Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 78

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← (Page 77)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 79) →

Mario Kart: Double Dash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 March, Sergecross73 tagged this 2012 GA as needing cleanup, noting on the talk page that the article was "well below GA standards" and contained "unsourced content, trivia, sloppy stuff, etc." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in terrible shape - a victim of a decade plus of people slow degrading it into a worse status. I originally intended on cleaning it up myself, but I've lost interest and am focusing on other projects now, so that cleanup effort probably won't come from me anymore... Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roll back Why not just roll back the article to the last "GA-quality" version? It was fully-sourced at one point before a lot of cruft was added. The only part relevant to the modern day is a Kotaku listicle. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to that if someone wants to present a certain version to revert back to. Not much has happened with this game over the years - it hasn't been re-released, found a cult following, had much in the way of a retrospective commentary, etc. So there's probably not much concern about it being "outdated" if we were to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was listed as a GA on 2 May 2012, and the adding of unsourced content began less than ten days afterwards. If rollback is needed, it would have to be to the version promoted to GA, which does not satisfy the current criteria (criterion 2b), for example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair, even the GA version is a bit light on sourcing. (Sorry Salv.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and fixed the gameplay section on a whim, so there's that chunk of work done. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 do you think the fix is good enough to keep the GA status? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say so personally. The reception section is still lacking even with the one paragraph I added to it, and I've been too lazy lately to fix it further. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. Sources in the "Further reading" section should be explored for their use in the article as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the GA status. I went through and counted, finding 23 paragraphs without a single source. That would be an automatic declination of standard GAN.

Beyond this I have to question the coherence and relevance of grouping such a vast range of topics into one page. It is almost as if this page covers everything which has nature in the name. For instance I don't see how Microbes, Lakes and Matter and Energy belong together. I noticed that back in 2023 it was marked as a WP:COATRACK but this tagging was removed. I think it should not have been.

N.B., as I write this I noticed that some edits are taking place.Ldm1954 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the GA status: The problem with the article is that instead of systematically analysing the concept of 'Nature', it for the most part (90% of the text) blankly assumes one naive definition (the physical environment, implying what a philosopher might call Naive realism) and then lavishly describes that instead of the article's proper subject, i.e. the article is 85% off-topic, and 50% uncited at that (i.e. I more than agree with User:Ldm1954). The GA status is at the moment wholly unjustifiable. Worse, the article Nature (philosophy) covers the territory of 'Nature', the rest of the text being basically a WP:CFORK of Universe or just rambling any which way, so a merge and redirect should follow this GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aang

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in bad shape. It is not updated yet; there are a lot of unsourced statements, the "bending the elements" section is written like lists instead of prose and the reception section is too flimsy. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Póvoa de Varzim

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has numerous uncited paragraphs and sections. It is also over 11,000 words, so it is recommended that someone with knowledge on the subject evaluate if anything can be removed or spun out. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dartmouth College fraternities and sororities

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article, promoted to GA in 2007, seems to be a list. I think this should be delisted so that it can be reclassified as a list instead. The article also has a "updates needed" orange banner from December 2023. Z1720 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Galatian War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An older GA from 2007, with a bevy of primary and old sources (the most recent author died in 1905). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iazyges, I am willing to work on this. What is your expected timeline for resolving the major issues before we can take on the specifics? I believe I can get done with the former in 5-10 days. Matarisvan (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thanks! I don't have a specific timeline as long as progress is being made; the 7-day close is meant to be an accelerant for articles that attract no interest, not a hard deadline. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have started working on the article and expect it to get to GA level within 10 days. I will ping you once I'm done upgrading this one. Matarisvan (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iazyges, I have reworked the article quite a bit. Do you think this is now back at GA level? Any comments you would like to add? Matarisvan (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polish minority in the Czech Republic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited sections, including entire paragraphs. "Present day" section has no post-1991 information. Sources listed in the "Further reading" section should be explored for their inclusion as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has numerous uncited sections, a bloated lede, and the information is generally disorganised. Z1720 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portland Trail Blazers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited paragraphs, bloated sections and a bias towards recent events. Z1720 (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Davenport, Iowa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited paragraphs, information out of date in government section. Z1720 (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No consensus to delist ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags and after a quick skim you will see other places that aren’t tagged but deserve cn tags. Also there are 2 maintenance tags but both are about expansions. 48JCLTALK 01:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to work on improvements to the article in order for it to comply with Good Article standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL I've fixed up the spots needing expansion and additionally cited several sections with citation needed tags (As well as Pokémon Platinum's section). Could you clarify what other spots need improvement? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Could [1] be moved to the body, making the lead more summary style? I’ll come back with more. 48JCL TALK 21:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL what else needs to be done? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fallout 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's like a lot of issues in the gameplay section. It was written a little bit awfully (for now) and has sourcing issues, and some of it is possibly unsourced. It also needs to be trimmed down. Meanwhile, there are also citation errors, no authors at the citation, and unreliable sources like ref 22. The retail version sub-section is written like a list instead of prose. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the good article reassessment for Fallout: New Vegas right now, and after that's done I intend on getting to this article. Outside of the gameplay section, it seems to be in much better shape than the Fallout: New Vegas was, so it shouldn't be too bad. But in case I don't get to this article in time, I agree with Greenish Pickle!, this article does not meet the GA requirements as is. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Hobo do you still intend to work on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled upon this and began a copyedit pass. It'll be next week before I can really sink my teeth into it, but I'm happy to do some work on it. This should be a salvageable article. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: @DrOrinScrivello: Sorry for the delay, but yes I do plan on fixing up this article, been working on other stuff. Ironically this is my favorite Fallout game, but it's been a bit of a struggle to work on this article. I did start working on it on my sandbox page. I've shortened the plot section and began work on the development section. Due to the extreme gameplay similarities between Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I asked the Video Games Project if it would be okay copying nearly entire paragraphs over from one article to another. The general consensus was yes, so long as the paragraphs that were copied are properly attributed in the original article they came from in the edit description. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: your working version looks like you're doing the same sort of paring down that I started and you're much further along, so I'll pause my efforts for now. Feel free to ping me if you'd like a second set of eyes on anything. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo and DrOrinScrivello: I see the editing has slowed down now after some big chops. How are we feeling about the article now? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Hobo did some fine work on the article, and it seems to me as if the original issues have been addressed, so my opinion is Keep. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So there's still some stuff that needs to be worked on. The reception section needs to be beefed up to meet modern standards, and the lede needs to be rewritten to reflect the content of the article. The reason I haven't edited this article in a while is because I hate writing reception sections for larger games, but I'll get around to it shortly. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Stanley Parable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this article got so out of hand, but you can pretty clearly see something went very askew here. There are wayyyy too many fair use images now, the formatting's broken, a two year old expansion template...this article is in dire need of some weed trimming when compared to the version that passed GAN in 2020. Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested on improving the article in the spots where it is broken. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest issue is the lack of reception for the new release. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a lot of academic analysis that hasn't been included that I found while researching The Narrator (The Stanley Parable), for example, and a lot of things mentioned in the nomination to clean up. I've been busy the past few days but I intend to hit this up soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man I've expanded the Reception to account for the Narrator's existence with additional Analysis, and I've also added reviews for the Ultra Deluxe game. I've tried reformatting the images per my discussion with you, but the infobox physically will not let me have no image there and it is confounding me. In any case, bar that image debacle (Which I will need some help with) is there anything else that needs patching up? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only thing left is to remove the infobox from the dev section, it's kinda superflous. But we should have the original release date mentioned in the body...kicker is I'm having a hard time finding a good cite for *when* that happened.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ryan Williams (women's soccer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails criteria 3a "addresses the main aspects of the topic"; The "Club career" section has not been updated with any information since December 2020, meaning 90% of her professional appearances to date came after the dates covered in the article; this section is the most important since her professional soccer career is the reason she is notable. I also believe the article fails 3b "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", with over-reliance on primary sources from TCU's athletics website, and North Carolina Courage's official website. Joeykai (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blown for Good

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Keep. Problems solved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article bears little resemblance to the form it was when it was nominated 14 years ago, though at the time it had its own issues. For context, the article was created and largely written by someone who was 1) banned from this topic area for BLP and source misrepresentation, among other issues 2) later indefinitely banned. Afterwards the article had a chunk taken out of it, perhaps justifiably, but what is left does not meet the GA standards, and may still face the problems with POV that existed before.

An issue is particularly the incredibly short lead, which fails to sum up why the book is notable at all, not summarizing either its reception or contents (the old lead included this, though was perhaps too long) therefore failing criterion 1, and also parts of the summary have been changed for the worse to the point where I'm not sure it summarizes the book properly (failing criterion 3). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on this article, including:

checked all the references and updated with archived versions where needed
added book sources that didn't exist in 2009 when the book was written or in 2010 when the GA nomination passed
reworked the lead to include summary of the book's contents and reception
straightened out which loose bits belonged in the author section and which belonged in the contents section (author section used to be above contents; new author section has since been created below contents section to piggyback a mini-BLP in this article, leaving a few sentences and paragraphs in the wrong position, which I put in an appropriate place)
clarified the wife's escape
compared the version right after the article's creator's last version [1] and restored a few sentences and a paragraph
you weren't clear which version you were comparing or which "chunk" was missing in order to decipher what you meant by "bears little resemblance"

I have the book if you want me to check anything for you. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see user Sfarney did a lengthy hatchet job on the article in 2016; I'll check those edits next (for example, here they give a false reason for removing content) ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 11:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grorp I'm quite busy at the moment IRL (unfortunate timing on my part starting this reassessment now Lol) so I can't check everything you changed, but the changes overall seem to be good improvements, thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, apart from the lead, which could be a bit longer, the work you have done means that the article as now seen is coherent, covers "the main points", and is fully cited, so not much seems seriously wrong. I'd have thought you could just extend the lead a little (I could even do that, at a pinch: ping me if that's needed) and the article can remain as a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the lead. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you are !voting KEEP? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap @Grorp FWIW my problems with it have been solved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good. Then you can simply withdraw, i.e. close the GAR now as KEEP. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pipe organ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Not enough improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has numerous uncited sentences. Deprecated and unreliable sources are used (such as Answers.com) while there is an extensive "Further reading" and "External links" sections that can be used as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have put out a message to User:Cor anglais 16, who was a major contributor in the past, regarding this reassessment. I will try to address some of the issues but I'm in no way familiar with the literature so apologies if I fall short. Recon rabbit 12:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of silk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

This article has lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, and needs post-2006 information on silk's history. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom Queen of Hearts ^talk 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS why are "Silk in the modern day (1760–present)" and "Silk in modern times" separate sections? Queen of Hearts ^talk 00:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

McLaughlin Planetarium

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No improvements, delisting per silent consensus. Hog Farm _Talk 22:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, and no post-2016 information. Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jacobson v. United States

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No improvements, delisting per silent consensus. Hog Farm _Talk 22:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited passages, including entire paragraphs. There's also a "Further reading" section with sources that look like they should be included in the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armenian Revolutionary Federation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bloated, seven-paragraph lede, numerous uncited statements and paragraphs, and numerous one-line paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom; Media section is also unsourced and suffers from MOS:PSUEDOHEAD. Queen of Hearts ^talk 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apollo Global Management

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 promotion has some statements lacking citations and a lot of WP:PROSELINE issues for events past 2005. I am also not sure about the breadth of coverage for this article since most of it is just the History section. Spinixster (trout me!) 11:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Jesus that proseline is horrible Queen of Hearts ^talk 00:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ni Yulan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. Serious concerns with "Verifiable with no original research"

I have compiled a registry of the sources used in this article: New York Times (x4), Eurasia Review (x1), Radio Free Asia (x1), Chinese Urgent Action Working Group (x1), Frontline Defenders (x3), Human Rights Watch (x1), Christian Science Monitor (x2 - erroneous double cite [7][13]), Reuters (x1), Amnesty Int'l (x1), Lawyers for Lawyers (x1), BBC (x1), HK Free Press (x1), Government of the Netherlands (x1), Radio Netherlands Worldwide (x1), SCMP (x1), Voice of America (x1).

There are 23 sources in sum. While sources themselves are generally consistent with perennially reliable sources, each of the guidelines for several of the sources used (Amnesty, RFA, etc.) carry recommendations or disclaimers that citations of these sources should be done with caution (either amending the language for neutrality, or disclaiming a relationship to the U.S. government). However, the *majority of sources* as expressed (Lawyers for Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, China Urgent Action Warning Group, etc.) are primary by nature, have express political leanings and incentives, and are used as the guiding citation for several contentious claims in places where substantially more reliable sources may be called for.

B. Strong issues with WP:NPOV

Language in the text appears flaired or put in substantial excess of what the sources themselves say. For example, the sentence

having her passport arbitrarily denied by Chinese government authorities

is not found anywhere in the BBC article that the clause cites - at all. The article only indicates that Ni was released from prison and that she uses a wheelchair, which the article proceeds to suggest (without further provenance) that some of her supporters say are due to the hands of police - hardly sufficiently reliable to justify any unqualified claim regarding police brutality.

The passport claim, which is then repeated several times in the article (unqualified), may be found in some other sources (e.g., the New York Times), but such sources, e.g., [18], carry no particular provenance for the claim other than a direct interview with the person herself - by definition, a primary source for which the publisher has repeatedly and clearly disclaimed as content from the interviewee herself. This phenomenon repeats frequently and is once again an example of flawed authorship in the article.

Continued claims in the article about alleged social hardship, such as source [17] indicating her eviction, are themselves uncited and of dubious quality. No evidence, provenance, or citations are offered in the source. The only other source where the alleged 2017 window-smashing case is mentioned is in Hong Kong Free Press - once again, only through an interview by the subject herself.

These issues are present throughout the article. Overall, by inspection of about six sources, the article dramaticizes content with theatrical effect, relies overly on a persona constructed by the article subject herself through interviews, and offers no explanation connecting any of the disparate phenomena observed (e.g., window-smashing with passport denial, etc).

C. Cursory initial approval round

Upon inspection of WP:Peer review/Ni Yulan/archive1, it appears that no particular analysis or work was conducted on the article other than the addition of certain sources and basic formatting. No particular comment as to relationships with the GA criteria were discussed at all. Moreover, no commentary in relation to writing quality exists at any point, in any form, at any time. Augend (drop a line) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Femke, who provided a second opinion at the GA review, for their thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the only two concrete issues identified (removed the failed verification and double citation). I seem to have done a very cursory source check in the initial review, and identified one instance of text-source verification issue there. The text seems quite consistent in using phrases such as "According to Ni", and "According to Radio Free Asia", indicating proper attribution of primary sourcing. WP:RSPSS says inline attribution and a note of who funds RFA may be appropriate, but I think the name and inline attribution already give enough of a "warning" sign to readers that funding is not too relevant here. Many of the claims in the article are stated unattributed by sources like NYT.

Overall, I see not enough to delist the article here, but an explicit source check would be welcome. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked another 2 sources ([16][18]), which revealed some close paraphrasing to 16. Changed my mind and not giving this the benefit of the doubt, but a proper spot check would be good. I think there may be more close paraphrasing to that source. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I got all the close paraphrasing. I couldn't find further issues with source-text integrity, and have now checked roughly 1/3 of the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts Augend? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maggie Simpson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts ^talk 19:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead isn't really summarizing the entire article properly, including its impact + poorly usage of primary sources + poorly cited + citations aren't formatted properly + the reception and merchandising section is the worst and should be expanded + and axe this "Maggie Simpson in" section, and should be at "appearances". Overall, the article is in bad shape. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem with the lead? It seems fine to me. I don't see an issue with the citations not being formatted properly either, but if there really are issues, just fix them rather than GAR the article. The "Maggie Simpson In.." section seems perfectly relevant - it's separate from her normal role in The Simpsons TV series but clearly important and Maggie-centric appearances.
The relevant complaints here are too many primary sources (in the "Role in the Simpsons" section) and the Reception & Merchandising section needing a rewrite, IMO. Which will be some work but is probably doable. (The real trick will be distinguishing "stuff that the entire Simpsons family does and thus Maggie is tangentially a part of" vs. "No, this is really directly a Maggie thing".) Have you considered notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons? Fixing this up will probably require someone who owns / knows the various Simpsons books. SnowFire (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikiproject is dead. This article was sent out to GAR because of the significant issues for it to be a GA and not for a nominator to fix themselves. The fact that the lead (Zero mentions about its reception/discussion about the character) and the citations that aren't formatted well would be fine for you is a red flag. But not only that, but the reception needs to be expanded aside from being rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boneless Pizza, kindly refrain from calling it a "red flag" that I don't see your point when you are the one making the point vaguely. It's not on you to fix the issues, no, but it IS on you to clearly delineate the "significant issues" and not just assert they exist. Be concrete here. What exactly is your complaint about the citation formatting? Because I don't see any major problems.

There's nothing really significant in Reception currently (About.com? Listicle crap?), so having nothing in the lead seems fine. Like I said above, I agree with you that section needs a full rewrite with much better sources than it currently uses, but am not sure it needs expansion compared to its current size. It's obvious why: Maggie is a baby. She's surfing along with the rest of the Simpson family 95% of the time. Even if the Reception section is rewritten, I doubt there will be much more than a sentence to say, probably something like "Maggie only rarely gets her own moments but critics like it when she does."

I suppose if you can't be bothered, I'll make the Wikiproject notification instead. If the project is really dead, then it's harmless anyway. SnowFire (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I guess I just overly exaggerated about the citation format; it seems to be not that much (I probably mistaken it with other articles, so I apologize for the "red flag" stuff). It was the lack of authors in several citations. But anyway, the article still contains a lot of issues. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Seeing as nobody has seemingly responded after the notification, I would not object to delisting if nobody is working on it. (Given that there's quite a bit of media published on The Simpsons, this wouldn't necessarily be a super-quick cleanup, we'd want someone who's read the literature to rewrite the Reception section.) SnowFire (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Xinxiu bencao

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far from covering all major aspects of the topic. Chinaknowledge, which is based on Chinese language secondary sources, contains several paragraphs of information about the contents of the book, while the article only has two sentences. The article says that the book is considered lost in China, even though Chinaknowledge makes clear that large sections of the book survive and even lists modern editions of the text. Kzyx (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing they list their sources so we can hopefully check those out. This also makes me realise that I think there must be more sources for this work that are in Mandarin, which I unfortunately do not speak; but if we find the sources hopefully there would be Mandarin-speaking Wikipedians willing to help translate/factcheck machine translations. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long while since I took a look at this but I would hesitate to call Chinaknowledge.de a reliable source, even though its information is ostensibly based on reliable-looking Chinese sources. Notwithstanding the fact that I would really love to incorporate info from Chinese-language sources, I believe this article already covers virtually everything that can be found in the English-language scholarship; I would challenge anyone to contradict me. Claims such as the full text being lost (which I think you're insinuating to be inaccurate) are not based on my word (WP:OR), but the RSes cited. In any case, thanks for helping to improve the article but I respectfully submit that this GAR is a tad premature. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I believe you meant to link here instead. Frankly I do not see that much of a significant difference between the info listed there and in our article. There is a distinction between "comprehensive" (in fact, just "broad in coverage" suffices for GA purposes...) and "exhaustive"... For instance, I'm not quite sure our readers really need to know about every single modern print of the fragments by the Keji weisheng press, the Shanghai keji press, or the Shanghai guji Press, etc. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did mean that link. I didn't actually want to cite Chinaknowledge (which is written by a specialist in Chinese history) in the article and it's definitely not necessary to actually list modern editions. I was just pointing out that there is a lot of information yet to be added. And yes, the statement that the full text is lost is inaccurate: the Encyclopedia of China states that 20 juan survive, and those 20 juan can be found on ctext.org. There are also very many academic papers in Chinese whose main topic is the Xinxiu bencao :[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. In any case, the article's five paragraphs are woefully inaccurate for a clearly important text in the history of Chinese medicine. Kzyx (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please address my point that "this article already covers virtually everything that can be found in the English-language scholarship"... It's not reasonable to expect anything here to incorporate information from the "very many academic papers in Chinese", as much as I would like for this to be the case (and notwithstanding the fact that this topic is indeed Chinese-related)... The claim, for instance, that the full text is lost is made in one of the RSes and faithfully reported in this article. Per WP:OR, it is not in within our purview to contradict that. FWIW, the fact that 20 juan survive (which you are more than welcome to add) is not mutually exclusive with the fact that the full text (comprising who knows how many juan) no longer survives.... Again, as far as the modern English-language scholarship is concerned, I do not think your assessment of "Woefully inaccurate" is at all fair. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 16:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoflettuce, per WP:RSUE English-language sources are only preferred over non-English ones when they are of equal quality. From what Kzyx is saying, it seems like the Chinese-language source include huge amounts of relevant information, without which the article can't be said to cover the "main aspects" of the topic. I am thus of the view that unless the relevant material is added from the Chinese sources, this should be delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Kzyx is being hyperbolic with such claims as "woefully inaccurate" and I respectfully submit that you shouldn't simply be taking his word for it. His main gripe revolves around the "Contents" section and I believe that since we aren't a specialist encyclopedia there's really no need to go into too much detail (or any at all) regarding the hundreds of various medicines listed in the text, apart from the fact that there are 850ish of them. Moreover, "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." Short of gesturing towards a list of papers, Kzyx also has not specified what relevant info is so crucially missing from the article. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 05:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FM (No Static at All)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2019, I promoted this article to "Good article" status, which was the first time I ever took on this responsibility. As such, I am not entirely sure if I conducted the process properly. My biggest concern is that I directly assisted in the editing of the article during the GA Review process, which I believe influenced my decision to list it as one of the Music good articles. If we could get an impartial set of eyes on this article, that would be greatly appreciated. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick drive-by, but there are too many fair use audio files in the article. WP:SAMPLE notes that "There should be only one sample per song recording, even if several users produce samples," and I doubt this song requires multiple samples; in any case, the 70 combined seconds of sample audio is 23% of the length of the original song's length, much greater than the 10% recommended in the MoS. This is luckily pretty easy to fix, removing two samples from the article and leaving one, but I'm not entirely sure if it's enough to warrant a delist because the audio files, while excessive, are technically relevant as they are captioned. Making the call is probably best reserved for someone with better knowledge of the criteria and the song. Leafy46 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, this would be an easy fix. If we were to keep one audio file, I would probably select the piano intro, although I could be convinced to keep the second pre-chorus and chorus. Of three, which one do you think adds most to the article? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: Sorry I didn't catch this! I am personally partial towards the second pre-chorus and chorus, as it "covers more ground," per se. It handles the paragraph about the descending melody with "girls don't seem to care," it touches on the paragraph about the chorus, and (as the biggest factor in this opinion) it adds onto the paragraph about the lyrics. If you're planning on keeping this one, I'd probably add a line to the description calling back to the Lyrics section when it mentions "The chorus's overlapping harmonies of "no static at all" suggest a station identification." However, you have a better understanding of the song as a whole, and the piano intro certainly covers a lot of ground as well. Alternatively, it may be good to cut down both audio samples to just 14-15 seconds, such that the overall lengths of the files are 29 seconds or less. Make your best call! Leafy46 (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I will relay this information to the primary author of the article to gauge their thoughts. In terms of the actual text and substance of the article, do you have any feedback? Is the article too heavily reliant on quotes? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Franklin's lost expedition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: In addition to the existing citation needed tags, I just went through and added two dozen more. This clearly falls well short of WP:GACR and if in an initial review would certainly qualify for WP:QF RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An early 2008 listing that has clearly shown its age. Some uncited paragraphs here and there; a few "[citation needed]" tags; and a heap of "[unreliable source?]" alerts in the timeline. (Subject of AMC's original The Terror miniseries.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will try to restore the article to GA level. What is your timeline for this? 10-20 days? Matarisvan (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specific (this topic is outside my interests), but three to four weeks sounds reasonable. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enter Sandman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 GA reads extremely poorly, and the information is all over the place. None of it feels comprehensive or comfortable to read at all, not even the lead (which is pitifully short for such an important song). There's also numerous unsourced statements, deviations from what song articles usually have (primary the lack of a background section), and irrelevant appearances in media that read like the bad kind of an WP:INPOPULARCULTURE section. This article should not be GA. λ NegativeMP1 03:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2006–07 Bristol Rovers F.C. season

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

This article has several uncited sentences, including entire sections, its references contain many deadlinks, and the lede does not summarise all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demote - it is clear from the nomination and the version as of today that there are a significant number of problems and it's not as comprehensively written as, e.g. 2015–16 York City F.C. season which was nominated many years later. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you can't declare "demote" right after the reassessment was nominated 750 h+ 12:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Great Raid of 1840/1 which was (IMO appropriately) delisted within about 50 hours of being brought to GAR due to overwhelming consensus. Hog Farm _Talk 01:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1983 Pacific typhoon season

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sections are only one paragraph long and don't mention any of the storm's impacts. Additionally, there are several systems which are just empty. It's clear that this good article from 2008 doesn't meet the requirements today. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I was pinged, but yes, I agree this season probably doesn't meet GA criteria. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Road to Rupert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

"Production" section has lots of uncited text, and the "Cultural references" section feels like unrelated, random, uncited facts mostly in one-sentence paragraphs. Some additional sources might be discovered with an Internet search. Z1720 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interstate 85 in North Carolina

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No point in WP:FIXLOOPing until the end of time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many instances of statements which are not supported by the cited references. I marked up a bunch in Special:Diff/1232453072, but this is just a small sampling, and marking them all up would be more like vandalism than anything else. In many cases, entire paragraphs are cited to a single source, which is often just a DOT map showing major road alignments. I also described a bunch more sourcing problems in Special:Diff/1232450469. In short, this was a grossly defective GA review. RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I've fixed most of the issues described in the "citation needed" templates and even added citations in places where they also might have been needed. I feel that now the article is sufficiently sourced and in proper GA territory now. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do is go through the entire article and verify that every citation really does back up the statement that is supports. Here's a few more from Special:Permalink/1232539652:

I-85 narrows back down to six lanes ... [36] not supported by the map
The landscape becomes more rural as I-85 reaches just outside of Lexington ... [37] the cited document does't say anything about the landscape becoming rural.
I-85 enters a large forest with tree-lined medians and crosses Abbotts Creek ... [38] that's a link to a map that says nothing about a "large forest" or "tree-lined medians".

I really need to emphasize this: don't just fix those three and come back and say, "fixed, it's ready for GA now". The problem is endemic. It's going to be a lot of work to go through and fix this up, but it's encumbant on the author(s) to do that work, not count on reviewers like me to find the problems one by one. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I expressed my opinions in this discussion on the nominator's talk page that this article was not ready for GA before the nomination was picked up. The biggest issues I raised were overreliance on maps for opening dates (when better sources such as Newspapers and DOT reports are available), the lack of information about notable post-construction projects, and formatting. Most of these issues still remain. In addition, I also recently quickfailed the nomination of Interstate 485 for many of the same reasons. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering... have there been any notable post-construction projects? I can't seem to find any online other than the Corridor Improvement Project. Maybe I'm not looking too sharply. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the interchange with I-77 was recently reconstructed in a pretty big project. That would definitely be worth including. While the article does provide a basic overview of the widening projects, I'm not sure it covers all of them. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sourcing problems:

Because the previous exit is northbound-only, drivers going southbound must use NC 47 to access I-285.[39] I don't see anywhere in the cited source that talks about this.
Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction.[43] the cited map shows nothing approaching the level of detail which would justify making this statement.

Reading the thread noted by Bneu2013 above, I see you wrote: I'm usually more familiar with the I-85 article compared to I-40 since I've gone along I-85 more frequently and am living closer to that corridor. I suspect this is a core part of the problem. You have statement like restaurants, businesses, churches, and car dealerships lining the road.[16] and Businesses, restaurants, parks, and buildings can be seen lining the sides of the highway.[53] both of which are cited to sources which say absolutely nothing about these things. I'm guessing that you are relying on your personal knowledge obtained by driving the route yourself. Am I correct? If so, that is WP:OR and cannot be used. I apologize for my tone, but the requirement to use reliable published sources to establish verifiability is a core policy and it's astonishing to me that this level of non-sourcing got as far as passing a GA review. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, I've driven along I-85, but I usually look at Google Maps when I'm writing the route description for anything. Now I suppose you could consider that as original research. I do apologize for this, however, and Bneu himself has stated that he could find articles from Newspapers.com for it. The only problem is, I ahem... don't have a subscription. So clearly I don't even know what I'm going to do at this point. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you mentioned that you don't have a newspapers.com subscription. Free access to newspapers.com is available via WP:TWL. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry. Just got back from a short errand. Where is it on the Library? I can't seem to find it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, never mind, I found it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you still have to have a subscription to view PDFs of pages and clip articles. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Wikipedia Library does let me access the articles for free. You're right about the clipping part, though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread about this at WT:The Wikipedia Library#Can't create clippings on newspapers.com. To be honest, I'm still struggling to figure out the dance you have to go through to generate clippings with the new system. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same. What makes it annoying is the fact that I did indeed log in through the library, but for some bizarre reason, it doesn't let me take the clippings. I have no idea if this is my problem or a problem on the site's end. That's also pretty tedious. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith, do you think the issues have been fixed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: no. I spot-checked on statement ("Once the lanes pass under Johnsontown Road around milemarker 102, the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction") It's still cited to the same useless map, plus the addition of a blog, which not not a WP:RS. Somebody else needs to give this a proper evaluation. RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith @AirshipJungleman29 Now look, I reaaaaallly don't want to use Google Maps for this. But I did talk with Bneu on his talk page and he says that most road editors would agrees that it can be used as a last resort in case I can't find any other source to confirm it. Well, it turns out I indeed can't find the source, and I'm starting to get nervous. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went to the USGS website and everything is there. So now everything should be confirming to its source. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I've also put DeLorme as a source to help confirm everything in there. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoobThreePointOh you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to verify facts against a source. Looking at the Fair Grove Quad, I can see that I-85 crosses Johnsontown Rd. But none of these facts are verifiable:

I-85 goes under Johnsontown Rd (if anything, it looks the opposite)
Where mile marker 99 is.
What direction traffic flows on each section of I-85.
Which section of I-85 goes over the other when they cross 0.2 miles east of Johnsontown Rd.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to using maps as sources, but you can't just cite them and say whatever feels good. Just like with any other source, you need to carefully read the source and only say what the source says. This is crucial and non-negotiable. I hope whoever does the reassessment review will take the time to carefully check that the sources cited throughout this article do actually support the statements they are supposed to support. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I think at this point I'm going to have to use Google Maps as a source. I can't find anything else, and the official NCDOT maps don't help either. It's a last resort that I can only do since there's no other source to use. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here are my responses for each one of your points.

I-85 goes under Johnsontown Rd: I've changed under to cross to make it sound more neutral and in place for the source.
mile marker 99: TBH, I didn't think that this was even needed in the article, since it's almost unnecessary except for exits and major interchanges, so I removed it.
I've added Google Maps as a source for the last two points you've made. As aforementioned, there's little to no information I can find about the statements online. Based on articles like Interstate 75 in Michigan, which are featured and use Google Maps as a source, I feel that it's a bit adequate to use it in this article as well. Let's hope that someone else who checks over the article says it's perfectly fine to do so.

NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NoobThreePointOh, as reviewer time at GAR is limited, please make a note here when you believe the article fulfils the GA criteria and someone will conduct a more in-depth review, and !vote accordingly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 Yes, I do believe now it does meet GA criteria, so is it possible for someone to begin a full review of the article? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look. Picking one citation at random:

It reaches the main exit for Belmont at NC 273 near milemarker 27, then crosses the Catawba River on the Cameron Morrison Bridge, entering Mecklenburg County.
- The map does not say this is the main exit. There's another exit that gets you to Belmont at N. Main St. Why couldn't that be the main exit?
- Nothing on the cited map says anything about mile marker 27.
- The map does verify that I-85 crosses the Catawba River, but says nothing about the bridge being named the Cameron Morrison Bridge.
- The map doesn't mention Mecklenburg County.

Please stop wasting everybody's time with this. RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My responses:

I've changed the wording so that it displays Belmont at both N. Main St. and NC 273 for clarity, since both of them go to downtown.
This part was cut out despite the source I put showing that exit 27 is milemarker 27, so it's a whatever thing.
The last two: I've put a source describing all of the road and bridge names in North Carolina, but the naming of the bridge as well as the counties it connects is on page 21 out of 27 pages on the .pdf document.

I looked for other places where you might suggest improvements and tried fixing them there, but I won't be asking any other checks for a couple days at fear that I might get blocked by you in terms of wasting time. I'm apologizing for that. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, one thing before I go: Could you get a roadgeek to review the article as a second opinion? Thanks, and out. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per WP:FIXLOOP.--Laun chba ller 09:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Big Fish

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Reassessment retracted by nominator. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails stability criterion due to massive number of edits (and users) playing around with the content over the last 30 days.[16] I have made a check user and sock puppet report, and discussed the issue with the primary editor,[17] but there is no sign of understanding the problem. As the original reviewer for the most recent review (2009), I recommend that the article be delisted because neither its stability, accuracy, or reliability can be guaranteed at this time. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per WP:GAR, "instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article." What is inaccurate or unreliable in the article Viriditas? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the community has been fairly good at reverting bad edits, so the article isn't in as bad shape as it could be. Earwig shows no copyvio, so that's good. The Accolades section shows awards attributed to the "Awards Circuit Community Awards" and "Argentinean Film Critics Association Awards", both of which are unsourced, and which can only be found on IMDb (Internet Movie Database), which is considered generally unreliable. Other than that, recent edits did violate criterion 1, but it's been reverted. The sock farm has not stopped creating accounts and its editing poses a continuing problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I blocked a pile of socks and also semi-protected the page for a month. Hopefully that will calm things down a bit. RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sacred Cod

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: General consensus is to keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings all. The following is a slight rewrite (after receving feedback from @EEng) of what I wrote on the article's talkpage (this is my first time opening a reassessment so I put it in the wrong spot): First and foremost is my concern that this constitutes a dramatic over-use of quotations, mainly because this has resulted in overly-long sentences and paragraphs that hamper reading clarity and fail to add information that our own prose could. As we all know, WP:GACR requires compliance with the manual of style, and MOS:QUOTE discourages excessive quotation use as "incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style", recommending the use of quotation only when it serves a clear clarifying or attributive function. For example, we have:

"painted to the life" in the very first sentence. I had Googled this phrase and didn't get a result; a second more thorough search after hearing from EEng made clear what this means. However it's still presented in Wiki voice, and it's in the very first sentence. At minimum, inline attribution of the quote would make sense, because even with quotation marks it still reads like we are presenting it as fact.
"a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of this Commonwealth" also in the first sentence. This is the second in a single sentence and it can be easily and more concisely paraphrased without quotation.
"historic and continuing symbol", ALSO in the very first sentence. This quote was attached to a broken citation (since fixed by EEng) but said citation is from the Massachusetts legislature, which I would not consider a reliable source on whether its own traditions are "historic."
A "prehistoric creature of tradition", a couple of sentences later, fitted with alleged attribution to "the authoritative source." What is said authoratative source? It's not cited in this paragraph, and we're now at four quotes in the first two sentences of the article. I also (and admittedly this is subjective, but I think it's all part of the bigger picture) disagree with the structure "if it really existed—". It seems whimsical and loose, and I don't believe that this article being about a somewhat silly subject means that every paragraph should be packed with flowery prose. Most good articles are not.
Same story in paragraph two. We have a very long inline quote about investigating the significance of the Cod. This could be trimmed dramatically to "to investigate the significance of the emblem" or paraphrased to "to investigate its historical significance." Nothing is added here by the quote and it's far too much information for the lead.
I also don't think that we should use the pun "Cod-napped" in Wiki voice. This is again a broader issue with the article; the lighthearded tone I think goes beyond what I think is welcome. If we're going to use the pun, say something like "The Sacred cod was briefly stolen by editors of the Harvard Lampoon, in an event later termed the Cod-napping."

To be more specific, WP:GACR has the following requirements:

"the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience"; three quotes in one sentence is not concise, especially given that I've illustrated how said quotes can be trimmed down
"it complies with the manual of style for lead sections"; the Manual of Style makes clear (MOS:QUOTEPOV, the "unnacceptable" example) that the mere use of quotation marks does not take a quotation out of Wiki voice. The phrasing in the beginning of the Cod-napping section does this right.

Now scrolling down, you would notice the Second Cod section consists about 80% of a single quote. Said quote is whimsical but imparts minimal information. I fail to see why we can't paraphrase most of it. Then the Third Cod section has a very very long sentence that is again mostly quotes which could be easily paraphrased. Same story on the Committee on History of the Emblem of the Codfish; you don't need a quote to say that they researched and investigated for two months or that they ordered its removal.

Again, in "Cod-napping" and other incidents, you have a sentence that constitutes the entire second paragraph, containing four separate quotes. Also, calling this a "crisis" in Wiki voice seems a little too silly.

My original argument, EEng's reply, and my response to him can be found here. Cpotisch (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. The best thing this review can accomplish is to introduce even more Wikipedians to an article that is so well written, formatted, and produced as a work of art about a work of art that it should have been featured years ago. EEng has ably addressed each criticism presented here, as well as previous criticisms, on the article's talk page. Sacred Cod not a good article? Go fish. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied the article, especially its citations, to bring it more into compliance with some of the picky aspects of MOS. As for the above, my interpretation is that the primary objection is the use of words like "historic" and "crisis" and "cod-napped" in the voice of Wikipedia. At least some of those words appear in reporting about the events in reliable sources, in which case they can be placed in quotation marks, with in-line references to reliable sources, to show that it is not Wikipedia using this flowery language. With respect to the balance of quotations and prose, upon scrolling through the article and skimming it, the balance seems fine to me. The quotations impart a flavor to the article that plain prose would not. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Nothing new has been brought to the table and there was already a fraught GAR awhile ago. Yes, the writing style of this article is unusual for Wikipedia. But there will always be some winner for the award of "most off-beat", if it wasn't this article it'd be something else. I don't see any actionable complaints about factual accuracy. If this article is in the top 1% most ratio of quotes-to-prose of a GA, well, again, something has to be there, there will always be a GA with the most quotes. Per Jonesey95, lots of quotes enables transmitting some of the inherent ridiculousness of the situation while not using Wiki-voice as much. It's fine. SnowFire (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pinged to this discussion (and the previous one) so I'll give my thoughts - the quotations appear to be somewhat excessive. I make use of quotations in my writing for sure, and they are not at all incompatible with GA status, but the giant blockquotes are excessive in my opinion and I think they should be trimmed. I appreciate that some of the giant quotes have been moved into the separate notes section, but there too they are beyond what's encyclopedic in my opinion and my understanding of MOS:QUOTE. There are two instances of sandwiching which should be addressed per MOS:LAYIM which falls within the MOS sections included in the GA criteria. I appreciate the useful work by Jonesey95 to tidy up the refs. This was a good faith GAR by an editor in good standing, and I do not want to see a repeat of the abysmal conduct directed at the nominator at the previous discussion here. You can disagree, even strongly, without insulting other editors and I'm pleased that so far no personal attacks have been flying here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughts. Which quotes in particular do you think are "beyond what's encyclopedic"? I imagine we're on a similar page here but would want to confirm (the last time I made any minor solo edits to quotations I received some quite forceful pushback). Cpotisch (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You never made any "minor solo edits" -- you made one gigantic edit which eviscerated the article (cutting it literally in half) and turned it into a mishmash of simple declarative sentences [18]. You did have one earlier edit [19] (adding the "Essay-like" tag) which carried the edit summary, "the article’s prose is does not flow naturally and does not synthesize sources to nearly the extent that it should" – whatever "does not synthesize sources" could possibly mean. E Eng 13:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two blockquotes that are in templates, along with the large quote under the Second Cod section which takes up the vast majority of that subsection. It's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that we don't just quote others but rather summarize what others have said. I don't buy the arguments of "people just don't like the lighthearted tone"; my issues are with excessive use of quotations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire existence of this GAR and the opener's long-winded arguments can be boiled down to a single much-shorter quote: "This is again a broader issue with the article; the lighthearded tone I think goes beyond what I think is welcome". Oh no! We have a Wikipedia article that doesn't treat a wooden fish effigy with the seriousness it deserves! Someone call the fire department!

To be serious: there is absolutely nothing in the GA criteria saying that we must avoid lightheartedness. The closest is #4 on neutrality, and that merely states that we must represent the mainstream opinion(s) on this topic accurately. If mainstream opinion is that the Sacred Cod is somewhat silly, then it is not a violation of #4 to present it as somewhat silly; indeed, that should be a requirement. Any GAR based on a different premise is a botch before it even started and should be closed quickly to put it out of its dry-hearted misery. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the subject is “somewhat silly” and that the article can reflect that. Where I disagree is that silly quotes should not be included simply because they are silly. I’m on my phone so I have to circle back tomorrow for specifics, but there are inline and block quotes in this article that ramble and could be dramatically cut down to get the same fun information across. Cpotisch (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you spare us that, and tell us which of the GA criteria aren't met? Since it's been explained to you now OVER and OVER that MOS compliance (and MOS:QUOTE) don't apply, can you find something other than quotes to complain about -- something relevant to GA -- or else give a rest? E Eng 05:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is arguing for a dry or boring article, and I've had disagreements with reviewers of my own writing to defend language with some level of lightheartedness or non-seriousness. In my current FAC I have argued in favor of the retention of this non-serious quote from a locomotive builder to a customer: I have never furnished Flag Staves. They are expensive and boyish ... One pump is sufficient... You paid $800 less for an engine than I have ever sold before. You should not expect too much in the way of extra furnishing. The issues here are beyond tone - the quotations are excessive in length. My example here is around 200 characters, well within a reasonable length. What's not reasonable is having a 1200 character blockquote in the top of the history section or a 750 character blockquote thrown in the middle of the body. I included a 520 character humorous quote in Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad, but I set it off to the side instead of throwing it in the middle of the body and crowding the text. In Hartford and New Haven Railroad, I wrote in wikivoice An extension of the Middletown Railroad, appropriately named the Middletown Extension Railroad, was chartered in 1857... I provide these examples to counteract the narrative here that anyone critical of aspects of the article simply can't handle an article that isn't completely serious in tone. The article can keep a lighthearted tone, but proper writing should summarize the quoted material and only keep as direct quotations the most interesting bits which don't lend themselves to being summarized or would lose meaning and/or humor if so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. No evidence of failing GA Criteria. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, but at least we're getting an ANI thread out of it, so the day's not been an entire loss. E Eng 12:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles <- This quote with original emphasis is directly from the GACR page. Use ctrl+f to find it or click on footnote [1]. Cpotisch, you had half a dozen opportunities to read the GACR properly and yet you are still misrepresenting that compliance with MOS as a whole is a requirement for GAs. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Proposer's arguments have been refuted, no valid reason for delisting has emerged. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural delisting; the article has been merged per consensus at Talk:2003 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) into 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TISM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains numerous uncited sentences and paragraphs, large block quotes that can be summarised instead, and too many one-sentence paragraphs that do not seem to follow NPOV. Z1720 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Long-term potentiation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains many uncited sections and a lede that does not summarise all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dean Witter Reynolds

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 nomination has 10 citation needed templates, as well as some prose issues (may not be encyclopedic, puffery and peacock words...). Also concerned on the quality of the sources; surely there must be more secondary sources instead of using primary ones, for example, one annual report is used in the entire business overview section. Spinixster (trout me!) 08:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Justinian I

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion has 9 citation needed tags, as well as other untagged statements lacking citations. Real4jyy (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will work on this article. What is your expected timeline for this? 10-20 days? Matarisvan (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey, nice to see you're planning to work on this article. I'm not an expert on the period, but I was confused by the following: he came from a peasant family ... The name Iustinianus, which he took later, is indicative of adoption by his uncle Justin. ... His mother was Vigilantia, the sister of Justin. Justin, who was commander of one of the imperial guard units (the Excubitors) before he became emperor. I think it should be clarified - how it was possible that commander of the guard became an emperor? Was there a military coup? Or he was from the previous emperor's family? And were this commander and his nephew really from a peasant family? Artem.G (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Artem.G, I just concluded another GA reassessment and have started working on this one. Give me some time and I will resolve the queries you have. Matarisvan (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided many of the citations, and will continue looking for ones where they are still needed. Chronicler Frank (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This collection of randomly selected texts from several sources (including primary sources) could hardly be described as a coherent article. For instance, section "Legislative activities" contains sentences about elements of his legislation without explaining why they are emphasised, and section "Natural disasters" does not explain their effect on Justinian's reign. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Borsoka, good to see you here! I understand you are quite well read on Crusader and other nobility, so I hope you could help me out here. I have just started working on this article, with my sole edit yet only seeking to improve source formatting. I will work on the issues you have raised and hope I can get them resolved soon. Matarisvan (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 GA needs sourcing improvements - a good chunk of the article is sourced to Global Security, which is now considered unreliable - see WP:GLOBALSECURITY. Additionally, there is other uncited material in the article, including a couple CN tags. Additionally, if possible, it would be nice to get a little more detailed inforation about the 2017 Atlantic Resolve and 2019 Freedom's Sentinel deployments. Hog Farm _Talk 13:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hog Farm, I would like to work on this article. What is your expected timeline? 10-20 days? Matarisvan (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get it done in less than a month, that would be great. Hog Farm _Talk 13:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few uncited sentences, but the biggest issue is statistics is mainly based on the time of the GA listing in 2013, and many statistics are quite outdated. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concurrent use registration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains multiple uncited paragraphs, and a talk page discussion indicates that this article needs to be updated to reflect its current use (or obsolete status). Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Florida State University

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: With acknowledgement of Sirberus's efforts to improve the article and address concerns, I am still unfortunately closing this as a delist. This is driven by the repeated issues with failed verification brought up by Nikkimaria, and the overreliance on non-independent sources noted by several editors. The best path forward here is likely to restart the article from scratch (though the sources can be kept) to fully eliminate both of the problems which led to delisting. Once this is done, please feel free to nominate the article for GA again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains significant copying/close paraphrasing of non-free sources. I've removed some but more substantive rewriting appears warranted. Samples:

Article: "The Center for Advanced Power Systems is a multidisciplinary research center organized to perform basic and applied research to advance the field of power systems technology. CAPS' emphasis is on application to electric utility, defense, and transportation, as well as, developing an education program to train the next generation of power systems engineers. The research focuses on electric power systems modeling and simulation, power electronics and machines, control systems, thermal management, cyber-security for power systems, high temperature superconductor characterization and electrical insulation research. With support from the U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the U.S. Department of Energy, CAPS has established a unique test and demonstration facility with one of the largest real-time digital power systems simulators along with 5 MW AC and DC test beds for hardware in the loop simulation. The center is supported by a research team composed of researchers, scientists, faculty, engineers, and students, recruited from across the globe, with strong representation from both the academic/research community and industry"
Source: "The Center for Advanced Power Systems (CAPS) is a multidisciplinary research center organized to perform basic and applied research to advance the field of power systems technology. CAPS emphasis is on application to electric utility, defense, and transportation, as well as developing an education program to train the next generation of power systems engineers. The research focuses on electric power systems modeling and simulation, power electronics and machines, control systems, thermal management, cyber-security for power systems, high temperature superconductor characterization and electrical insulation research. With support from the U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the U.S. Department of Energy, CAPS has established a unique test and demonstration facility with one of the largest real-time digital power systems simulators along with 5 MW AC and DC test beds for hardware in the loop simulation. The center is supported by a research team comprised of dedicated and highly skilled researchers, scientists, faculty, engineers, and students, recruited from across the globe, with strong representation from both the academic/research community and industry."
Article: "Other marine stations maintained by Florida State University until 1954 included one at Mayport, on the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, which conducted research related to the menhaden and shrimp fisheries and oceanographic problems of the Gulf Stream and the mouth of the St. John's River, and one on Mullet Key at the mouth of Tampa Bay, which studied red tide. "
Source: "Other marine stations maintained by Florida State University until 1954 included one at Mayport, on the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, which conducted research related to the menhaden and shrimp fisheries and oceanographic problems of the Gulf Stream and the mouth of the St. John's River, and one on Mullet Key at the mouth of Tampa Bay which studied red tide."

The article also contains a number of other cleanup tags that should be addressed once the copying is fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain why you removed this material:

In 1819, the Florida Territory was ceded to the United States by Spain as an element of the Adams–Onís Treaty.^[1] The Territory was conventionally split by the Appalachicola or later the Suwannee rivers into East and West areas.

Since you appear to be from Canada and perhaps unaware (forgive me if this is incorrect), this material brings out important information about how and why the East and West Florida Seminaries came to be (these became the flagship universities of Florida State University and the University of Florida), and why Florida was divided by early leaders. This sentence accurately, referenced, and concisely illustrates the early view of Florida by both Federal and State leaders. Additionally, this historically relevant information is formative in Florida politics generally since higher education in Florida shows how Florida turned from a rough territory into what is now one of the fastest-growing states in the United States. Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing your changes and am generally fine with your revisions. You are making the article better - thank you! Wikipedia is a time suck, so it will take a while for me to make corrections and continue the review.Sirberus (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the CAPS article. Kindly review and advise if more work is required.Sirberus (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the marine research article. Kindly advise if more is required. I will wait a few days for your response. If I don't hear from you I will remove the tag you placed and replace the sentence of discussion. Thanks again for improving the article!Sirberus (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the approach you're taking (in both cases) is not going to address the problem. The original was copied almost directly from an external source. Your revision creates a derivative work of that external content, which still can't be used. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Rewriting_content has some guidance on how to approach this instead. Note also that these are examples only, not a complete list. I've opened a CCI request concerning an editor who worked extensively on this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, let's hope the other editor can help. What I did was to rewrite the text based on my interpretation of the original. It was not a mere paraphrase, the personality of the original author is gone. I don't see that as derivative, as I relied on my education and experience. However, let's see what results from the skilled editor.

You seem to have skipped over my first question - can we resolve that small matter? Thank you!Sirberus (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because the details of what treaty accomplished this are misplaced in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Florida leaders of that era thought of Florida in east and west terms, resulting from the A-O Treaty. Congressional records show the desire for a "University of Florida" by reserving two townships in east and west Florida in 1836. The 1836 document was signed by Francis Eppes, among others, who later would be the mayor of Tallahassee and the first leader of the West Seminary, which evolved into what is known today as Florida State University, though it was also titled in state law the University of Florida in the post-Civil War period. This link may be a clearer to the origins of West-East Florida. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/florida. I think it makes sense to show why there were two seminaries and how the concept developed. The references to this are already in the history section of the article. Sirberus (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you removed “research university” from the first sentence of the page? This seems inconsistent with the style used on the pages for all other major research universities. TravelsWithCharley (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review (GAR) process - it appears we need to refresh ourselves with the GAR process:

Reassessment process Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

I have requested help from other editors to protect the process while the GAR is underway. Sirberus (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- The delisting editor (Real4jyy) shows up and says the reason the delisting was made is that no additional edits were made in two weeks...while the two active editors were waiting for a subject matter expert in non-free material to contribute to the review. Pardon me, but I live in the real world, and Wikipedia is a low priority for me and others who want to make Wikipedia better. It may takes months to finish the work. Frankly, the pattern of this individual appears to be to move from one GA review to another and delist whatever falls under their cursor. That is absurd. It takes substantial work to bring an article to GA status. I suggest if any editor want the authority to delist a GA, they should at least bring an article to the GA standard first.Sirberus (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Copyright violations in articles are a GAN quickfail criterion, Sirberus. You will note that WP:COPYRIGHT, a policy with legal implications, is just as much a part of "the real world" as whatever you consider not "low priority". Sitting around "waiting for a non-free expert to contribute" is not acceptable (I don't know where you got that—Nikkimaria didn't say anything of the sort would happen), and if you truly want to make Wikipedia better you would let the article be delisted and take the months to finish the work yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - AirshipJungleman29, I suspect that was based on my mention of opening a CCI request - that request has now been opened but given the backlog it might take some time for it to be fully actioned. It covers considerable content in this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am looking through what SeminoleNation added, but what data specificailly is the problem? If you cannot be more specific, what percentage is of concern? Help me identify and eliminate problem text.Sirberus (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      
      Nikkimaria Just to be clear, I see you are targeting a user's contributions, not this article. Your report to CCI covers many different additions and edits a single user made to perhaps as many as four or more different articles, related in some way to FSU. Let's simplify this to the article at hand - the other edits in other articles are beyond my concern at this time. Help me to identify what is a problem in the main FSU article. Then we can (or I can, your choice) correct the issues and AirshipJungleman29 can weigh in as I appreciate all the work he's done in Wikipedia (sans the snark). Sirberus (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should note that Good Article Nomination is not Good Article Reassessment. Once a Good Article, the effort is to preservation. Achieving GA status is not easy as you well know. I will not let it go if I can fix it.Sirberus (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - AirshipJungleman29 I will not sink the GA status of the article for the sake of the two questioned paragraphs. The two paragraphs can be deleted if indeed they are a violation of copyright, which I tend to doubt, absent some verification. And if we refer to GAR process we note that delisting is perhaps the last action to take, with emphasis first on correction and preservation. Out of respect for the process Nikkimaria started I was waiting for input.
    Nikkimaria, how are you determining the two questioned paragraphs are burdened? What process are you using? If I can corroborate that status, I will delete suspect material today. Or, shall we continue to wait? Sirberus (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure what you mean by "burdened" here. I provided above sample comparisons showing copying between the article and external sources, and a link to a page that explains how to address that. I do want to emphasis though that these are samples only, not a comprehensive listing. Essentially at this point someone needs to go through the entire article to eliminate copied and closely paraphrased content, and unfortunately that's not a quick or easy process. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Being burdened means having a problem. Let's start with your first concern - the two paragraphs you identified. Who is to judge when it's not a derivative work? Let's then clear the article by section. Once the initial concern is resolved, we can move to the top (lede) and work down. Sirberus (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, I'm not sure what answer you're looking for here. Nobody is named as the arbiter - it's just that per Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Rewriting_content rewriting in situ continues rather than resolves the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I am looking for a process we can agree to follow to achieve consensus. For some items I can approach the university directly and request they authenticate and submit permission for detail which cannot otherwise be included.Sirberus (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If rewriting is to occur, that might be a good opportunity to shift lead-exclusive information into the body and handle the unsourced text scattered here and there. I've removed an odd paragraph stating the university was building generic university facilities and trying to make campus look visually appealing. CMD (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I saw your edit and appreciate the culling. The article has accumulated much chaff over time and it is time to clean it up. Sirberus (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTR I've now requested a CCI for a second editor involved in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. But that is not this article. I suspect copying and pasting text from other sources is common across Wikipedia especially among young editors, because it is easy. That's why preservation is important here, it took me a lot of work to collect sources and render referenced information for this work.Sirberus (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an online tool to detect plagiarism and tested it. In the last History section you deleted this text:

By 1854 the City of Tallahassee had established a school for boys called the Florida Institute, with the hope that the State could be induced to take it over as a seminary. In 1856, Tallahassee Mayor Francis W. Eppes again offered the institute's land and building to the legislature. The bill to locate the Seminary in Tallahassee was signed by the Governor on January 1, 1857. On February 7, 1857, the first meeting of the Board of Education of the State Seminary West of the Suwannee River was held, and the institution began offering post-secondary instruction to male students. Francis Eppes served as the Seminary's Board of Education president for eight years.^[2] In 1858 the seminary absorbed the Tallahassee Female Academy, established in 1843, and became coeducational.^[3]

The tool gives a percentage score to other sources. In the tool, it scores this as 43% matches an FSU source. I can seek permission of the university to use this and other material. But what percentage is acceptable? Can we agree to use this method to clean the work? Are you good with FSU giving permission in a fashion acceptable to Wikipedia?
This as interesting history which I intend to correct and replace, however it evolves. Especially about the battle streamer earned by the cadets during the Civil War. What are your thoughts?Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what percentage is acceptable? Unfortunately, there isn't one. Automated tools can be helpful for catching word-for-word copying of freely accessible English-language web sources. But they will frequently flag correctly marked appropriately sized direct quotes or proper names, and miss close paraphrasing or copying of less-accessible sources. This page has more details (focused on one such tool but generally applicable). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In refreshing myself in this area, Wikipedia has many helpful references. I see straightforward ways to cure suspected non-free material in this article.
* Delete the material.

* Reference the material.

* Rewrite the material.

* Get permission to use the material.
* Use a combination of the above, especially in the History section, where the material is so old copyrights have expired. Sirberus (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing the material is a solution only where the material is so old copyrights have expired. If all of the affected sources are willing to freely license the content, that might be another. But failing that, the solution is delete and start again (not rewrite from the existing content). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am rewriting some sections of the history. It may be the easiest to deal with due to the age of the material. Fortunately, I have many of the the references on hand.Sirberus (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The recent deletions of suspected non-free material is helpful. Now material may be vetted and added without concern for non-free taint.Sirberus (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria are you good now with the non-free tag being removed?Sirberus (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not at this point - while great progress has been made on one CCI, there's at least one more that impacts this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What user?Sirberus (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of this one, but even that might not be the end of the story - the piece I removed today was not from either of those two CCIs. I should also note that in doing spotchecks, I'm running into a lot of cases where the citations given are not copied but also don't support the material they are claimed to. I'm not sure whether that's because a different source was used originally (as was the case for at least some of the copying), or whether uncited material was interspersed with cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has picked up a lot of stuff over the years and was written mostly before Wikipedia copyvios were closely followed (before Wikipedia started trying to monetize things?). It has also been edited over time. The entire work should be checked. Back then, citations were manually entered, and citing material properly took a lot of work (remember Kate Turabian’s book? - lol). Today, there is an automated process that simplifies cites. I want to preserve GA status. It will be cleaned up one way or another. Sirberus (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirberus, as this article contains significant uncited material, many WP:GACR-relevant tags such as {{failed verification}}, {{clarification needed}} and {{cleanup gallery}}, not to mention the concerns about non-free material usage, it will be delisted as a GA unless significant improvement is made within the near future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 I have corrected a number of cites and added cites where tags were located. I think the non-free material has been removed, unless other editors think more culling is required. The gallery was a mess and I removed anyone not elected or fired into space at taxpayer expense. What else? Sirberus (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of additional edits, checks and rewrites. I scanned the article for additional copyvios and found none. Removed the Non-Free tag.Sirberus (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What other problems need to be addressed? I'll keep tweaking, but I need objective assistance.Sirberus (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created page for FSU College of Applied Studies - waiting for review. Sirberus (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove a failed verification tag when the paragraph is not verified by the citation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several FV and CN tags after I have addressed the assorted problems, like a page number problem. If you have a concern with the cite itself, please be more specific. What else needs to be done? Thanks for taking the time.Sirberus (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does any other editor have comments on this reassessment? I'd like to wrap this up.Sirberus (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there still seem to be verifiability issues. Couple of quick examples: "Doak Campbell Stadium is a unique venue for collegiate athletics. It is contained within the brick facade walls of University Center, the largest continuous brick structure in the world" - the given source states "Doak Campbell Stadium is the largest continuous brick structure in the United States"; "In 2008, the lower floor reopened as the graduate- and faculty-focused Scholars Commons. In 2010, the main floor was transformed into an undergraduate-focused Learning Commons. The most recent renovation added smart study rooms, an enlarged computer area, new circulation areas, a tutoring center, and the nation's first double-sided Starbucks" is cited to a source that verifies only "the nation's first double-sided Starbucks"; "The NSF denied the appeal, explaining that the superior enthusiasm for and commitment to the project demonstrated by Florida State led to the decision to relocate the lab" is cited to a source that confirms the appeal was denied but doesn't say anything about the NSF reasoning for why. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great - this is what I need. I will correct those issues. Thanks!Sirberus (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done - do you see anything else? I've been cleaning up a lot of the article as I see problems. Sirberus (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does any other editor see anything which is not GA level? I want to wrap this up. Sirberus (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cites added to things which could reasonably be challenged. Graphics added to improve presentation. Grammar and clarity checked fine. Any reasonably cognizable copyvio material has been removed. Old data and references deleted. Excess alumni graphics trimmed to elected officials and astronauts. Any tags placed by other editors have been addressed. Anything else? In my opinion, unless someone has an issue I don't see, GA status should be affirmed. Sirberus (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still failing verification on spotchecks. For example, "In 1992, Holton patented an improved process with an 80% yield" - don't see any of that at the given source. Also missing citations, particularly in the alumni section which seems to be largely unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out exactly where you find problems. The alumni section is of questionable value...Sirberus (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the Holton reference. That's been updated. The alumni section may have to be mostly offloaded to a non-good article page...do you have any suggestions? Sirberus (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking other Good Article major universities I find a similar situation - some aren't verifying all the vast claims allegedly made by their alumni. At least [one doesn't verify anything]. [| This university] has done a good job with alumni referencing. Note how short the section is. But this pattern is also common: [| BYU], [| MIT], [| Syracuse U.], [| U Miami], [| U No. Dakota]...

So what do you consider a problem in a Good Article university alumni/people section? Which way should I go with this? Sirberus (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start, poor-quality prose with missing or incorrect punctuation or clearly uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Let me see if I can make things better with organization and some trimming. Frankly, I'd like to delete this section. The other Good Article-rated universites retain it, but I question the value.Sirberus (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went radical and dumped the ever-growing list. Please take a look and see if this will work. The special pages set up for this list are a far better location to document all these people. Sirberus (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will pause work to see how this rework is received. Sirberus (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments on the "People" section? Any other problems to fix? I think it (People section) looks better, but I am not sure of the final configuration. I'll continue to tweak other aspects of the article, but can we pass this and wrap this up?Sirberus (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments generally? Do we have a Good Article? Sirberus (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again hitting verifiability issues on spotchecks. Examples: "A Mysterious Clarity. It debuted at the 621 Gallery in 2004 (Tallahassee, Florida), and by popular demand, quickly evolved into a traveling show" is cited to a source that confirms this show was at that gallery in 2004 but not that that was a debut or if/why that later became a traveling show; "the ROTC unit at Florida State University is one of four collegiate military units with permission to display a battle streamer" does not appear in the given source at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the battle streamer and one of four ROTC units here's the corroboration in the listed cite: 1861-65 – During the Civil War, formal military training began at the seminary and it was briefly renamed The Florida Military and Collegiate Institute. Cadets from the institute defeated Union forces at the Battle of Natural Bridge on March 6, 1865, and because of this victory, the FSU Army ROTC is one of four in the United States permitted to display a battle streamer. That is clear enough in my opinion. However, here is a more detailed reference from another school (The Citadel) authorized to display battle streamers: As a result of actions on the battlefield by The Battalion of State Cadets, The Citadel earned the right to post nine “institutional” battle streamers for “significant participation in a battle of historical importance.” Only VMI (one “institutional” streamer), Florida State, William & Mary and Univ. of Hawaii Army ROTC units (each with one) have also been authorized that right. The national service academies post the battle streamers of their respective services, but none for “institutional” participation by the cadet corps. I'll add the cite, but it's overkill.

I'll concede the art claim as being weakly supported by the cite and not worth trying to find a better one. I deleted it. I also found a tag which I fixed, about the MoFA.

Anything else? Sirberus (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to work through the references and update old material. Your primary assertion was copyvio material, which is now gone. Do you see any big stuff remaining? Sirberus (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged numerous uncited statements. I also notice excessive MOS:OVERSECTION and MOS:SANDWICHing (although I don't believe the latter is part of the GA criteria). There are many unreliable references in the article—I see Wordpress, Blogspot, and five Facebook citations. I also note that dozens of the citations are to non-independent references, which are obviously substandard compared to independent sources and may compromise WP:NPOV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the references - if needed. Perfect references are not required for a Good Article. I also don't see MOS standards mandated in a Good Article. There are no website standards in the Good Article criteria either, but while desirable, and I'll work towards better presentation and cite quality none of that should stop recertification as a Good Article. Great suggestions, though. Sirberus (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not suggestions... "I also don't see MOS standards mandated" it's literally on the second line! Criterion 1b) states quite clearly that a GA must comply with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT (in which you may find MOS:OVERSECTION), MOS:WTW, MOS:WAF, and MOS:EMBED. Criterion 2b) requires that all information in a GA is cited, and that reliable sources are used. Seriously, did you even bother to read the criteria Sirberus? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I did skip over the MOS part in the criteria, mea culpa. I'll take a look. Sirberus (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 I reworked the lede and checked the style and it was clunky. I reworked it and am open to suggestions about how it may be improved from here. However, this is still a reassessment, which has turned into a major rework. The assorted cites from lesser quality sources are going to have to be selected out carefully. Everything does not rate an article in the WSJ. Show me the ones you consider to be the worst of the lot and I will either delete the statement or replace the cite. Sirberus (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RSP, WP:SPS, and the sources I mentioned above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have the dubious cites removed. Let me know if you catch one I missed. Sirberus (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done? Sirberus (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article now substantially comports with GA standards and should be re-approved for GA status. No, it's not perfect, mainly because the cites for many salient details covered in the article come from FSU news articles. No one has shown me the FSU factual information in their news blasts is misleading or otherwise incorrect, so I say they are fine until a workaround is found for more independent citations. Sirberus (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with basing entire sections on only non-independent sources is that there is no way to tell if the information is WP:UNDUE—because the balance of the article is not based on reliable sources. As it stands, the entirety of the "Campus" section is sourced only to non-independent sources—the article currently does not justify why it is necessary! The {{third-party}} banner I have placed is unquestionably valid, and it would be eligible for quickfailing at a GAN per criterion 3. No, we are very far from done, as the article is very imperfect; every time I look at it I find something wrong, and it would greatly help if you bothered to go look for things to fix yourself. Otherwise, I'll probably just give up and !vote delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this WP:FIXLOOP is getting quite exhausting, and we're all volunteers here. Ping me when you believe this article meets the GA criteria, and I'll have a read through and !vote on whether it should be kept or deleted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the tags you placed. I am tired of this as well, but I want this article to be GA. So I am not giving up on it. I got it through once...I'll do it again. The third-party banner for a state university...I think is unwarranted. That's like there any other authority you'd believe to produce campus maps more than the university - who has a duty to oversee the properties. However, point taken and I'll see what I can do to improve it. So much crap crept into the article over the years. I have nearly rewritten the entire article to address your reviews. Not to mention the massive changes on campus since I was a student in the 1970s. I have spent hours tracking facts and then writing something people will read, and relearning how to make it work on Wikipedia. It's work. Sirberus (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I'll give you a heads up when I'm finished. Sirberus (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the loop you describe is an iterative improvement process, and I am not afraid of the hard work. It is reality in a complex environment. And we're both volunteers. I think the article is vastly better than it was when we started. I haven't done much on Wikipedia in years and have forgotten much, but I'll keep at it. The automated routines make things like cites a little easier. But the paywalls for good information are a pain and require constant workarounds. Sirberus (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU to all who have corrected my inept edits and errors. I see the work and am grateful for the work! GA or not, this article is better than it was. Sirberus (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is ready for review. Nikkimaria ~~ AirshipJungleman29 TravelsWithCharley StefenTower GreenLipstickLesbian Melchior2006 Beer4me ElKevbo Ira_Leviton Chipmunkdavis Real4jyy Sirberus (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still running into failed-verification issues. For example, "Dix became the first person to hold the individual title in the 100 m, 200 m, and 400 m at the same time" does not appear in the cited source, nor does "Jimbo Fisher succeeded Bowden as head coach in 2010, winning a national championship in 2013 before departing to join Texas A&M after the 2017 season", nor does "normally holds a capacity of 1,600 people" etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I added more cites and deleted peacock text. Sirberus (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else which is material? I'll keep updating the small things as I see them. Sirberus (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dix piece still fails verification: the provided sources confirm he has won titles in 100m and 200m but say nothing about him being the first to do so. (Also not sure why that whole section focuses on 2006/07?) Other examples of failed-verification issues that we're still hitting are the list of intercollegiate sports and the hymn composer. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another look:

There is still uncited material in the article: the "College/school founding" table is uncited, and many sentences scattered around, which means that the article fails GA criterion 2b).
The vast majority of some sections of the article is cited to non-independent sourcing. Non-independent sources are fine if used in moderation, but this is not moderate. Only two of the citations in "Research" are independent; only four in "Organization and administration"; only five in "Student life", etc. This means that I cannot say this article meets critical parts of WP:NPOV such as WP:UNDUE, and thus I don't believe the article meets GA criteria 3b) or 4).

If I was a GAN reviewer, I would not pass this article. Therefore, my !vote is delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote Keep As Good Article. The Section 2b reliability of the sources cited has not been shown to be unreliable, even if they are esoteric to the academic criteria of a particular state university. Every other source outside the university relies on data from the university. I will add cites as necessary to items which would reasonably be challenged, or delete any which cannot be confirmed. In my view the article substantially complies with all GA criteria. Sirberus (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GAR coordinators: this GAR needs closing, please come to a decision. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the proponent of the GAR cited "non-free" material in the article, which has been removed. Then the proponent moved to unreliable citations, which have all been corrected. A second editor wrote of other deficiencies, all of which have been corrected during the GAR. The entire article has been nearly rewritten as a result. The criticism has become nit-picking after the corrections. GAs aren't perfect, they are "good". Thanks again to all editors who have helped with productive criticism make the article better. Sirberus (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirberus: With respect, the lack of independent sources is not nit-picking. They are a very valid reason to delist the article. Unless you think you can largely reduce the reliance on them, and cite the college foundation as mentioned within a reasonable timeline, this article will have to be delisted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly show me the cites of concern. I'll see what I can do. Sirberus (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on what AJ has listed: C/S Funding - add cites; Research - need independent verification; Org & Admin - Need independent verification; Student Life - need independent verification. Agreed? Sirberus (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I appreciate the assistance. The article is far better now. Sirberus (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to noticing breaches the NPOV policy, non-negotiable for all articles as "nit-picking" is laughable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it between the lines, AJ. We all want the article improved. It's far better now thanks to your help. To me, at times, it seems the goal posts keep being moved. However, I want to keep it GA, so I'll keep working. Sirberus (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Serial Set 4478 57th Congress, 2d session House Document 15, Part 2 map 14". 1820. p. 377. Archived from the original on December 13, 2013. Retrieved December 13, 2013.
^ Cite error: The named reference Official History of Florida State University was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Book Review: Gone with the Hickory Stick: School Days in Marion County 1845-1960" (PDF). The Florida Historical Quarterly. LV (3): 122. January 1977. Retrieved July 12, 2010.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

York

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced sections, orange "updated needed" banners, sections that need updating of recent elections and events, and at over 9000 words it is recommended that the article be split off and information be summarised. Z1720 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kechewaishke

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited prose, including entire paragraphs, and the lede is too short. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guitar Hero

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has many uncited paragraphs (and while some are potentially covered under MOS:PLOT, some information definately needs to be cited), the article, at 9,800 words, is longer than what is recommended at WP:LENGTH and the lede, at five paragraphs, is longer than what is recommended at WP:LEADLENGTH. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The CIA and September 11

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delist per lack of comments or improvement. I've resolved the cns (they were both verified by cites in different parts of the article) and the label but I've now added a {{bsn}} and the tone issues remain. Queen of Hearts ^talk 03:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 promotion has MOS:LABEL issues, 2 citation needed templates, and also might have some tone/essay-like issues. Additionally, some of the information may be redundant or unrelated (e.g. why do we need to know the other books about 9/11 that were published during that time?) Spinixster (trout me!) 13:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Joe Rice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information about later life (everything post-2010) uncited. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe I could get this done. What is your expected timeline for this? Matarisvan (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29, I believe this article is back at GA level. Wdyt, any comments you would like to add? Matarisvan (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thoughts below after a quick scan:

Any images of Rice? If he was an elected official, there should be a portrait somewhere that can be added.
Any additional information post-2010 about his life? Has he been involved with anything?
There is an uncited statement at the end of a paragraph.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, I'm out of town for a week and don't have access to my computer. Is it ok if we wrap this up after I return, let's say on the 22nd or 23rd? Matarisvan (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm fine with that. I might add a more thorough review below so that it can be declared "Keep" sooner. Z1720 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, my responses:

There are images from the Colorado Business Roundtable and the MSU Denver. However, both websites don't have any mention of copyright status. I think I'll have to upload either picture as non-free fair use.
Rice's post-2010 life seems to be private. His position at Lockheed Martin Space has been listed here. Other than that, there is nothing notable enough for WP.
I will try and get that uncited statement fixed.

Matarisvan (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RoySmith

On a quick look, I see Rice and Sonnenberg ultimately combined their efforts and integrated the two bills, both of which became law is uncited, but perhaps that's the same issue Z1720 noted? RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feh, fixed ping. RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RoySmith, I'll try to fix the issues you have listed below, perhaps in 2-3 days, if that is ok? Matarisvan (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I (strongly) encourage you to take these as examples of problems and examine the every citation in the article to verify they don't have similar problems. Based on the extent of the issues I found, I am dubious that 2-3 days is all it will take to fix it. RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan, you still intending to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think I will be able to, not because of time constraints but because the Colorado newspapers cited here either have dead websites or non searchable archives. I think this was the max I could improve this article without access to the aforementioned newspapers. No issues with me if you delist this one. Matarisvan (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sourcing seems to be the major issue here, I'll do a random spot-check:

Rice and his wife, Dr. Kendall Kershner-Rice, were married in 1990, and have three children — twins born in 2000, and a younger son born in 2005. [7] [8]
- Partially verified. Neither source says "Kershner-Rice". Neither source says 1990; you can get that from WP:CALC, but only to about +/- 1 year. Neither source says the third child is a son. Also, both sources are 18 years old, so I'd either find something newer to verify they didn't have any more children, or at least throw an {{asof}} in there.
and received the John V. Christensen Award from the Denver Regional Council of Governments in 2004. In 2003, Rice resigned from his post as mayor during the last year of his second term after being called up to active military duty in Iraq . [23]
- Unable to verify due to technical reasons. The original site no longer up and the archive.org copies look corrupted (or, more likely, just grabbed after the original was gone). I'd be wary of citing campaign material for stuff like this, so I'd reccommend finding a better source.
and is a member of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council . [28] [29]
- Partially verified. 28 says he's a member of the Democratic Leadership Council, but neither source characterizes that group as "centrist". It's also not entirely clear who wrote 28, but based on wording like "Our framework", I'm assuming it was campaign literature, so not the best source. Also, given the age of these sources, a statement like "is a member of" is likely to be outdated, so needs a newer source or at least {{asof}}.
and by both union groups (including the local chapter of the teachers' union Colorado Education Association , and the Colorado Association of Public Employees, a branch of the Service Employees International Union ) and business interests (including the Colorado Subcontractors Association and the state Chamber of Commerce , the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry). He was also endorsed by Colorado Conservation Voters and the Colorado Medical Society . [31]
- Partially verified. As above, this is from his campaign site which no longer exists and the Internet Archive copies are a mess. I found an older archive which verifies most of these endorsements, but not all. I'm a little concerned about how much of this article is cited to campaign material.
During the 2007 legislative session, Rice sponsored 16 pieces of legislation, including 11 as the primary sponsor in the House of Representatives. Among the most prominent of his bills was a measure to set up a cold case unit within the Colorado Bureau of Investigation [34]
- Does not verify. The source mentions on bill he sponsored, but the rest isn't there.
to investigate Colorado's 1200 unsolved homicides. [35]
- Verified.
and plans on introducing legislation to make aggravated rape of a child under 12 a capital crime, eligible for the death penalty . [58]
- Verified.
Besides chairing the House Business Affairs Committee during the regular legislative session, [69]
- Verified.
OK, I've done my part, I'll let Z1720 take it from here. My general impression however is that the sourcing isn't up to WP:GACR standards. A few minor details here or there would be fine, but this is more than that. More fundamentally, I have deep concerns about how much of this is sourced to campaign publicity material. Some of that will be inevitable in an article about a contemporary politician, but this seems like too much. The general tone of the article does not comply with WP:NPOV, extolling minor acomplishments and trivial honors like "his seat was decorated with yellow ribbons, and his children were invited to lead the Pledge of Allegiance".

Delist per above; I think it's clear this needs further work. Hog Farm _Talk 22:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apple

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited prose, and sections that are undeveloped, leading me to think that this article is not complete. Upon posting concerns on the talk page, an editor addressed why there might be a short amount of prose, but also raised some potential MEDRS issues. Other editors agreed that GAR was necessary, so here we are. I look forward to additional commentary. Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the gallery, redundant with main-linked List of apple cultivars, as plainly WP:UNDUE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some checking of information and figured out where the information in at least one of the many uncited sentences came from. I was thinking of making a collapsed full table of synonyms like I did for Tetraneuris acaulis, but wanted to run that by other editors since this is a good article. Would it add or detract in this case? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full table is probably out of the GAR's scope, so it must be a low priority item at the moment, though a brief subsection on taxonomic history, giving as the GA criteria state "the main points" would go well in the Taxonomy section, if that is one of those thought to be "undeveloped". Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey team, I think the culinary section will need attention as well. The sourcing is not great, and I just had to take a source off. Will poke around when I have time for a source. ForksForks (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't already know about it, you might want to try archive.org to find some accessible books to support information in the culinary section. If you don't get there first I'll also look into culinary information after I finish distracting myself with looking into the description section. I think I can find some more recent sources to replace some dead websites. The dead websites seem perfectly good, but I think there will be some equally good ones that are still alive. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've, er, tarted up the cookery section using Davidson. There's much more there but we have probably covered "the main points". We could use him to replace most of the other sources, actually, if required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your additions have really strengthened the core of the article. I also am replacing some sources with higher quality ones and still finding some information that needs moderate amounts of correction. I used a cookbook as a source about apple uses, but I wish I had found a book more about cultural traditions and history. One thing: You took out The Story of the Apple by Mabberley as a further reading when I used it as a source. I think it is an important enough book about apples that it ought to still appear in further reading. I didn't see anything at Wikipedia:Further reading that says a book cannot both be a reference and in the FR section, but I'll defer to your greater experience. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is now in a clean state, fully cited, and covers what it should in reasonable detail. I suggest we close this as completed satisfactorily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A4232 road

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of uncited statements throughout the article, and there's a yellow banner asking that information be displayed in a table, which should be resolved or removed. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ellen Roberts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is too short to summerise the contents of the article. There is a lot of uncited information, particularily towards the end of her career. Z1720 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alamogordo, New Mexico

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: No comments or improvement. Queen of Hearts ^talk 17:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has not been updated much since its 2009 promotions, particularly notable in the "Economy" and "Government" sections. There are also uncited statements (particularly in the "Notable people" section) and one-sentence paragraphs that can be expanded or merged. Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts ^talk 03:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text throughout the article, some of which have been labelled with "citation needed" since 2020. There is also an extensive "Further reading" section that should be examined for inclusion as inline citations or removed from the list. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

65th Infantry Regiment (United States)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts ^talk 03:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has lots of uncited sentences, a "Further reading" section that should be examined for sources that can be used as inline citations, and a lead that should be reformatted. Z1720 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Central Atlas Tamazight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many uncited statements, including almost the entire "Geographic distribution" section, many sources used in the bibloography are not used as inline citations, and there are many one or two sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried going back to the originally reviewed version? Or removing the uncited sources? Or citing them? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus: The promoted version from 2009 also has uncited sections, since GA standards were lower back then. I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to evaluate what should be cited and what should be removed: if undertook a search for sources, it would take me hours (or even long) for me to properly evaluate, cite, and rewrite the information when necessary. This would take me away from other projects that I would like to work on. If another editor would like to improve this article, I am happy to re-review. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 version of the article was written by multiple topic experts, several of which were actual linguists working with the language professionally. Those experts however, did not sign up to be on permanent call for removing accumulated junk or for updating the article to conform to whichever standards would come to be implemented some time i the future. You may think that this kind of drive-by reassessment and delisting somehow improves Wikipedia, but in fact it does not. Only doing the actual work does.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus: I thank anyone who has worked on this article in the past or presently. However, this article does not have to have GA status. If editors are not "doing the actual work" to maintain the article, then, in my opinion, we should delist the article so that readers know that this article does not meet the GA criteria anymore. If editors do improve the article to address my concerns, then I think Wikipedia has been improved. Z1720 (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Large amounts of uncited text are a fairly clear GA no-no: if no "good" previous version exists, and no editors are willing to step up to do the (considerable) amount of work needed to bring it up to today's GA standards, I don't see an option other than to delist. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus: you made an edit removing unsourced material on July 30. Do you intend to work further on this? Queen of Hearts ^talk 15:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by their user talk, they don't. Hence, I will be delisting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gettysburg Cyclorama

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited passages (including a section with an orange "citations needed" banner since 2019) and a lede that is too short to summarise all important aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "Benedit Buckeye" section as unsourced and undue detail. If I can get ahold of "The Gettysburg Cyclorama: The Turning Point of the Civil War on Canvas." the rest of this should be doable (it definitely needs further work), if I can't, I'll probably need to let this one go. Hog Farm _Talk 01:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I could get this back to GA level. What is your expected timeline? I've done some preliminary work on the 10th CAB article, but currently am on a work trip so can't do anything more on both articles till the 23rd. Is that alright? Matarisvan (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: - I'm in process of this (I should be able to access the necessary book now). Do you have any objections if I try to take care of this myself, since I was involved at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Gettysburg/1 as well? Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections. Looking forward to your rewrite of this article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still intending to work on this - I've had to take a pause due to internet issues and real-life business, but hopefully I can resume work this weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 02:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last of the uncited content is done. I still need to redo the lead and do some source-text integrity checking. Hog Farm _Talk 22:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - I've spot-checked the sources I could access (which, significantly, does not include several paywalled sources and the Thomas 2005 book) and have redone the lead. This isn't perfect, but I think this is ready for re-review. Hog Farm _Talk 01:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Keep. I think the lede could be expanded upon, but other then that I have no major concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had some trouble writing the lead on this one. Maybe the article writing muse will return after some more sweet tea. Hog Farm _Talk 01:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zirconium

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many uncited statements, and an orange banner indicating that the lede is too short, which I agree with. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just fix it instead? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the intro and added refs for each citation needed. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: I do not have the expertise, nor the desire, to find sources, evaluate their usefulness, add prose, and ensure that the article has returned to fulfilling the GA criteria. If others are interested, they are welcome to improve the article and ping me when it is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Thanks for the reply, but I'm puzzled. On the one hand you're uninterested and lack expertise, but on the other you are evaluating and judging. Seems like an odd combination. Are you on some kind of assignment?

In any case I'll try to fix citations needed if they arise in the future. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: An editor does not need to be an expert on the topic to review articles, nor to bring up concerns about uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Oh I agree completely. But still I'm puzzled. You are making a lot of work for other people. Is that work justified? If you came along and said "I'm curious about Zirconium, but the article has these issues:..." or "I read that Zirconium has 8 oxidation states but the claim is uncited and I don't understand it", then I would be motivated to improve the article. But "I'm uninterested" makes me think I should just ignore this altogether.

And sorry, I'm not trying to pick on you. I just see these Good article things once in while and I'm curious about the process. If I announced a particular article has issues I am pretty sure the response from other editors would be "Well, fix it". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: An article does not have to have GA status. I do not care if this particular article has that status, but I care about maintaining the GA standards. When editors are improving articles, some will look at GAs to use as examples on what to do. If an editor looks an article which has fallen before the standards, they might incorporate bad habits into their article which would take reviewers longer to fix.

When an editor says "Just fix it" they are stating to the reviewer "Go dedicate hours of your time, away from articles that you want to work on to fix up this article that the original GA nominator did not want to fix up themselves." This is why I get defensive when I read this comment. If someone wants to fix up the article, that's great! I'm happy to conduct a re-review once the article meets the criteria again. But I will not be the one who devotes hours of work to improve this article because I have other articles I want to work on instead. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Ok thank you for this information. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also trying to correct unreferenced statements. There are still some in Applications, Compounds and Production... working on it. Recon rabbit 17:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this - apologies for the delay this weekend but I am away from the library that gives me access to a lot of sources I need for these fixes. Recon rabbit 23:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I think that the uncited statements have been dealt with. If the lead is still considered too short, I can work on that too. Recon rabbit 15:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit I expanded the lead after the first post here by @Z1720 Johnjbarton (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit and Johnjbarton: The lead should be a summary of the most important contents in the article, which I interpret as including information about anything that is a level 2 heading. I do not see any information about its production or safety in the lead. I also think the second and third paragraphs might be combined together. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in better shape, I think. Though, there are some things that stick out to me when reading through the article. The length of some of the sections make me think "there should be more to Zirconium then what we have written down here", but it's fairly consistent with Ullmann's encyclopedia, so what do I know... Recon rabbit 19:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton:@Z1720: John: 2.5 irreverent comments: (1) you will find that when some editorial decision is to be made with a geeky chemistry article that often all sorts of editors show up and offer sometimes strong opinions. These editors, some of whom are fairly senior, often are inexpert about the subject being debated, but they still offer advice. (1.5) One encounters a similar phenomenon if you want to formally eradicate a really dumb article (AfD): people who know the least will offer the most advice. Solution: redirect really bad articles into oblivion. (2) this Good article nominations business can be infuriating. One can ends up working hard to satisfy those judging the GAN. Often of these final changes do not materially improve the article's utility to readers (which is the real goal here). So, the question is whether to spend many hours addressing that final 0.1% of a GAN or just fix up some really bad article on an important topic. So, here I am offering advice about others offering advice ....--Smokefoot (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tropical Depression Two (2010)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Procedural delisting. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 16:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this discussion, a consensus has been ascertained to merge this article into 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 16:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Basil W. Duke

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text. There are also sources in the "Further reading" section that might be useful as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This needs substantial work. The Matthews biography is available through the Wikipedia Library, as is a chapter about him in Kentuckians in Gray. I own copies of Warner and then Welsh's Medical Histories of Confederate Generals if anybody wants to consult those. I'm too busy to rewrite this myself but can help a bit if there is a push to rework this. Pending someone else being interested, this needs to be delisted. I have my hands full with real-life stuff and the GAR for Gettysburg Cyclorama. Hog Farm _Talk 22:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mona Simpson (The Simpsons)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. 750 h+ 09:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has multiple banner issues and is obviously poorly written. The reception section is also filled with listicles only without that much commentary. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources of Singapore law

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of uncited text in the article, and sources that could be used in the article in the "Further reading" section. Much of the article contains examples of the law being implemented, and I think the text would be better served explaining the sources and impact on the law. Z1720 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kowloon Walled City

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Kept. 750 h+ 11:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

several unresolved cn tags. ltb d l (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I could get this done. What is your expected timeline? Matarisvan (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@matarisvan: don't have one. maybe 3 months. ltb d l (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan do you still intend to work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will be able to get this done if your timeline is in the same ballpark as @Ltbdl, since I'm currently working on 2 FA rewrites and 2 A class rewrites. Matarisvan (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that the Ludlum and Gibson quotations in the "Literature" section, as non-free content, probably do not meet the standards in MOS:QUOTE and WP:NFCCEG. I would recommend removing these. The Leung Ping-kwan quotation definately does not meet these standards and I will remove that myself. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I can help with the cn tags, but I do own a copy of Girard's City of Darkness (2011 printing of the 1993 edition) and can look through that if needed. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because of the lack of progress i have went ahead and resolved the comments, fixed cn tags among fixing other issues. The article's GA-status remains in place. 750 h+ 10:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John W. Campbell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous uncited passages, bloated lede, reliance on block quotes, and unused sources in the "Further reading" section. Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to trim the lede by at least one paragraph and reincorporate into another section, cut down some of the block quotes and change them into regular prose, and look into some of the works found in the Further Reading section to determine if any of the unsourced claims can be found there. I was able to find a Los Angeles Times reference for one of the unsourced claims and I might be able to assist further with the article. Are you available or willing to clean up the article? If so, can you provide a timeframe? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: I am happy to provide a review after the article is fixed up, but I am not willing to clean up the article myself. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: That's fine. While I might not be able to heavily overhaul the article, I am willing to make various improvements. I have made a couple of changes in the interim, including the addition of references and the elimination of a few block quotes in favor of prose, but I'm hoping that I did not remove any necessary context in doing so.

Could you provide more specific examples on some of your grievances with the article? You mentioned that the lede is too lengthy, but are there any particular paragraphs that are worth trimming or removing? Which ones are absolutely necessary for the article and should be retained? I can address some of these requests once I have additional context, but I will also exercise some discretion when making these changes. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: According to WP:LEADLENGTH, it is suggested that an article of this length should be two to three paragraphs. Typically, the lede is a summary of the most important aspects of the article. I don't have enough knowledge of the prose to know what should be cut from the lede, and I don't have the time or desire to obtain that knowledge. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dobbyelf62: do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am unfortunately away from my computer and will not be able to make extensive edits until the end of the month. My apologies for the inconvenience. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead now looks fine for length, but uncited passages are a major concern. @Dobbyelf62: are you in a position to keep working on this? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will place some attention on sourcing certain passages later today. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am unlikely to add further content to this article, so the review process can proceed. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We still have some uncited material, so if this means that nobody is going to step in to cite it, the only option seems to be a delist, as the article does not meet the criteria. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to take on much work with respect to this article, but I do have most of the cited sources and can look things up and review if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist; valiant effort by Dobbyelf, but this article still has a citation needed tag, two "page needed" tags, and cites the deprecated NNDB. Queen of Hearts (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] "Serial Set 4478 57th Congress, 2d session House Document 15, Part 2 map 14". 1820. p. 377. Archived from the original on December 13, 2013. Retrieved December 13, 2013.

[Official_History_of_Florida_State_University-2] Cite error: The named reference Official History of Florida State University was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] "Book Review: Gone with the Hickory Stick: School Days in Marion County 1845-1960" (PDF). The Florida Historical Quarterly. LV (3): 122. January 1977. Retrieved July 12, 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]