Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 80

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been tagged as needing GAR since July. It was originally promoted in 2008. There are four maintenance tags on the article (excessive self-published sources, academic boosterism, promotional tone, and excessive detail), apparently each added by a different editor. Two editors have also agreed on the talk page that GAR is needed. From my own cursory review, I've found a handful of uncited paragraphs and a number of page needed tags. I have not gone through the article exhaustively, but the concerns raised appear reasonable, so I am bringing this to GAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also notifying @Epicgenius and Czarking0: who expressed support for GAR on the talk page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tag. I support further investigation in GAR and thank you for bringing it forward. I have occupied with other tings at the moment so I probably will not be able to give this the attention it needs Czarking0 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - Yikes, just yikes. I don't think further comment is needed. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: major PoV issues. I'm particularly struck by the description of the Gunpowder Plot as a "controversial event". I would also strongly suspect that parts of the article are out of date, especially that about taking ten GCSEs as standard, which is cited to a 2008 source and is definitely not the norm nowadays, even in elite academic private schools. Other prose and MoS issues throughout, which would be a problem at GAN. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:52, 7 October 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) 21:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very old promotion, back from 2006 when reviewing was just replacing the GAN template with the GA one without comment [2] and last reassessed in 2008. Significant portions of the article are uncited, and the phrase "equal to $339,111 today" is likely already outdated. The article also includes an "as of 2006" statement and multiple citations to self-published railfan pages that don't meet the standards for GA. Disappointingly, even though an entire book was written about this train, it is only in the further reading section and not cited at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited statements. The history section stops at 1966 and needs to mention recent events. The lede needs to mention information about the history of the location. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I relied almost exclusively on Blank's book when I started this article 18 years ago. The local library has a non-circulating copy, so I can look in it to provide citations for a lot of things. I may be able to gain access to The Book of Key Biscayne by Jim Woodman, although I suspect Blank used it as a source. Donald Albury 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to recent history. Crandon Park and the Village of Key Biscayne were created in the mid-20th century and the Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park was created in 1966, and most of the history of Key Biscayne since then has really been about one of those entities and not the island as a whole. There may be a few events that affected the island as a whole, but Hurricane Andrew is the only one I can think of off hand. There may be something to say about how changes to the Rickenbacker Causeway and Crandon Boulevard have affected access to the island, but events on Virginia Key and along the causeway itself are not part of the history of the island. Donald Albury 13:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably worth mentioning the incorporation of the eponymous municipality as that seems a major event for the island, and some although not all of the municipal history, as this would be in keeping with the existing text in History which does cover the inhabitants and various demographic and infrastructure developments. I also wonder if there is something more to add regarding sea level rise giving the mentioned low elevation, but at a quick look I couldn't find anything not focused on the municipality. CMD (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article mentions the beginning of the housing devekopment that led to the incorporation, but does stop too soon. Some more about the creation of Crandon Park could also be added, comparable to the coverage of the creation of the state park.

A quick Google search found a number of news items focused on the effects of sea level rise on the municipality, more or less ignoring the rest of the island. Google Scholar results are rather sparse on articles about contemporary sea level rise at Key Biscayne.

My todo list keeps growing as I (temporarily) set aside articles I'm working on to deal with the next thing that comes along. Maybe I will get to the library this week to look at the Blank book. Donald Albury 13:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sea level rise does seem to be either municipal level or Miami-Dade level, up to your editorial call as to whether and how it could be included in the article. CMD (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added page numbers to a couple of cites, and added cites for what I could find in the Blank book. I also rewrote a couple of small bits after reviewing the Blank book. There are still things I haven't found a source for, and parts of the article should be rewriten. Donald Albury 22:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Albury, do you still intend to improve this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I hope to work more on it sometime, but I don't know when that will be. Don't hold off on any action waiting for me. Donald Albury 00:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources and have several uncited statements. Real4jyy (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose delisting the Spider-Man article from "Good Article" status due to several important issues. Many sections lack proper references, and some have no citations at all, which affects the article's reliability. It also needs updates to include recent developments in the Spider-Man franchise. Additionally, the article is too long and would benefit from trimming or splitting into shorter sections. It also contains unnecessary trivia and original research that detract from its quality. For these reasons, I believe the Spider-Man article should be delisted until these problems are fixed. Lililolol (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: same concerns as above. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Taking into account PI71's comments too, consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some uncited text, including entire paragraphs. There are lots of sources listed in "Further reading" that should be considered included in the article. Pl71 has stated that the "Port State Control" section is too long with irrelevant information, and other examples of WP:OVERKILL. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 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) 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements and paragraphs, particularily in the "Gameplay" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist I am not even sure it passed the criteria when it was listed as a Good Article, or else the criteria were a lot more lax. Either way, it needs a serious revamp to keep being one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: The GA "review" appears to be nothing more than this message that simply approved the nomination without providing any details. More than 17 years later, the "Gameplay" section is lacking sources, and the article's quality is not sufficient for a GA. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements, including almost the entire "Birds" section. At over 9,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends splitting off the article; since this is such a big topic, it might not be possible but should probably be considered after a subject-matter expert tries making this more concise. The "Society and culture" section is underdeveloped, with only one line about its use in food and no information about its use in literature or the arts, especially its use as an allegory. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At over 14,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends summarising, splitting and removing article prose. There are also some uncited statements, particularily in the "Home video" section. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails point 2 of the GA criteria (verifiability) - contains original research (marked with citation needed tags currently, I've tried finding sources for these but failed), plus the vast majority of the sources are primary sources or dubiously reliable (such as the Daily Mirror, which is a tabloid with no consensus for reliability). Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist – Agreed. Far too much reliance on primary sources, missing needed citations, and isn't even up to modern WP:APARKS standards at this point. The editor responsible for its promotion was a cornerstone of our project nearly 15 years ago in its early days but may have passed on unfortunately.  :( --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 GA has 8 citation needed templates; unsourced statements notably include entire paragraphs and parts of the Notable employees and executives section. Some book sources are also missing page numbers. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I checked the source for one statement I knew to be incorrect, and the source failed to verify two key aspects of the statement. Added a tag to it. This false statement and non-verified source were present in the article during the GA review 14 years ago. Given the error, I will likely go through and spot check some more sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:12, 4 October 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) 15:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant portions of this 2007 promotion are uncited. Standards were different back then, as some of the uncited content present today also lacked citations at the time of promotion. An effort would be required to cite the rest of this article to avoid delisting. Unfortunately, the primary authors of this article are long since retired. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several uncited statements and "citation needed" tags from 2020. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 18:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has numerous uncited paragraphs, including the entire "Hymn to United Nations" section. At over 9,000 words, WP:TOOBIG suggests that it might be eligible to be trimmed, and the lead (with six paragraphs) might be a good place to start. Z1720 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 18:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has gotten out of hand since 2012 promotion.

• WP:TOOBIG concerns, article is 227,901 bytes and needs some trimming.
• Lots of cases where several sentences in a row begin with "In (year), blah blah happened." over and over, so a copy edit is needed.
• "Service Plaza" sub-header has several one-sentence paragraphs and excessive detail, along with more cases of several sentences in a row beginning with "In (year)".
• Had an "in popular culture" section of trivial tangential name-drops, which I snipped out.
• External links seem excessive.
• PA Highways site tagged as unreliable self-published source.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How else are you supposed to write a history section for a road article? They typically announce things at a specific date, even if they had planned to do it a long time before. Same with the service plaza section. Cfeddse (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You vary the sentence structure and length. When literally every sentence begins with "In (year)..." it's boring and clunky and doesn't flow well. It's a basic rule of writing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited statements and paragraphs throughout the article, some sections are underdeveloped, such as "Production", "Australia", "Ireland" and "Opposition", and the lead does not cover all aspects of the article text. Z1720 (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited: massively.

Small subsections: merged several within 'Marketing and sales', there's easily enough coverage of this side-issue here. Similarly merged within 'Cultural significance'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: needs to be rewritten.

• Oppose

Needs work.

The lead claims that hamburgers are made of minced steak, but in fact they can be made of any minced beef meat.

• It didn't, it said they could be, but I've removed the mention anyway.

The etymology section is factually correct, but confusing and needs to be rewritten.

• ........

It is bizarre to say "Livestock for meat to be used as steak cuts may be raised on a farm or ranch." in the steak article, since this is true for any cut of beef.

• Removed.

"In Asian countries" seems to be referring to East Asia, which is not all of Asia. It isn't clear that beef strips or cubes used for stir-frying should be referred to as steak, anyway.

• Removed.

"In Argentina, steakhouses are referred to as parrillas" is at best misleading, since parrillas serve many kinds of roasted meat.

• Removed; it had been properly sourced but may have been a partial paraphrase.

"Beefsteak has been categorized into various cuts." is poorly phrased. I think this means "Various cuts of beef are used for steak."

• Fixed.

""Surf and turf", which combines meat and fish, requires more time to prepare." is a strange comment. Doesn't this belong in a section on serving, along with prawn cocktail, steak and Black Forest gateau?

• Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"a beefsteak shaped into a patty to be cooked after being minced" is a strange way to put it. More like "beef may be minced and formed into a patty for cooking".

• Fixed.

I am not sure that hamburger steak, salisbury steak, etc. qualify as steak even though they use the name. --Macrakis (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed.

• Oppose (continued)

When did steak become popular in various places? The current article suffers from extreme presentism. The "steakhouse" section mentions chophouses (good) but not how they relate to steakhouses.

The Delmonico steak section directly contradicts the Delmonico steak article. Here, it is a "method of preparation" prepared Delmonico style (never defined), while there it is explicitly defined as a "cut, not its preparation". Which is it? Do we have any WP:RS?

"Hundreds of restaurants specialize in serving steak" -- where did this number come from? Does it refer to some particular geography? There are probably tens of thousands in the US.

The article lurches from one subject to another without a clear organization. --Macrakis (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More...

Where is bistecca alla fiorentina? Apparently introduced by Brits into Italy in the 19th century.

Where is steak-frites?

The mushroom steak comment in the lead footnotes a recipe, which is not an RS. The body section is a bit better, but not much. What exactly makes something a steak alternative?

What is "chicken fried chicken"? It isn't discussed in the chicken-fried steak article that the Chicken steak section refers to.

Why are hip steak, shoulder blade steak, and chuck steak covered under Chicken steak? This is apparently a nickname for a chuck steak (??).

--Macrakis (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist: Yeah, you're right, it's a crock. It reads as a right-wing tirade, almost a manifesto, gleefully ignoring balance and what the author(s) presumably felt were totally pointless and irrelevant conventions of citing sources or neutrality, in favour of a wholly point-of-view celebration of cutting slices of red meat directly from living cattle. The article doesn't need a bit of cleaning up: it needs deleting and rewriting from scratch. The sooner the misapplied GA is removed, the better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Agree with the delist, although I didn't "smell" the right-wing tirade-ness of it. It mostly feels like a WP:OR brain dump, "stuff I know about steak and while I'm at it beef in general". --Macrakis (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Several paragraphs are one or two sentences long and should be combined. Several sections are too long and should be summarised more effectively or broken up with headings. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The sections on her charitable involvement and portrayals in popular culture both look particularly bitty and could do with rewriting. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text, including entire sections and notes. "Iconography" suffers from oversection, and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean re oversection; will take a look at condensing the TOC. There are also way too many images. Ceoil (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rate this article at Best a B. For one thing it is twice a long as it should be for an artifact which is not all that notable. A lot of text duplicates facts in other articles like Art of Mesopotamia. I would delete the Geopolitical context entirely. To get back on track, no it is not GA caliber. PS I suspect that the mystery "Pauline Albenda (1970)" actually is "[3]Albenda, Pauline. "The Burney Relief Reconsidered." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 2.2, pp. 87-93, 1969" Ploversegg (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To note have removed the "Geopolitical context" sect and condensed the "Iconography" sect. No opinion yet on wheather it is B class vs GA, but this review at least gives an opportunity to get eyes on improving the page. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, still several unsourced statements. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several uncited statements, and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify where you think it is undersourced? There are citations on virtually every paragraph and I only see one citation needed tag. meamemg (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meamemg: I added cn tags for the paragraphs that need additional citations. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is eligible for a {{primary sources}} cleanup tag. Needs a rewrite based on independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@meamemg, do you intend to keep working on this? Thanks (please  mention me on reply) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is a lot of uncited text, and not much information about his recent work. The music career stops at 2019, the personal life stops at 2020, and there are gaps of several years of information. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria:

3.a) As a lot has changed since 2010 I think the article no longer properly addresses the main aspects of the topic. In particular the topic has become far more political. I mentioned this again on the talk page last month https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Talk:Forestry_in_the_United_Kingdom#Important_info_is_missing_I_think but there is still very little about politics in the article. There are plenty of sources - for example https://www.forestryjournal.co.uk/news/politics/ and it has been a couple of months now since the new government appointed a minister https://www.charteredforesters.org/uk-government-appoints-new-minister-for-forestry

Also the article does not have enough content on Northern Ireland (possible sources https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/information-and-services/forests/public-forests-northern-ireland https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/forestry-in-northern-ireland-facing-uncertain-future/), and there are some cleanup tags and reference errors which have been there for a while now. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I seem to have unwatched this article by accident. I certainly didn't mean to. I was therefore unaware of the maintenance tags and talk page commentary, and I haven't satisfied the tagger's demands. I would however note that if changes are needed and sources exist, then the edit button is available... Otherwise I'll get to this in due course.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not going to edit this myself as I am busy with Forests in Turkey. But I don’t think there is any rush. Maybe people who are out walking in the woods now will take this up once winter storms force them inside. I have notified some other editors but if you know any more who might be interested please let them know. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping! I'm coming at this from a botanical rather than commercial forestry angle. The tree list is of uncertain value as it stands at the moment, as a lot of the trees on it (including many of the native species) are not of commercial forestry significance, being little more than shrubs and/or very rare (e.g. the native whitebeams, many of the willows), or only of horticultural interest; but there are also a few species used in forestry that are not included and should be added. I'd recommend changing the order to ! Scientific name !! Common name !! as it makes maintenance easier (the option of sorting to sci name is how found a duplicate in the list just now). The 'Period' is also of limited value, but if wanted, much more precise introduction dates are known for most introduced species; I can add them if need be. I'd also suggest changing the lead photo from Epping Forest (basically, a public park, not a commercial forestry site); perhaps something like File:Timber harvesting in Kielder Forest.JPG which shows more what 'real' forestry is like, and with forestry work in progress - MPF (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPF As there is already an article List of trees of Great Britain and Ireland perhaps we should just delete the list in this article to avoid duplication? If this article needs a list it could maybe excerpt the list article? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've replaced the lead image as suggested, obviously an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly worth considering, though that list does not include several commercially important forestry species that happen not to be widely naturalised in Britain - MPF (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would we avoid duplication?—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To make the list easier to maintain if new species entered the UK, for example those better able to tolerate climate change Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah! Well, this is why we have WP:LST. It's a relatively new feature which we used extensively in articles about the COVID-19 pandemic, so we could update the case numbers once and propagate that information to lots of articles. I would suggest that we convert List of trees of Great Britain and Ireland into one or more sortable wikitables, then merge the lists, and then use the LST feature to selectively transclude the commercial forestry species. That way we only have to maintain one list but we can display a complete set of information everywhere we need to!—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  S Marshall, do you still intend to rework this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but I won't be able to do so in a short timescale.—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then in that case (and without prejudice to your reworking the lists one day), I'll just remove the list of tree species now, a link to the other article is enough to be going on with as it enables readers to find the information at one click. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What timescale do you have in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry -- I have no idea when I'll get to it.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of uncited passages, including entire paragraphs. The sources listed in "Further reading" might be helpful for adding inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There a lot of uncited prose, including entire paragraphs. The "Mental health" section relies too much on block quotes and these should be summarised or reduced. There are lots of sources in the "Further reading" section that can be used for the uncited prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous uncited statements in the article, the lede is too short and does not contain information on all major aspects of the article, and a talk page issue about the lack of information about the reception of Dani's scholarship has gone unaddressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - My concerns — raised over a couple of years ago — remain unaddressed. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist It appears that even the GA version wasn’t fully prepared for that GA status, as it lacked proper sourcing. I’m surprised a bio was elevated to GA status while still containing WP:OR. Better late than never, though! This should be downgrade now unless someone wants to help fix it up and get it re-reviewed. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural delisting – the article has been merged per consensus at Talk:Hurricane Rick (1985)#Merge proposal. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 GA has many unsourced statements (i.e. DVD extras, parts of the Media section and parts of the Differences section.). I also doubt the article has been appropriately covered, with little information on reception or viewership; expansion is definitely needed on that front. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited text, including entire paragraphs and statements attributed to people without citations. The lead could also use an update for formatting. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I might be able to help with this. I haven't been involved with the page previously, so far as I can remember. Some immediate thoughts I have are:
  • Is it right that the page should attempt to cover both the historical person and the Shakespearean character? Or are those two separate entities requiring two separate articles? If the latter my worry is that the historical one would be little more than a stub. Is there precedent for this kind of decision?
  • Is there a WP:WEIGHT issue in devoting so much of the article to the character rather than the historical figure? (In this regard I would venture a guess that MUCH more has been said in reliable sources about the fictional Fleance than the historical one.)
  • Is there a WP:WEIGHT issue in devoting so much of the article to Fleance's depiction in films, when he is equally - or moreso - a stage character?
  • I've quite a lot of sources on this so if @Z1720: you can give me an indication of which bits you consider to be unsourced or undersourced, I can start doing some fixing.
• Anyone have any thoughts on any of the above? AndyJones (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyJones: Some answers:

• Probably two separate articles, though if the historical figure is not notable, then it can't get its own article.
• If the article focuses on the Shakespeare character, it doesn't need too much information about the historical figure.
• I don't think the article needs to have too much information about its various depictions, especially since Macbeth has been staged and depicted several times. Instead, it should focus on what academics have said about the character's role in the play.
• I have added cn tags per the GAR. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I'll take a look in the next day or so. Would you (or anyone) have any objection to me removing the whole paragraph beginning "Theatre scholar Marvin Rosenberg theorises..."? No doubt we could reliably source what Rosenberg says from his book. But we cannot reliably source from there that he is wrong, and why, which is what the article currently says, in Wikipedia's own voice. My conclusion is that it's WP:OR, and should go. AndyJones (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I've now acted on this. AndyJones (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  AndyJones, do you intend to continue working on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I'd say probably not in a major way, but I will look through my sources again to see if I have anything which helps to address the issues raised here. If I don't repost here by 28th you can safely assume I concluded I had nothing new to say.

I miss Wrad! AndyJones (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pharmacology" section has had an "update needed" banner since 2015 which does not seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the pharmacology section using more recent sources. Still could use more review articles though. Boghog (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia could I ask for your opinion of the sourcing in this article, if you have the time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has unsourced statements, is missing post-2012 information and the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Put me down as "will maybe work on this". Please delist if I don't come back in a week. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 02:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a lot of uncited statements, including entire sections and paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" section stops at 2002, there are uncited passages throughout the article, and the lead is too short and does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the in-line writing is too casual in tone, and there is still course-catalog content, and laundry lists (clubs). The article, on the whole, is not especially well-written nor is it better than average. My vote is to reassess out of good article status. --Melchior2006 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article hasn't been reassessed in the twelve years after it was nominated and listed for GA. Not only has the article undergone drastic changes, so has Minaj's career and public image as well. The latest section chronicling her Pink Friday 2 era is twelve paragraphs long.. Clearly there's a content issue here with the bloating, although as a novice editor I'm not sure what. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging music editors like @Flabshoe1, SNUGGUMS, MaranoFan, and Ben0006:. Also @PHShanghai: you are one of the main editors to the article so I'm sure you could help. 750h+ 14:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to help but the article is so bloated that most of my editing would be content deletion, (12 paragraphs for one career section is insane) and that is usually frowned upon and might start an edit war. I wouldn't participate, but it has the potential to get messy PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a glance, 12 paragraphs is uncomfortably long for one section on Pink Friday 2. That definitely needs a trim. The "filmography" section on the other hand is glaringly incomplete when not listing even half of her movies. Lots of citations aren't formatted correctly (e.g. AllMusic, Instagram, iTunes, Digital Spy, BBC News, Capital, Catholic League, and Apple Music shouldn't have italics while some refs are missing authors), and I'm not sure it's appropriate to use referral links to albums or mixtapes close to section headers. The article doesn't seem very stable at the moment, and either way I reluctantly say delist the article given the many issues it has, with excess detail just being one of them as outlined above. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements throughout the article. I also do not think the "Acts of heroism under the flag" section is written encyclopedically. Instead, some of it seems like nationalist rhetoric, off-topic, or should be redistributed to other article sections. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At over 13,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed or WP:SPINOUT. There are also uncited sentences in the article, and new information has been added since its GAN which should be formatted more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "History" section, which makes up the vast majority of this article's prose, has not been updated since 2011. Since then, the team has won six championships. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited prose, including uncited paragraphs, in the article. The "Fires" section seems like information about the bridge's history: I think it should be interspersed within the history of the bridge, not given its own section. There doesn't seem to be any post-2016 information. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the statistics are from the 2000s, when this article was promoted, and needs to be updated. There is also some uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 05:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text throughout the article, particularily in the "Opposition" section. The "Opposition" section also seems like an indiscriminate list of events, instead of organised and encyclopedic prose. I think much of this information needs to be summarised more effectively or removed. The lead is too short and does not address all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements, including entire pargaraphs, throughout the article. These have been tagged as such since March 2024. The lead focuses on the controversy and demise of the building, but does not contain much information about its construction or pre-2004 history. I suggest that an additional paragraph be added to include this information. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked the reviewed version back in 2014 which also had significant portions uncited. Some of the wording is also awkward and unencyclopedic. And yeah, it mainly covers its history and very little of the building design itself. I mean, I've worked on a historical monument Singapore Conference Hall which is modelled upon Epicgenius' work on various NYC landmarks.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text, particularly in the "Team colours" section. The lead is quite long for an article of this size, and should probably be shortened to a couple of paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the article, the festival seems to have ended but there is little information as to why, and much of the lead is written in present tense as if the festival is still happening. Is there any post-2015 information about this topic? Per WP:IMDB, IMDB should not be used as a source. These sources should be replaced in the article. There is uncited prose in the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.metroweekly.com/2023/10/norwegian-dream-review-reel-affirmations-2023/ (one film only) (2023)

https://patch.com/virginia/greateralexandria/nova-dc-weekend-events-boo-zoo-fall-harvest-festival-haunts (2023, listed on a calendar of events)

Washington Blade has coverage including:

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2022/10/20/best-of-lgbtq-dc-2022/ (about a personality about whom it is said they have worked behind the event for 15 years) (2022)

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/02/19/reel-affirmations-screens-nora-highland-feb-26/ (about one film only, but shows the event has at least once adopted a "On Demand" format) (2021)

I have seen the unsourced paragraphs but did not edit the page, just adding this to reply to your question. Format seems to have changed and the event to have been drastically reduced; not sure it really ended (no 2024 coverage though). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has over 13,000 words: WP:TOOBIG says that it should probably be trimmed and WP:SPINOUT. There's also some sections that are very long: if after the trim they are still long, I recommend additional headings. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The biggest culprit in my opinion is the extensive discussion of negotiations before the treaty was signed, including somewhere in the realm of 40,000 characters dedicated to efforts before Kennedy took office. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Considerable uncited material remains in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, including entire sections. The article relies on a lot of large block quotes: these should be summarised and reduced when able. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at some of this. I agree that block-quoting the reactions and background material doesn't work. However, I don't see a problem with quoting significantly from the opinion itself. It's an effective summary of a public domain text where the specific language is important. Paraphrasing it risks making the document less useful and potentially less accurate. lethargilistic (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that you follow MOS:Law when evaluating this GA article. As to other comments, the block quotes are limited and appropriate when discussing this legal issue. GregJackP Boomer! 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a GA by current standards, in my opinion. For one, it cites few reliable sources and instead relies mostly on the text of the decision itself. For another, it's rather poorly written and formatted.  White Whirlwind  12:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing primarily to the case in the decision section is well-accepted. Outside of that section, the article cites primarily to other sources. lethargilistic (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, quoting large sections introduces legalise into the article, making it harder for the reader to understand the arguments. If the reader wanted to read the decision, they would have looked up the original text. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be a tertiary source and provide summaries of the decision: if this was a fiction article writing a plot section, I would encourage editors to remove quotes from the piece of fiction and instead summarise the plot. The lack of citations in other sections, including the entire "Legal background" section, has not been addressed yet. Also, the "Media response" section puts a lot of weight on the opinions of three sources, while the subsequent paragraph mentions sources that are only used to state that they reported on the case, without using those sources as inline citations for the information in the article. I suggest that this section be formatted more like the suggestions in WP:RECEPTION: while it is an essay for how to format reception sections for media, it would be helpful for organising and summarising the information in that area more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720:. This isn't a piece of fiction, it's an article on a landmark legal decision by the US Supreme Court. It is completely appropriate to quote a few sentences to show the legal principle decided, especially when you consider the length of the opinion, including any concurrences or dissents. GregJackP Boomer! 04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: It is appropriate to use some quotes from the case, but I think the article relies on quotes too much, as much of the prose is quotes, especially in the "Majority opinion" and "Sotomayor's dissent" sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - You stated that much of the prose is quotes, which is not true. There are just under 6200 words of text in the article, of which only 232 words are in the block quotes, a mere 3.7% of the total. The vast majority of the article is prose. In comparison, in a featured article on a court opinion (United States v. Washington), block quotes make up 3.3% of the total. GregJackP Boomer! 23:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@White whirlwind: Please refer to MOS:Law, which states that for articles on legal opinions can use both primary and secondary sources. Both are reliable sources, and your objection seems to be that their are not sufficient secondary sources. Just under half of the references are reliable secondary sources (20 of 41), and the others are all reliable primary sources (21 of 41). The formatting follows U.S. Supreme Court Style Guide, and is written in the same style as other featured and good articles on SCOTUS cases. I'll defer to others on whether it is poorly written or not. GregJackP Boomer! 04:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Like all niche policies, MOS:LAW is inferior and subservient to general policies such as WP:NOR. NOR specifies that articles should be "based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on ... primary sources."  White Whirlwind  13:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the document as a primary source in the article about that document to make straightforward statements about its content is not OR. WP:NOR says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, ...an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." When WP:NOR says the article ought to rely "to a lesser extent" on primary sources, that means at least half of the references should be to secondary sources (minimum, of course, and I'm aware that that's an essay). In context, that is an expression that the article needs to "establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." (The latter is operative now, obviously.) In this article, the opinion is being cited for its contents and nothing more. Per WP:NOR, where there is no neutrality issue like undue weight, "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents." The article needs at least one more secondary source to get over the minimum by Greg's count, but it's otherwise fine on this point. lethargilistic (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say using a primary source was OR; I said only that NOR requires articles to be based primarily on secondary sources. Moreover, whether it is "straightforward" to summarize a case using itself as a primary source is still up for debate on this site. I have always been on the "no" side of that argument. There are many benefits when editors follow secondary sources' description of cases instead of trying to summarize cases directly: It avoids problems of WP:WEIGHT, it avoids the wide discrepancies in editors' legal training and understanding, and so forth.  White Whirlwind  18:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@White whirlwind: Please provide a cite to a policy that states that MOS:LAW is inferior to WP:NOR, and please point out where in the article that there is original research. GregJackP Boomer! 22:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: NOR is a policy and MOS:LAW is a guideline. WP:PG states, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow" while "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Policy is seen on Wikipedia as superior to guidelines and should be followed except under exceptional circumstances. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - I'm aware of the difference between the two, White whirlwind (talk · contribs) made a statement that asserted that MOS:Law was inferior to WP:NOR, and I'm asking for a cite to a reference that categorically states what he asserted. What you stated here doesn't do that. Neither does WP:NOR really apply to this article, and the sentence he quoted is akin to dicta instead of being on point for the policy he is citing. As lethargilistic (talk · contribs) pointed out, all the article needs is one additional secondary source to be primarily based on secondary sources. GregJackP Boomer! 23:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The categorical fact follows eo ipso from the distinction Z1720 mentioned; WP:NOR is part of the Five Pillars, but the MOS and its subvariants are not. Why any experienced editor would need a cite for that is beyond me. To your second point, I have no idea whether the article currently contains any original research. That is irrelevant here, because neither I nor anyone else (if I understand them correctly) has claimed it does. The provisions of WP:NOR apply to every article on Wikipedia whether they contain original research or not, just like WP:NPOV and the other fundamental policies always apply. Returning to the issue at hand, in its present state this article does not rely on primary sources only "to a lesser extent". That contravenes NOR, and it should be fixed before we allow the article to retain its GA imprimatur.  White Whirlwind  14:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think NOR and MOS/Law are that much in tension, myself. In any case, you said this issue of whether or not a description of a opinion can be primarily cited to the case itself is unsettled and that you have always come down on "No." You have also said that nobody is alleging the article has a problem with original research. I don't see any concrete neutrality/viewpoint problems here, and the subject is indisputably notable, so I think the question is moot because the problem that NOR is trying to address is addressed. So, I don't see why your particular, strong interpretation of this question should control right now, tbh. Like, fine, write articles from scratch with this restriction; I certainly won't stop you. What does this really have to do with Berghuis, an article that only I have been working on in the last week? I reassert that the amount of quotations in the case summary is fine, but I haven't copyedited that section yet. I'm going one or two paragraphs per session. lethargilistic (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying this article must have no cites to the case — although that would be my goal if I were working on it myself. I'm saying it must rely on primary (and tertiary) sources only "to a lesser extent", as WP:NOR prescribes. It doesn't, in its current state. The article relies extensively on the case as a primary source, particularly in the section "The Court's decision". That's the main problem that prevents me from calling it a GA, as I said in my initial comment.  White Whirlwind  15:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't care about the style guide and the guidelines? Are you claiming that a single sentence in WP:NOR, having nothing to do with the policy's focus on original research, trumps the consensus of MOS:LAW? Sorry, I don't buy that approach. GregJackP Boomer! 23:36, 24 October 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) 17:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead contains information that is not in the article body, which makes it very long for an article of this size. This information should be moved to the article body (and properly cited), and the lead should be a summary of the body's contents. There is also uncited text in the article, including an entire paragraph, a "citation needed" tag placed in 2014 that should be resolved, and "Illegal shots and fouls" has an external link in the text: is this a reliable source that can be used as an inline citation, or should it be removed? Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be made viable, but I suspect I wouldn't have the time to do so. I don't really know much about this game. I'll take a look and see what small bits I can do without fully researching. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text throughout the article, and an orange "more citations needed" since 2015. The "Analysis" relies on block quotes, and should instead summarise the information in prose. The article uses citations from IMDB, and the Amazon citations should be evaluated for its inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There are several sources listed in "Further reading" and some sections that are only one paragraph long: this makes me think that the article might not cover all major aspects of the topic, but would appreciate if a subject-matter expert can comment on that concern. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed in the previous topic, this article has accumulated a lot of information that lacks citations. This is less of an issue now than when the issue was first raised, but it is very likely that a lot of the information in the article is out of date as research on the topic moves forward, with a huge swath of literature on nanotechnology that is unaccounted for here. There is also an issue with organization, as the Applications section continues to grow, and some of the information presented under Physical properties ends up being duplicated later on. Reconrabbit 23:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also notifying participants in the previous discussion @Smokefoot and @Z1720. Reconrabbit 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article would just be too much for me. Many or most of the references may not meet our standards. For instance, for this very mature material, WP:SECONDARY is no longer sufficient - one needs to go with books or their equivalent, i.e., WP:TERTIARY. As it stands, the article does give readers a taste of what this material is and what it is used for. So, its in good shape in giving a first impression.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReconRabbit's statement is an excellent analysis of the concerns raised on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 29 October 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) 17:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited passages throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The lead does not mention all major aspects of the article, as it does not outline major events that happened throughout the season. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Issues unaddressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At over 12,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed and information spun off, and I think that should happen with this article. There are also some unsourced statements, and sources in the "Further reading" section that could be incorporated into the article or removed, but these are minor compared to the length concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would you like to see it spun off?★Trekker (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StarTrekker: I am not a subject matter expert, but here are some recommendations:

• The lede can be reduced, especially the third paragraph
• "History" can be spun off or reduced.
• "Influence and legacy" can be reduced

• "Awards and achievements" already has its own article: some of the information could be moved there.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StarTrekker, do you intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 I would not mind contributing if there is a consensus of what to do. I think moving all awards and similar to the specific article is a good idea. A history article seems like a decent idea Imho. A legacy or influence article I could also see being a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have as much time for Wikipedia anymore, but just my two cents since I was very involved in getting this article to GA status the first time around and contributing many sub-articles and content:

• Is there a precedent for spinning off history articles for music groups? Just trying to find a good example.
• A lot of the 2007-present history suffers from recentism and can be truncated and/or moved to other articles like tour & album articles. Sadly, a lot of the tour articles were deleted due to notability disputes and mostly lack of sourcing…this is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed, but it kinda ties in with the main article. Since 2007, the band only released 1 album and the Guitar Hero video game. There was also some band conflict w/ Steven Tyler in 2009-10, the Joey Kramer drama circa 2019-20, several tours, solo endeavors, the Vegas residency, and the scuttled farewell tour. Content should mostly focus on those things, but there’s a lot of fluff that can be pared down.
• Definitely agree a lot of the awards narrative could be moved over to the Awards article. I actually thought the mindset on GA the first time around was to have more of these narrative sections in the main article, instead of just links to sub-articles, but I guess that’s changed.
• Agree on Legacy & Influence sub-article. See above.

Abog (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is precedent for spinning off history articles. Beatlemania and The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show are good examples: events from the history of the band can be spun off if there is enough coverage of the event to warrant an article. Considering the length of the article, this should be considered. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I thought others were suggesting a “History of Aerosmith” article or something to that effect, which I haven’t yet seen with other bands. Definitely makes sense to spin off detailed content into sub-articles. In Aerosmith’s case, I think siphoning off details into the album and tour articles make the most sense. Abog (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 03:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 GA needs to be updated (there seems to be barely any new information after the 2000s, even though with a Google search, there are sources on new exhibitions, its 100th anniversary, and more that could at least be mentioned). Additionally, there are 5 parts needing citations, which I've tagged. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 03:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited passages in the article, including entire sections. There is MOS:OVERSECTION at the end of the "Student life" section. The "Rankings" have a lot of prominence; I suggest trimming. "Fall Enrolled Freshman Statistics (Fall 2022-Fall 2011)" needs to be updated with 2023 and 24 statistics. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Per silent consensus, this article has gone without any improvement, so due to this, I am closing the reassessment as delist. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited prose, including almost the entire "Airport names" section. There are also citation needed tags in the article since January 2020. Z1720 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 It seems that the article has gone for more than 7 days without any improvement and there is no consensus; am I free to close it? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree with the assessment to close, you are free to close, as the consensus seems to be that no one is interested in fixing up this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I guess I will close this as per the silent consensus rule on the GAR page. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. A large percentage of the "Opinion of the Court" section is blockquotes: these should either be reduced or more prose added to this section to contextualise the quotes. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2013. There are uncited paragraphs and the article itself might need to be updated. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. The lead is a little long, and I think it can be shortened and the references removed (if the information is cited in the article body). History.com is used as a reference which is an unreliable source at WP:RS/P. The "Legacy" section over-relies upon block quotes which creates copyright concerns: this should be summarised in prose. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited prose, especially in the "ISAM and Two Fingers (2009–2018)" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 14:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The title of the "Today" section suffers from MOS:CURRENCY, and the prose has lots of short paragraphs that make the prose feel like a list of events. This should be restructured so that the information is organised into longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 14:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains uncited statements, including blockquotes, with citation needed tags dated from 2020 and 2022. The article relies upon two sources as inline citations when there are several sources unused in the Bibliography. Z1720 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist due to the uncited content but I'm not convinced that the unused sources issue is a problem for GA. The breadth of sourcing requirements standard for GA is quite a bit lower than the comparable FA standard. In this case, I think the two sources Z1720 are talking about are a book-length biography by a notable historian (Day) and then the Australian National Biography entry. Those sources are going to be fairly comprehensive about Fisher's life, so a WP:GACR #3a concern for breadth would require specific missing information and the sources covering it in order to be a real problem. Likewise, there hasn't been any claims either here or in the GA concerns posted on the talk page that any of the unused sources are so important as to be a series issue. I think there really needs to be more specific reasoning given when challenging GA status based on unused sources, rather than just the existence of unused sources. There's no requirement to be a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature for GA like there is at FA. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]