Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 80

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 79)

Good article reassessment (archive)

(Page 81) →

Stonyhurst College

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) 14:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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 I would also strongly suspect that parts of the article are out of date, especially that about taking ten GCSEs as standard, which is cited to a 2008 source and is definitely not the norm nowadays, even in elite academic private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

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.

Siege of Szigetvár

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: I am also not an expert, but I believe the issues have been sufficiently addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe added the {{GAR request}} tag in May, adding the rationale "Article cites sources from the 19th century, and the ref format has grown inconsistent since promotion more than a decade ago. Also, per above, the siege is only a small portion of the article text. The 2019 book specifically about the siege, which should be accessible to TWL users, could be helpful on expanding the content about the article topic." below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, I'm willing to work on this. What would your expected timeline be? I think 30-40 days will be ok here, wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan why did you remove [[1]] valuable information? Emperor Maximilian and 80,000 soldiers were encamped in the vicinity of Győr but did not attack the Ottomans to take the pressure off Szigetvár. Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press ^[1] This information is very important for the battle because no one wanted to help, and the army was nearby.78.0.239.162 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@78.0.239.162, this statement along with the source has been added to the article. @AirshipJungleman29, do you think this article passes GAR now? I have removed all pre-1950 sources, converted all refs to sfn, finished biblio formatting and removed cases of MOS:SANDWICH. Matarisvan (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan, User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors shows numerous errors you might want to look into. Aside from that, what do you think buidhe? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's looking better, the citations in the lead are a bad sign—some of the content in the lead/infobox is not in the article and/or lacks any citation. I'd be surprised if there weren't different casualty figures from different sources. (t · c) buidhe 12:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29, the HarvErrors should be resolved now. @Buidhe, the casualty figures were cited in the body so I didn't cite them in the lead. I have done so now, could you review the rest of the article? Matarisvan (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of unsourced notes, if these are fixed I don't oppose keeping it, although I am far from an expert on this area of history and don't feel I can offer a full review. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, should be addressed now. Perhaps @AirshipJungleman29 can do a full review if needed? Matarisvan (talk) 11:44, 7 October 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.

Scott Special

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) 21:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Key Biscayne

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) 20:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

^ Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691119694

[1] Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691119694

[1]