Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 71

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues: inline citations missing for certain claims, some sources unreliable or failing WP:V. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, could you be more specific please. It would help in addressing these issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources are incomprehensible if you don't speak Russian, one citation links to a 96-page document in Polish with no detail/quote/page number, the variants section is almost completely unsourced, there are statistics unsourced by inline citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, I agree re the variants section. I think I have fixed two of your other concerns. Could you please be specific as to which material (statistics) give you concern. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The specifications in the infobox need to either be sourced in the body or in the box itself; thanks for your other improvements. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Brief lede, lacks content. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that there is scope for improvement. I have done some editing, including adding some references. I would observe that the volume of content is not a criteria but whether the content is adequate for the subject. It might be useful if any deficiency in content could be identified. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am working on this in my sandbox. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved version in full from my sandbox. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations still need work: some are from unreliable sources such as YouTube, some are inaccessible such as those from olive-drab.com, and some are dubious such as the numerous gun websites; I cannot comment on the reliability of the latter, but I will have to ask for expert opinion if they remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AirshipJungleman29, there are two Youtube videos cited for their visual content only. The first is a cut-away of a Model 12 which clearly shows it has a tilting breechblock. It also show only one slide rail. The second, of a deer combo as supplied by Winchester, with box label and corresponding contents. I would think these are both fit for purpose. Olive Drab is a legacy source which I have retained on face value, in that while it is now dead, it was verifiable. It is used to support that the AR-7 was the first using a rotating bolt and the years that the 1200 was acquired by the army. To the former, that might be removed without detriment to the article (IMHO). There are a number of published sources (google books here) but they cannot be viewed and I do not have access to them. In short, I have tried to do the best I can with what I have. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: I'm not sure about the need for a "non-tornadic impact section" (see the note in 3a of the GA criteria). As no work has been done for three weeks, closing with no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an older outbreak article with several dead links and no non-tornadic impact section. A review is necessary. ChessEric 06:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: The article appears properly cited and 3 dead links, while not ideal, aren't a major issue that would merit a delist on their own in my opinion. Which of the GA criteria do you believe this article fails to meet? Broadness? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I wanted to make sure this article would still meet GA standards. The NWS changed all their links in the mid-2010s and that has left a lot of tornado articles with dead links, so I was just making sure it wasn't a problem. The only thing I think this article needs is a section dedicated to non-tornadic impacts from the storm system. I know this article is about the tornadic supercell that caused the disaster, but I thought that the article could use some more information about what else happened. ChessEric 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, could you leave a notification at WT:WEATHER? Hopefully we can get some input from editors there. Weather is not an area of expertise for me and I'm not familiar with the general standards for weather event articles. I'd imagine someone would know how to resolve those dead links. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok um...how do I do that? ChessEric 20:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} to do so, filling in the article name and the number of the reassessment page (1, in this instance). I added this directly to the GAR instructions template at the top of the GAR page as I realized it was missing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Dead links repaired. @ChessEric: For reference, any storm event that uses the same source can be pulled from the newer NCDC Storm Events Database. Chlod (say hi!) 21:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know that. Thanks! ChessEric 21:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: If the only question is over a subsection heading, I think this can be kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This mostly has to do with updating refs and removing dead ones, but there are also WAY too many sections with too many paragraph breaks. There are also points where it is overly detailed. ChessEric 21:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to bear with me on this as it may take some time to get things up to par. I wrote this almost 14 years ago when I was in a phase of including minute details so it hasn't aged well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! It's alright. We all aren't that good in the beginning and I for one, as you've seen with my recent tornado summaries, have trouble with being too detail-oriented. ChessEric 12:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: Make sure that if you're going to combine tables, please make sure it doesn't mess up the entries on the list page. ChessEric 20:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit and ChessEric: where do you feel this article stands now in relation to the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that its gotten WAY better. The only question I have is why the impacts from Texas to Louisiana being called West South Central states. ChessEric 16:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Withdrawn after improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article now looks fine unlike before, thanks to KFM for cleaning up all the mess. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Withdrawn by nominator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old GA that is mostly relying on listicles like "top 10 hottest woman" or "hottest babe" and passing mentions. Some of the referencing was also poorly made. This is not even close to GA criteria now with this modern standard. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The problem here is with the character's notability, not the quality of the article's writing. I see nothing wrong with the article itself, it reads perfectly fine, even if the reception is largely trivial passing mentions that do not demonstrate she is an important character at all. Basically; do a merge discussion instead, GA criteria do not include notability, this is the wrong forum for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Would AfD be fine instead of merge discussion? That doesn't attract attention that much. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're worried about that, posting about it in the WP:VG talk page tends to get attention even without an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh well, I guess gonna withdraw this. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 02:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has seen many changes. It no longer meets any of the GA criteria. Dhawangupta (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhawangupta, please note which of the GA criteria are violated in your opinion. This is standard practice when filing a GA reassessment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All are violated in my opinion.

Dhawangupta, please provide examples to support your opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

1. see this statement in lead:

Vaishnava scriptures that Vishnu assumed the form of the ferocious Gandabherunda bird-animal to combat Sharabha.

Is this statement, grammatically, correct? I don't think so.

Corrected. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Then, see following in section Buddhist scriptures:

The King was deeply touched by the compassion shown by the deer and thereafter promulgated a decry stating that hunting was an illegal activity in his country.

This one is also not grammatically correct.

Corrected. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. There are multiple uncited statements:

In Maharashtra the stone cut Sharabha idol is placed on the outer walls of the entrance gate of many historic forts.

Removed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. See following statement:

It also shows the Narasimha beneath Sharabha's legs as a lion-faced human with anjali (hands folded prayer gesture). (See Infobox image)

Now the attached image does not seem to show Narasimha in anjali mudra.

Narasimha has held his hands in anjali mudra over his head. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5. See statement:

The Skanda Purana considers Narasimha as a mere irritation to Hiranyakasipu and not a threat to the world,

Now, when we look in the cited source, the text infers that Narasimha is a nuisance, but not to Hiranyakasipu, but to the Devas. Certainly it can't be inferred that the being who killed Hiranyakashipu is a mere irritation to Hiranyakashipu.

Restored as in GA version.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk

@Redtigerxyz Kindly take note.

Possibly, the article can be improved to reach Good Article status again. But, in its current condition, it requires reassessment. Dhawangupta (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhawangupta, thanks for your observations. Remedied.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few uncited sentences, but overall the article appears in good shape to me. If the nominator won't work with us I'd be inclined to procedurally close as keep. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhawangupta, thank you for your interest. Please provide a detailed list of actionables to improve this article further.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Article improved to sufficient level, after thorough review by VickKiang and others. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was reviewed by Jack4576, who has an ongoing AN/I thread about not understanding basic Wikipedia policy, civility and bludgeoning, and reviewed in 20 minutes without any suggestions for improvement. I'm not confident that this is a GA level, as a lot of the article is sourced from the book itself, and in my opinion, the prose could be improved. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JML1148: I understand this is not a place for GANs, but if I was to copyedit this article to a theoretical GA status would its status perhaps be allowed to remain? Or, because of the nature of its passing would its status have to be stripped regardless of quality? I apologise in advance for being unfamiliar with the GA reassessment process, but the last sentence of your above message implies the latter. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEatsTuna: I would say the the prose is the main issue. It's in a pretty good state, but I think some things could be improved. I also am somewhat concerned about sourcing, as a lot of the page is sourced from the book, and I'm not certain about some of the sources. Because of a few different issues and the dubious review, I would say that it should go through the whole GAR process, which means it will keep its status for now, but it may be removed if changes aren't made. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, there's no "official" procedure for quickpassed articles like this. But I think there's agreement that the best case scenario in situations like this is if someone is willing to go in and fix any issues so it can keep its GA status. After all, that's what improves the encyclopedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I will defer most to other more experienced GA reviewers, a couple of brief drive-by comments:

The summary of the book is long. Technically, a non-fiction book isn't governed by MOS:FICTION and MOS:FILM, which generally state the maximum length should be 700 words. Still, the summary is way too long and should be condensed.

E.g., the summary repeats the number of pages, how many chapters the book has, the inclusion of referencing etc..., while it might be useful, I think it violates 3b of the GA criteria, if these are removed readers could still obtain the same amount of context without needing these specific sections.

Also, the summary for the ninth chapter is very long compared to that of other chapters, occupying three paragraphs. Is devoting this amount due weight and satisfying summary style? I.e., if the reviews focus on the final chapter it might make sense that this is long, but I think this could be simplified for better compliance with 3b.

Nitpicks:

While saying that a book/film/game received "positive reviews" is fine if other RS or aggregators say so, some editors might consider the statement of receiving "generally positive" and "positive reviews" here violates WP:SYNTH (I personally do this frequently, and maybe wrongly, for stub/start/C-class articles, but for GAs it's best to have a source for the claim or remove it for now.

Very minor nitpick on criteria 1a), there does not seem to be commas preceding "which" for many instances in the content section, e.g., Chapter four is about the Republic of Minerva which built an artificial island in the Minerva Reefs 1972 by importing sand, Next, the authors write about the Republic of Molossia, a satirical benevolent dictatorship run by Kevin Baugh which was created for comedic value. There should be commas as these are nonrestrictive clauses.

Otherwise my main issue is that the length of the content section could be construed as violating criteria 3b, that out of the way, IMO this is a solid article satisfying or close to satisfying other criteria, still, I'd like the community decide. VickKiang (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping so that they can see feedback: @LunaEatsTuna: JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: thank you for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I removed the positive reviews sentences and shortened the content summary by 400 words among other content changes. How does the article look now? ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the summary is still on the long side at slightly longer than 800 words it's not too bad IMO, and all of my other brief concerns have been addressed, so thanks for making the article significantly better. I will have a look at prose of the new content section tomorrow. VickKiang (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, I think otherwise the article looks good. I still have a few very minor nitpicks possibly with regards to criteria 1a, but either way I think this should be kept. A few minor notes:

• Simon Caterson, writing for the The Sydney Morning Herald's weekly newsletter The Booklist- the is repeated twice here.
• its subsequent history including an attempt takeover- shouldn't the correct grammar here be attempted takeover?
• Spotchecks:

Ref 4 is fine

Ref 5 also supports the claims

I can't access ref 2, but the material here is quite uncontroversial (mainly just a few quotes) and I am willing to assume that this is accurate.

Ref 10 is fine as well.

VickKiang (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely outside of international waters should be in international waters, no? XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typographical error on my part—fixed. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 02:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: All issues resolved. Thanks to the participants. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the statements were unsourced. The article is outdated and also suffers from WP:PLOT and perhaps out of date reception section. Also, some of the contents from reception isn't talking about her directly. So as per that, I believe the article no longer meets GA standards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GlatorNator: I don't disagree with you at all, I just wanted to say I intend to try and fix the issues to prevent de-listing. Can you tag what you'd like sourced? If you can, giving me some more specific examples of what's wrong with other sections would help me fix them quicker too. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also what's outdated outside the reception section? She hasn't appeared in any major games since the ones covered. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is only unsourced. The reception was also flimsy, it only got big with listciles that doesnt talk directly to her. Thats it. Best of Luck. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As of now, the article still haven't recieved substantial improvement. The plot still needs to be trimmed (some of them are unsourced) + it is still not broad on its coverage since sources/scholarly books at further reading and more at WP:BEFORE wasnt implemented yet. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GlatorNator: While I already added citations outside of the plots, it was my understanding that plots don't need to be sourced. I thought this would be unnecessary, but in any case I've now both sourced and trimmed them as well.

Broad statements like "and more at WP:BEFORE" are extremely unhelpful to anyone trying to address issues. I note in your initial nomination you said the article was "outdated" without giving any more context, though then retracted that allegation as soon as more clarification was sought on what the issue was. So considering that, I'm going to have to ask you to be very specific about what is wrong with the article, rather than just saying there are "more" issues without clarifying what they are.

You did point out the sources listed at further reading haven't been integrated into the article. Accordingly, I'll start working on that. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is now better unlike before. Thou, I think the only issue might be about broad on its coverage at reception. I think if you implemented the sources from further reading, and reword some of the listicles like "included her or ranked her at the top" then that's it. If you can find more per WP:BEFORE, it'll be better. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GlatorNator: I've done my best to improve the reception section. If you think the clean-up tag there can now be removed, please consider doing so. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on that article. It is way better than before. So, I will prefer this GA article to be Kept or withdraw this GAR. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 07:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thou, I was hoping to see your another GA article, Max Payne (character). I think that article still doesn't show that the article passes notability or broad on its coverage at reception seciton. 1st paragraph needed to be rewritten and it mostly contains ranking and listicles, again. It might be nominated at GAR soon if the article hasn't been fixed yet. Thank you. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't have time to work on that at the same level as I did on Kerrigan straight away, but thanks for the advanced notice. I'll keep it in mind and will try to improve things here or there as time permits, regardless of whether it is nominated for GAR or not. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This GA article will be Kept anyway. Nice job. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Closing with no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has had two banners on it for two years, and the raised issues raised on the talk page by @Schazjmd: about content added in 2020 seem to have largely gone unaddressed. Additionally, the majority of revisions since then have been hidden for WP:COPYVIO, from content added in those same series of edits. WP:QF criteria 3, and possibly 2. - car chasm (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The copyvios that have been hidden are not a current issue. The Schazjmd talk page thread mentions a vague feeling of copyvio with precisely no evidence; that is no ground for GAR, especially if the matter has been addressed by removal/hiding since then. On tone, I've fixed a minor issue. I've also removed a small amount of uncited material. On the tag's vague charge of being essay-like (always a personal judgement, very hard to verify), I note that in a philosophy article, it is correct to explain the arguments in plain language, and these naturally appear as descriptions of thought, which will sound to the uninitiated like an editor "thinking aloud", but will not be original research as long as they are properly and genuinely cited to reliable sources. In short, I can find very little wrong with the article as it now stands: that does not mean it did not have problems earlier, but that does not concern us here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. I agree that it's best to write out the arguments in plain language, but what about, for example, the section on Quining qualia? Dennett certainly meets the criteria for a valid WP:RSOPINION, but almost the entire section is based on his paper "quining qualia" with no other sources outside of the criticism section. Possibly I'm being too nitpicky here? - car chasm (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have Dennett stating a view, and a criticism section attempting a rebuttal of that view. I'd say, what's not to like, really. It's certainly fair. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: I believe the broadness criterion is now just about met, assuming there is no information about Ralph's life after 2016. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as a GAR 11 years ago. The article is not up to date and contains no information of her career post 2012. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Do not close until June, to prevent topic overload for willing editors.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reason because that would fail the broadness aspect of a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that you can ignore a whole decade of a person's life? Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we actually verify that anything noteworthy happened after where the article leaves off, though? It's not uncommon for sportspeople to return to private life and stay out of the public eye. "The team of seventeen players will be cut to thirteen before the team departs for the Olympic games,[23] with the announcement being made on 13 June." needs updated, but it's quite possible that she didn't make the list of 13 and then nothing noteworthy happened after that. That there's actually noteworthy information missing needs verified before taking to GAR. Hog Farm _Talk 15:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm she competed in the 2016 Olympics https://olympics.com/en/athletes/glencora-ralph so the article is missing her water polo career between 2012 and 2016. And is she still working as a dental therapist? If not, the article is factually incorrect. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be blunt here. Commenting "Not a reason for GAR. WP:SOFIXIT applies." on a bunch of GARs is pointless and unhelpful. The whole purpose of GAR is to fix articles so they don't need to be delisted, ideally. It's not an attack, it's flagging concerns about the article potentially not meeting the GA criteria to a wider audience, improving the chances the issues are rectified.

Not everyone has the time, expertise, or energy to fix every article they find. That doesn't mean they're forbidden from bringing articles to GAR. I'm not a fan of how a bunch of these athletes were brought here at the same time, but posting the same comment on a whole bunch of these is no better, quite frankly. If there are indeed major aspects of these athletes' careers in the decade since their promotion that are not discussed, that would be an issue for broadness. Nobody is arguing for FA standards here.

This article has an unresolved update tag from August 2017, and upon some digging I see Glencora Ralph was a member of the Australian team at Rio in 2016, which placed sixth [4] in water polo. The article completely neglecting this is absolutely a concern for comprehensiveness. Even more concerning, the prose also fails to give any attention to her participation in the 2012 Olympics competition, instead giving us the 11 years out of date sentence "The team of seventeen players will be cut to thirteen before the team departs for the Olympic games, with the announcement being made on 13 June.". Ralph did compete as part of the 2012 team which won bronze, according to the Olympics website. Aside from the infobox, there's zero mention of her involvement with the 2013 FINA World Aquatics Championships, either. There are obviously major gaps in this article's coverage. Quite frankly Hawkeye, I'd expect better from someone with such a track record of quality content than coming in and denying any issue exists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Trainsandotherthings:, you put it better than I can say it. Good articles are a mark of quality, and if for a BLP significant gaps in their career are missing, it doesn't deserve to be a GA, if we keep such GAs it devalues the concept of GA. It can lose the GA status and re-assessed once updated info is provided. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't have the time, expertise, or energy to work on the articles, then they should not be bringing them to GAR, especially masses of them at once solely in order to minimise the prospect of their being worked on. There is near zero chance of an article being re-assessed. I am not denying that the articles have not been worked on since 2012, but if the whole purpose of GAR is to fix articles so they don't need to be delisted, then Libstar should step up and work on the articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your issue is more to do with GAR as a process, Hawkeye7. If the only people who can bring articles to GAR are those who are going to fix them, then there's no point in GAR at all. To me, your attitude's a bit like saying "what's the point of doing GA reviews? If there are problems with the article, WP:SOFIXIT. If there aren't, award the GA status". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is no point in GAR at all. The original idea was to workshop articles to keep them up to standard. The nominator was expected to participate in the process. This is the way FAR works. What we have here is mass nomination of dozens of articles with no actionable work items solely in order to delist them. By mass nominating you can minimise the prospect of their being worked on. In future, we can expect hundreds of articles to be nominated at once, with little or no rationale. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry. Any articles of similar topic that come to GAR at the same time are kept for longer to allow people to work on them. See for example Albert Einstein, which was kept on hold for two months so that physics-related GARs for Universe, Astronomy, and Electricity could be finished first. The GAR talk archives hold further discussion of this topic. None of this present glut of Australian water polo-playing women are very long articles, or require that much in the way of WP:SOFIXIT, so they'll be given a month in total, instead of the usual week. Anything else, Hawkeye7? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is mass nomination of dozens of articles with no actionable work items solely in order to delist them We have exactly 12 articles at GAR right now, so this is patently false. I said previously that I don't approve of them being listed all at once, and they don't have to be closed after 1 week. You are implicitly accusing people participating in GAR of acting in bad faith without evidence. If nobody wants to work on them after we've kept them open for a while, the long and short of it is they have to eventually be delisted. You seem to think that everyone has to fix any problems they identify themselves, which is not how a volunteer project works. In future, we can expect hundreds of articles to be nominated at once, with little or no rationale is actually complete bullshit, quite frankly, and you need to stop with the theatrics and absurd slippery-slope analogy that has no connection to reality. Obviously we would reject nominating that many at once as out of process. Your participation in this space is turning into a negative, and I'm asking you to reconsider your approach. You are doing nothing to help these articles while demanding others do so for you. Are you really surprised that you're not being seen as reasonable right now? Based on my comprehensive analysis, which you haven't disputed, the bringing of this article to GAR was 100% proper and I would have done the same had I come across it.

Again, we are all volunteers and there's not enough volunteer time and energy to save every single article. That's just how things are. You don't have to like it (and quite frankly, I don't either) but that's the state of this project and that means some articles will end up being delisted. If you don't like the process so much, you're free not to participate, but we do not need you coming in here and attacking other editors. I've lost a lot of respect for you after seeing your behavior here, Hawkeye. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This seems like it'd be a better fit for the GAR talk page than this specific reassessment, but I would like to concur with Hog Farm that it would have made things a lot easier if the GAR nominator had gone into a little more detail in the nomination statement, and the same in the other nominations. If the complaint is comprehensiveness, the nominator doesn't necessarily have to fix the article, but the nominator absolutely should verify that encyclopedically relevant events have happened in the subject's life since the article stopped being updated. If updates have slowed to a trickle, that might be because the article is out of date, but it might be because the person has semi-retired, or is simply way more low-profile now. In the latter case, then an article that "stops" in 2010 might still be comprehensive. It sounds like that in this specific biography, there are indeed some events that need inclusion, but the existence of such events should be stated either on the talk page or in the nomination statement, ideally with links showing this to be true. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I make a point to highlight exactly what the deficiencies in an article are when I nominate it, which really should be expected from listings. At least for this article there were serious problems but the barebones listing statement didn't make it obvious. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The water polo articles were created by myself and another Wikipedian in 2012 as Wikipedians in Residence with the Australian Olympic Committee but we were transferred to the History of the Paralympics in Australia (HOPAU) project, which is why they stop in 2012. I am the only one left now. I came here because the articles were still on my watch list. I am very busy at present but will have a look at this article. A list of deficiencies would be useful. I would ask that only one water polo article be processed at a time to give me the time to work on them. I note that I have an articles sitting in the GAN queue for up to six months. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• GARs are kept open as long as someone has worked in them in the past two weeks, for a limit of three months in total, Hawkeye7. All have the same deficiencies—all the athletes competed at Rio 2016, and some even in Tokyo, but there is little to no information about their careers provided on the respective page. If you are unable to work on them, they will have to be delisted, as the GA status is public-facing and should be kept as reliable as possible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Kept, issues fixed by splitting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2006. The uses section has been tagged for needing additional citations since may 2021. listed with "Unsourced passages need footnotes ((citation needed)) (September 2011, March 2012, September 2013, November 2013, October 2019, June 2020), Failed verification (September 2013), Dead external links ((dead link)) (November 2018), ... (May 2021)" on the bambots page. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beside the issue of many unsourced paragraphs, I think the long and indiscriminate laundry list of incidents of usage is problematic with respect to WP:GACR #3(b). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder. The list was a mess, and inappropriate for a text article, so I've split it off as List of uses of CS gas by country and linked that in "See also". I've gone through the "External links" and removed the dead items. Those actions clear all the issues raised above. The rest of the article is fully cited and honestly not too bad (not my cup of tea, but never mind). It covers "the main points", is quite readable (given the subject matter), and is appropriately illustrated. I think it's probably a Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, before I close this, are all the details in the infobox cited somewhere in the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some uncited names from the infobox. AFAICT the hazard statements are acceptable in their current form. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Nominator withdrew, closing as Keep Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article overrelies mostly on passing mentions about game reviews about him and Fran. The article needed some expansion, especially at reception as it also needed to be rewritten. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist This may end up being moot if the AfD results in a merge. But assuming the article is kept, it absolutely needs to go through the GA process again. There is no way its current state represents the supposed notability people claim it has. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination is making a notability argument for delisting but notability is explicitly not a GA criterion. Article meets the six GA criteria: it is well-written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. This is forum shopping for an AFD that isn't going your way. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, we definitely know Notability isn't an issue now after the afd arguments (same argument at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Terra Branford/1), but some ir most of the sources are just passing mentions from the game reviews. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 15:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you know notability isn't an issue, then you should say so at the AFD you started. Where else would you find reception of a video game character? Demanding multiple published books about a video game character seems an impossibly high bar. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the character lacks scholarly books then it fails on GA criteria "broad on its coverage". GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not fail broadness by not having scholarly books. That is an impossible criterion for many articles. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess youre right, but the article could stay as fragile like that. Balthier's probably using all those sources from the game reviews what it can. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I do think this character doesn't quite meet notability standards, within what we have to work with for now it does meet GAR standards, so @Axem Titanium: is right in that regard. It's a different case than say Kefka or Terra, where with those weak/bad sources are being used, and we're aware of not only good sources existing but broader coverage. Balthier's used everything available to him, and I think out of the ongoing Square Enix GARs, it's fine to keep.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw seems like the consensus here make sense. Because of that, I'm withdrawing this GAR. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Most of the issues were met, and I took care of the rest myself. I feel satisfied with this outcome. Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article feels excessively detailed in terms of her appearance in Final Fantasy VI, and several paragraphs of the article are unsourced. Additionally the reception section feels extremely weak, with a few listicles and trivial mentions in there. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per nom. The Reception section already looks flimsy. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I'm pretty sure Terra can be improved significantly, but right now it doesn't meet modern-day standards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I restored the FFVI section to the version that passed GAN, which had since ballooned due to an overenthusiastic editor. No paragraphs are currently unsourced. Notability is not a GA criterion. The internet barely existed when this game was published so almost all internet-based coverage is necessarily retrospective. Japanese Culture Through Videogames (2019) is a published book that carries the section. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Axem Titanium: Notability isn't an issue, we both know she's notable. It's some of the material used i.e. Michael Rougeau of Complex barely saying anything, and Tom's Guide which is just being cited for her being on there. There isn't more than that or better sourcing?-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Complex article says that Terra paved the way for characters like Yuna and Aerith. The Tom's Guide article says she's an interesting protagonist because she isn't a natural-born leader but becomes one over time, and that her arc is a mark of the series' maturing storytelling. We agree that she's notable but she falls in a dead zone in terms of coverage because her main appearance came before the internet and people weren't really writing books about video game characters at the time. So we work with the best sources that are available. These are good sources relative to what's even possible (cf. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). As long as they're from RS, Top X lists can be used and Complex is on WP:VG/S. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Top X lists can be used but if they're not saying anything meaningful. Simply being on a list isn't reception, we already went around that rabbit hole with quite a few other articles thanks to Niemti and trying to clean up the sheer mess he left behind. There's seriously nothing on Google Books, Scholar, even searching through wayback's magazines that discusses her? Not a single significant mention on any gaming website? Like I know there are sources to completely rewrite Kefka with a meaningful reception section, so there should be here. "It's from an old game" isn't really much of an excuse when it's one as popular and as re-released as this one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just seeing this GAR today so I haven't spent any time looking for sources yet. On the first page of google books: [5] [6]; from google scholar: [7]. I don't have a huge amount of time today to do a thorough search but there's clearly stuff out there for such a well known character. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well take your time and build it up. I'm not going to rush this on you if you're actively working on it..--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: Speedily kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible spelling errors, the development section might not be detailed enough for this type of article. reassesment in response to sandy georgia requesting a GAR. --Therealgamer1234 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Just checking, did you actually suggest this? --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a GAR request for someone to check, as I am not that familiar with GA standards, and I wondered if the article had been damaged during the socking shenanigans. If you, as the principle editor, feel it is still good, that's good with me! I didn't think the GAR request would be acted on without someone eyeballing it first, considering the SPI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, nominated by blocked user, perhaps as some kind of WP:POINT. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per Axem. I haven't taken a very thorough look at the article, but it appears good enough to be a video game GA. ProtoDrake does a good job making GAs, and it looks to be up to standard. The Night Watch (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely bloated and out of date reception section, and inconsistent referencing, among many other issues. Consensus from both talk page and WikiProject Video games that the article no longer meets GA standards. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist article still needs a lot of work, update and clean up.l despite sone editors attempted to clean up. Hold. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not opposed to delisting, but I'd like to ask that it not be rushed to desliting. Kung Fu Man and I are working on both cleaning up the reception and finding strong reception to add, as well as addressing sourcing issues. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold As long as it is actively being improved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Improvements have been very impressive so far. I also recommend holding for now. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Cukie Gherkin:@Zxcvbnm:@GlatorNator: Improvements seem to have stopped. The reception section is magnitudes better, but the issue of inconsistent reference formatting remains, and there's also citation requests. If this article was nominated for GA for the first time now and I was the reviewer, I wouldn't pass it until those issues was addressed. But since it already is a GA article and improvements have been considerable, I can't say I'm overly opposed to the article retaining its status for the time being and this GAR closing. I'm happy to hear the thoughts of others. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not stopped, just slowed down. I'm doing it bit by bit. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, I understand. In that case I won't check in again for a while. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, I took care of the citation needed tags. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien Linnane, GlatorNator, Cukie Gherkin, Zxcvbnm, and QuicoleJR: do you feel that the article has been improved sufficiently to retain GA status? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not currently see any major issues that would disqualify it from being a GA. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining issue I see is the inconsistent referencing. As mentioned, if it was a new nomination I wouldn't pass it for GA until that was addressed, but I certainly don't think that's serious enough to strip the article of its current GA status. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things I'd like to do to improve it more, such as trim the Dread plot summary (but I don't want spoilers so), but otherwise I don't think anything there is disqualifying for GA status. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: With thanks to the editors who worked to improve the article, kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Article suffers from uncited statements, outdated statements, one sentence paragraphs, and some sections that could probably be expanded. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've fixed the uncited claims by adding refs and removing text as necessary. Some outdated claims have been removed. Very short paragraphs and sections have been merged. On the "could probably be expanded", well, yes, that's usually true everywhere, but the criterion for GA is "covers the main points", and there can be no doubt that this article does that. If there are specific issues remaining, I'll be happy to address them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The broadness question is interesting, it's true the article doesn't have to be comprehensive, but there does seem to be large untouched gaps. There is a Geography section, but it says nothing on urban geography (aside from a tantalising picture of city walls). I don't know quite what is happening in Governance, but it's briefness seems to leave it jumping between topics with no clear structure (speaking of structures, "After it was declared redundant and de-consecrated" presumably refers to some church structure, but it's not apparent in the article). There's a demographics section, but it's so sparse as to not even mention the "substantial student population" seen as important enough for the lead. The lead itself could use expansion, although here to better capture what is in the article rather than what is missing. CMD (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Urban geography: added paragraph, refs.

• Governance: Named the missing building, added refs.

• Demographics: Added details of student population. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead: Edited the lead slightly. It seems a fair summary of the contents.

• For leads, I look to see whether topics deemed important enough to have their own section are mentioned. I don't think this is fully there, but the edits were an improvement. The new urban geography paragraph is great. CMD (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a little more. I'm really not going to add that the city has a bus station to the lead: every city has one of those, so the wooden "section = mention" equation won't do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe I've promoted it as a wooden equation, but happy to step away from this. As a final note I found a direct piece of copying from a 2008 access date, and feel the lead mention of the UNESCO status should be something worth exploring in the body. CMD (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Good catch! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep following the improvements by Chiswick Chap. I've not checked citations etc, but prima facie it seems OK, despite some short paras etc. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. Tagged for single source usage, needing better sources, and also having a why? tag in there. Bambots reports "Clarification needed (July 2018), CS1 errors: missing title, Dead external links ((dead link)) (November 2021), Cites unreliable sources (February 2023), ... (February 2023)" Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All tourism-related sources have been tagged for needing better sources; while not great, I don't feel comfortable delisting based on this opinion. Giving extra time for this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result: It's clear that there is no consensus to delist, so let's leave it at that (my own thoughts on the matter align with LEvalyn's below). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose/style issues: Stylistically poor sentences include: "It is exceedingly uncommon for men to self-identify as bugchasers, but among those who do, their behavior does not consistently match this identification; instead, they often seek ambiguous sexual situations, rather than ones in which their partner is known to have HIV."

"But it existed by at least 1997, when Newsweek published an article about the subject, followed by Rolling Stone in 2003."

"However, there are four common motivating explanations."

"It may be a subject of pleasure or the ultimate taboo to overcome."

"But among bugchasers in particular, there remain several common metaphors that distinguish them from other communities among MSM: those of insemination, pregnancy, and paternity."

"But perhaps even more to the point of the metaphor, the physical characteristics of HIV infection are similar to pregnancy, as typically some time passes before either diagnosis could be established."

Overall this article has a persistent problem of presenting the posited analyses and concepts of theorists as fact in wikivoice, leading to sentences like "Since HIV is able to spread and reproduce through the sexual activity belonging to bugchasing, its cultural dimensions—institutions, norms, practices, and forms of kinship that, taken together, form a community situated around HIV status—may be transmitted through viral infection, similar to cultural propagation through birth and paternity"

This article does not meet Good Article criteria, and I think it should be reassessed (and fixed!) Isthistwisted (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GA criteria are lightweight, so an article with problems is perfectly acceptable. Prose issues are only a problem if they make the article not "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", not if it's awkward or amateur. I think the wording is understandable, if imperfect and imprecise. I've removed, attributed, reworked some of the stuff that bothers you since you decided to message me twice over this. With Greteman and the HRC gone, and Garcia Iglesias attributed, not sure what else there is to say about neutrality. Urve (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never messaged you? Isthistwisted (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: [8], [9]. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That ain’t no message, that’s a notification for a GAR on their talk page Isthistwisted (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the supposed style errors are in these quoted sentences; whatever may be stylistically wrong with them, it's certainly not wrong enough that it's GA-disqualifying. I notice the nominator has made 9 edits to this article and 18 to its Talk page (making them the second-most frequent editor, behind only the article creator). It is difficult to read this nomination as anything other than a disingenuous attempt to "win" a content dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is my editing the page at odds with the sincerity of the GAR I initiated? I think the page has serious problems, as can be seen from my edits and from this reassessment. Isthistwisted (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garcia Iglesias expressed willingness to talk with me, and I presume any Wikipedians, about the topic. I recognize that WP:OR is uncommon but it is within the realm of possibility to have a recorded video chat with the cited expert and post it to clarify anything here. I have said before but the core problem is that this entire conversation has a bias in a bogus Rolling Stone article which spread the misinformation that a large number of bugchasing cases have been identified. This article would benefit from clarification that this is an uncommon practice. There are many really weird fetishes for which Wikipedia has no article but which are more common than this practice. I recognize the problem with the sources but I expect that any expert would say that this article is incorrect, as would anyone with lived experience.

The problem is that no one wants to assign specific numbers to this, but actually, I think they would give comparative frequency info. For example, if we cornered and expert and named a bunch of weird sexual practices that almost no one does, then they would likely say that those practices are more common than bugchasing.

I recognize that Wikipedia needs to build from sources but there is serious disinfo here that I think experts would renounce. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is your concern that the article misrepresents the number of people involved in bugchasing? The article is very clear that it is very rare, and explicitly states that the Rolling Stone article was bunk. "rare" is the fourth word of the lede. There are sentences like Bugchasing is a rare sexual taboo. I am not sure what further clarification could be necessary. What disinfo, specifically, is not being renounced here? -- asilvering (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added qualifications from García-Iglesias's new book, which I previously only skimmed. The "disinfo" insult is appreciated, thanks. Urve (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea here is that the article fails criteria 1a? The article reads just fine to me. I wouldn't fail a GA for prose unless it was very challenging to understand. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And 4 Isthistwisted (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination only cites prose issues. What are the npov issues? -- asilvering (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of my nomination Isthistwisted (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That particular issue was fixed a few minutes after you submitted this reassessment, Isthistwisted. Is there any other part of the article you feel violates WP:NPOV? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep:

"By 2003, the concept had entered the public consciousness after Rolling Stone published "Bug Chasers: The men who long to be HIV+", an article—since widely disputed for its statistical methods—describing the practice." This seems to be derived from Octavio R. Gonzalez's claim that the article was "perhaps most responsible" for bringing the term bugchasing to the mainstream. I don't think that this sentence should present as fact in wikivoice that the Rolling Stone article brought the subculture into public consciousness, as that's not even Gonzalez's claim—and his real claim is both soft ("perhaps most responsible") and untestable (it's just one scholar's estimate, and if included, it should be presented as one scholar's estimate).

"However, four motivations have been suggested." is an original synthesis of four sources, in violation of WP:OR. The explanatory section that follows doesn't textually attribute the suggested motivations to the theorists with whom they originated. I don't think that "And fourth, bugchasing has been described as a political device and action against social norms (such as those tied to heteronormativity) through transgression of particular ideals, which in this case includes rigid conformity to safe sex practices." should be reported neutrally (that is, as an abstract idea rather than a posited theory by named scholars) (just as one example of a bad sentence in an overall problematic paragraph).

"[Bugchasers'] identities frequently do not align with their actions." is actually not a neutrality issue, but I'll include it here as an inappropriately vague phrase.

"[Barebacking and bugchasing] are not necessarily equivalent activities." erroneously implies (without a citation) that bugchasing and barebacking may be equivalent activities.

Isthistwisted (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be derived from Octavio R. Gonzalez - no, it's from Romero-Paulo & Cuenca-Martínez, who cite Malkowski. It's worth noting that there is no requirement that what our reliable sources state be "testable". is an original synthesis of four sources - no, Romero-Paulo & Cuenca-Martínez, who cite Forsyth, say: "quienes propusieron un total de cuatro explicaciones ... para intentar dar respuesta a qué motiva para llevar a cabo la práctica del bug-chasing". I added "at least" to the qualifier, but the fact that four motivations have been suggested is not only represented in the source, but even if it weren't, it's a routine WP:CALCulation to summarize that which follows. should be reported neutrally - yes, within WP:PROPORTION to what reliable sources say on the subject -- sources generally agree that there is a political element to seroconversion for at least some bugchasers. Romero-Paulo & Cuenca-Martínez don't equivocate here: "Una de las motivaciones del bug-chaser sería la acción política." erroneously implies - does nothing of the sort (an earlier version was about subsets, but the GA reviewer found it confusing, if I remember right, so this was compromise language to get at the same idea) but since you choose to read it that way, I've changed it. I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole; let's stop stringing this process along. Urve (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not interested in playing whack-a-mole; let's stop stringing this process along."

Is there something you want from me? As long as I'm queried about my problems with the article, I'm going to respond honestly. If you think that engaging with my comments is "playing whack-a-mole", then by all means ignore me. But if you do care: the passages I've identified problems with are specified above :) Isthistwisted (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You point out "problems", but I don’t see how any of these are NPOV issues that could merit delisting as a GA. (This is a GAR, not an article Talk page.) What is the editorial bias you see here? What is being given undue weight? All of these sentences (including the one you claim is uncited) are cited to RS and reported on from a reasonable distance based on whether they are facts of behaviour or interpretation/theories. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]