement. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not the case. Riley-Smith emphasises Alexios I Komnenos requests for military support against the Turks, that is not the same. Neither he nor Bull consider the military history of the Levant in the earlier centuries relevant. Whereas the reforms, the reformers and their institutions are mentioned and relevant. It was they who invented the crusading movement, and without them there would have been no movement. Simply put this is covered in sufficient detail. Unless there is something specific that you can identify as missing, but unless I have missed something that is not the case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read more carefully the quote from Riley-Smith's work, it refers also to the decades before the crusades. I have never suggested that you should present the military history of the Levant in this article. However, our readers need a complex background to understand the beginnings of the crusading movement. For instance, Thomas F. Madden, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, goes as far as stating that the Reconquista—the "reconquest" of Iberia from the Muslims—"was the training ground for the theological and moral justification of the crusading movement". (Madden, Thomas F. (2013). The Concise History of the Crusades. Critical Issues in World and International History (Third ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4422-1575-7.)

As you point out Madden makes a good point. I would add this to the Christianity & War section, but I am using the First Edition and it doesn't seem to be there (or a page 4 for that matter). Does he make the smae point anywhere else? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote is from one of the last paragraphs of section "Holy War". I think Madden's PoV nicely fits into a Background section. Right now, the article does not distinguishes developments occurring before the beginnings of the movement, and features of the movement itself. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, thank you, agree and added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article's structure is diffuse, and seemingly lacks any detectable logic: several elements of the flourishing crusading movement are mentioned in section "Background". (For instance, why are the military orders or the development of the crusading ideology in the 13th century mentioned in this section?)

These are cross topic themes, a narrative structure would mean that detailed commentary would be lost.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say that we should follow a narrative structure (even if the article, incoherently, follows it in section "Evolution"). I only said that background to the crusading movement should clearly be differentiated from its features, elements and consequences. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The use of Background seems to cause some confusion, I will amend to Features as you suggest. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, a major restructuring is needed, but without a background one could hardly understand the development of the movement. However, I suggest you should concentrate now on copyright issues. Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Another nonsensical point. Structure is only a perceived issue to you. Consensus, GAR and ACR indicate that it makes sense to a consensus of editors and reviewers. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the principal problems is that the "article" is actually a poorly edited, extremely abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. One can delete subsections from the article without having an effect on any other (sub)section. This is not an encyclopedic article but a collection of individual encyclopedic articles. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is you and only you who is making this point. Almost by definition PoV pushing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop this approach. It leads nowhere. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Godtres, Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67, and Donner60: as Norfolkbigfish is always referring to your reviews, I would be grateful if you could share your thoughts especially about two issues: 1. I think the article ignores several important aspects of the crusading movement (especially its background, but also important elements of the flourishing crusading movement, such as finances, women, arts, etc.) 2. I think the article is diffuse, its structure reminds me an encyclopedia with subsections as equivalents of encyclopedic articles that follow each other without any connection between most of them. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that at least is progress. What exactly do you think is missing regarding finance, women & the arts? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearing the article from plagiarism would be a progress. All other issues are less relevant for the time being. I think the article should summarise the principal points of the movement as it is presented in its sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is wip, thank you for pointing that out. The article pretty much matches Riley-Smith's view of the subject, as his definition of a crusade is now pretty much universally accepted it would be fair to say that the pricipal points are presented. The topic is, as it has always been the crusading movement. Not the crusades, not Muslim/Christian relations in the 7th/8th/9th/10th centuries, not the Orthodox church and not campaigns in the Eastern Mediterrean or anywhere else for that matter. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To which works by Riley-Smith are you referring? Interestingly, in his work cited in the article (What were the Crusades?) he mentions both pre-Crusades conflicts between Muslims and Christians, and the Turks' advance in Anatolia. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am referring to Riley-Smith's essay titled "The Crusading Movement", it is the Further Reading. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read my answer to your similar remark above: [28]. Borsoka (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In most cases, the article does not explain the events, but mentions facts or PoVs without making clear the connection between them, or providing our readers with a coherent (or incoherent) story: "Pope X said this, Pope Y told that, and Pope Z said another thing, etc".

This article is about the ideology and institutions. As such PoVs are key, as are facts. The facts relate to changes to this. The events mentioned here are probably outside the scope of the topic.

• Yes, but ideologies and institutions rarely develop ex nihilio. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The article contains original research and original synthesis. Several examples can be found in the "Specific remarks" section. Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, this is unintentional and can be remediated as part of the review. Nothing here is WP:OR, everything comes from academic writing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say you had intentionally filled the article with original research. I only referred to the fact that it (or at least its first major section) is filled with sentences that are not verified by the cited source or cobtradict it. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything in the article has come from WP:RS Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, quite often word by word. However, also quite often the sentences do not reflect the cited source, sometimes because you failed to copy an important word from the cited book or encyclopedic article. Many examples are listed below. Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have to call for a delisting of this article. If the issues were only editorial, I'd be willing to give time for those to be addressed (FARs—as a similar example—go on months!); there's no deadline after all. The issue that demands immediate attention is the copyright/close para issue, one which not only negatively impacts other policies such as WP:N (also itself a pillar), but has legal implications. While G12 may not apply (i.e., when there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety, and maybe revert to an earlier version), #2 of WP:QF is clear that if It contains copyright violations it will be discounted. Multiple editors have established these issues. So: if this was a new nomination, it would literally never get off the starting blocks.
  Revert to last version and let more recent stuff be revdel'd? ——Serial Number 54129 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am working through all raised incident at present. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume the older versions contain even more plagiarism. AirshipJungleman29 mentioned at the beginning of the FAC review that "I believe that the last time I looked at this article, I felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing. I do hope that issue has been adequately looked at and resolved—because that of course is a reviewing dealbreaker." ([29]). Norfolkbigfish answered that "I remember, this has been rewritten repeatedly since then so I am expecting/hoping this is no longer an issue." [30]. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Borsoka: I don't care where the bloody thing was put in, only that if there is a relatively clean version—and frankly, since it's from 2003, it's almost impossible that there isn't, even if it's only a stub—going back a few years, the GOCE did a copy edit—then we revert to that and then revdel delete. I mean, there must have been a time when there was minimal plagiarism unless it's been overlooked for 20 years. Or is it being suggested that NBF was responsible for their insertion when he augmented the article? I note, you see, that a previous FAC failed promotion over much the same problems(the source reviewer stated, the article needs a complete source check ... Too many issues I found with things not matching what they were sourced to. Mind ye, that had been resolved to the point of promotion six months later (non obstante, though, that it never got the source-integrity spot-check Ian Rose asked for...) ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think only Norfolkbigfish knows when he began copying texts from the cited sources. I have not monitored the development of this article for years. Norfolkbigfish's remark here suggests that the article was originally a redirect, which was developed into a separate article on or before 4 October 2020. No, I did not see the FAC review of House of Lancaster (sorry, Plantagenet). I referred to this article because I know from one of his remarks (saying that his article is one of the best WP articles about a dynasty, or similar), that he developed it. Based on my experiences, I would not be surprised that it would also contain plagiarism but I would not like to review it. Borsoka (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Borsoka, I see... On 4 Oct 2020 NBF moved a chunk of Crusades, wholesale, to Crusading, which was itself then moved by Srnec to the current title. Concerns re. CP and atribution were apparent even before then, which of course NBF was also a primary contributor too. Thanks again, ——Serial Number 54129 17:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • The earlier comments to which I referred at FAC can be found at this diff, and the links therein, from April 2022, when the close paraphrasing was far more blatant than it is now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am in the process of redrafting again, any remaining close paraphrasing, of which it is only now fragments of sentences, will be excised as part of this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Norfolkbigfish has continually insisted that plagiarism has been resolved, but as demonstrated on the talk page, substantial plagiarism still exists. I am too involved to close this as I normally do for GARs, so I might as well !vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist In addition to plagiarism (GA 2d), the article contains unverified claims (GA 2c.), does not address the main aspects of the topic (GA 3a), and the article's reliance on specific scholar's views remained unverified (GA 4). My detailed arguments are listed above. Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per Borsoka's forensic analysis. ——Serial Number 54129 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• List on the basis that all issues identified have been addressed, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For the time being, let's forget other issues than blatant plagiarism. Do you guarantee that you cleaned the text of plagiarism? Borsoka (talk)

• I detected new cases of plagiarism in two further short sections of the article. I think the article should as soon as possible be delisted and restored into the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish filled it with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All now addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: this is not going anywhere, and I am too involved to close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not going anywhere because it is a particularly malformed GAR. Nominated, flooded with comment by the nominator who has a history of trying to get the article deleted, and then even closed by that nominator. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a helpful comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Consensus to delist. Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 addition has 5 citation needed templates. I am also concerned on the broadness of the article; currently it is like a summary of the directives, no history of how it was created or necessary background information, updates to the directives throughout the years, etc. Spinixster (trout me!) 10:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist as overwhelmingly primary sourced. There's maybe three trivial secondary sources used inline currently? SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 6 May 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) 02:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007, and hasn't been reviewed at all since 2008. Has many citations needed tags as well as other tags as well (I see some better source needed and failed verification tags as well), and some sections need lots of work (e.g. Colors and crest and Player of the Year award winners). JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delistation of article

48JCL 17:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. CMD (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]