Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 80

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 28 October 2024 (close GAR Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Nicki Minaj/1 as delist (GANReviewTool)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 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 I would also strongly suspect that parts of the article are out of date, especially that about taking ten GCSEs as standard, which is cited to a 2008 source and is definitely not the norm nowadays, even in elite academic private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]
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.

Alaska Airlines

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) 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Spider-Man

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) 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Flag of convenience

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

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

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.

Kirby's Dream Land

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) 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Onion

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) 20:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is unsourced information throughout the article, some "Further reading" sources that should be considered for inclusion, and some oversection in the "Uses" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I can try to help address some of these concerns so that we can hopefully keep the article as a GA. Is there usually a certain time frame this needs to be done by? Thanks. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eucalyptusmint: There is no timeline as long as improvements are being made. Feel free to ping me when it is ready for a review. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good, will do. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad this is being addressed; I'll lend a hand, and have already asked Cwmhiraeth if she'd like to join in too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it! Looks like you fixed most of the noted issues. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Unsourced materials: have fixed all the obvious citation needed issues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) Further reading: Incorporated the Gripshover journal article into 'History'. Formatted a bit better, and disarmed harv links. We're down to 2 books in the list, which seems reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3) 'Uses' too many subsections: merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - it feels like a GA again, cleaned up as above. Take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick review doesn't bring up any concerns. I'd prefer that there was not a "Further reading" section but it is not a deal breaker. Is WiseGeek a reliable source? (ref 35). Citations in the lead can probably be removed. I removed some duplicate refs in the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading - noted, it is not a GA issue. WiseGeek ref replaced. Lead citations removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're about complete here really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 13 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.

Bees and toxic chemicals

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: Withdrawn Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 22:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some uncited statements and a large use of block quotes that should probably be summarised and reduced/removed. Sources listed in "Further reading" should be incorporated into the article or removed. "Toxic plant honey" suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and these sections probably need to be expanded. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncited claims: Removed or cited all of them.
  • Block quotes: removed most of them, cut down the rest.
  • Further reading: deleted the dead ones, ditto for 'External links'. The one remaining item has a list that may be of interest.
  • Oversection: merged all subsections of 'Toxic honey' to one paragraph; this is quite enough detail for this subtopic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 13 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.

Brain

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

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

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.

Pre-Code Hollywood

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

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

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.

Green Lantern (film)

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: Closing as no consensus; no prejudice against another GAR being opened with a man-made rationale. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose delisting the Green Lantern film article from "Good Article" status due to several issues. The article is not well-written, with unclear prose, and failure to follow the Manual of Style. It lacks broad coverage, missing important details while including unnecessary information. The reception and production sections are underdeveloped and need significant expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lililolol (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind outlining a rationale with specific issues to be fixed using your own words, not the vague ramblings of a WP:LLM Lililolol? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 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.

The Swarm (roller coaster)

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) 15:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Chemical Bank

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) 15:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

BR Standard Class 7

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) 15:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

1920 Canton Bulldogs 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) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Lexus LS

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: Withdrawn. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some unsourced statements throughout the article. There are also one- or two- sentence statements that should be merged together more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will fix. 750h+ 00:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: i've fixed the unsourced statements and one/two-sentence statements/paragraphs. 750h+ 01:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: I added some cn tags. Once these are resolved I don't think I'll have any other concerns with the WP:GA?. Outside of the criteria, I recommend that some images be removed as there are a lot and it is causing some MOS:SANDWICH and other weird formatting. Z1720 (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: done, i hope the infobox-sandwiching is fine. 750h+ 02:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: ? 750h+ 23:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: Keep. Sourcing concerns are resolved. Sandwich concerns remain, and I think the only way to solve it is to remove some images. This is not a condition to getting this article to GA status. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 14 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.

United Nations

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

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

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.

Pennsylvania Turnpike

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

Article has gotten out of hand since 2012 promotion.

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

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

How else are you supposed to write a history section for a road article? They typically announce things at a specific date, even if they had planned to do it a long time before. Same with the service plaza section. Cfeddse (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You vary the sentence structure and length. When literally every sentence begins with "In (year)..." it's boring and clunky and doesn't flow well. It's a basic rule of writing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Steak

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) 21:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uncited: massively.
Small subsections: merged several within 'Marketing and sales', there's easily enough coverage of this side-issue here. Similarly merged within 'Cultural significance'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: needs to be rewritten.
  • Oppose
Needs work.
The lead claims that hamburgers are made of minced steak, but in fact they can be made of any minced beef meat.
  • It didn't, it said they could be, but I've removed the mention anyway.
The etymology section is factually correct, but confusing and needs to be rewritten.
  • ........
It is bizarre to say "Livestock for meat to be used as steak cuts may be raised on a farm or ranch." in the steak article, since this is true for any cut of beef.
  • Removed.
"In Asian countries" seems to be referring to East Asia, which is not all of Asia. It isn't clear that beef strips or cubes used for stir-frying should be referred to as steak, anyway.
  • Removed.
"In Argentina, steakhouses are referred to as parrillas" is at best misleading, since parrillas serve many kinds of roasted meat.
  • Removed; it had been properly sourced but may have been a partial paraphrase.
"Beefsteak has been categorized into various cuts." is poorly phrased. I think this means "Various cuts of beef are used for steak."
  • Fixed.
""Surf and turf", which combines meat and fish, requires more time to prepare." is a strange comment. Doesn't this belong in a section on serving, along with prawn cocktail, steak and Black Forest gateau?
"a beefsteak shaped into a patty to be cooked after being minced" is a strange way to put it. More like "beef may be minced and formed into a patty for cooking".
  • Fixed.
I am not sure that hamburger steak, salisbury steak, etc. qualify as steak even though they use the name. --Macrakis (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.
  • Oppose (continued)
When did steak become popular in various places? The current article suffers from extreme presentism. The "steakhouse" section mentions chophouses (good) but not how they relate to steakhouses.
The Delmonico steak section directly contradicts the Delmonico steak article. Here, it is a "method of preparation" prepared Delmonico style (never defined), while there it is explicitly defined as a "cut, not its preparation". Which is it? Do we have any WP:RS?
"Hundreds of restaurants specialize in serving steak" -- where did this number come from? Does it refer to some particular geography? There are probably tens of thousands in the US.
The article lurches from one subject to another without a clear organization. --Macrakis (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More...
Where is bistecca alla fiorentina? Apparently introduced by Brits into Italy in the 19th century.
Where is steak-frites?
The mushroom steak comment in the lead footnotes a recipe, which is not an RS. The body section is a bit better, but not much. What exactly makes something a steak alternative?
What is "chicken fried chicken"? It isn't discussed in the chicken-fried steak article that the Chicken steak section refers to.
Why are hip steak, shoulder blade steak, and chuck steak covered under Chicken steak? This is apparently a nickname for a chuck steak (??).
--Macrakis (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Yeah, you're right, it's a crock. It reads as a right-wing tirade, almost a manifesto, gleefully ignoring balance and what the author(s) presumably felt were totally pointless and irrelevant conventions of citing sources or neutrality, in favour of a wholly point-of-view celebration of cutting slices of red meat directly from living cattle. The article doesn't need a bit of cleaning up: it needs deleting and rewriting from scratch. The sooner the misapplied GA is removed, the better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Agree with the delist, although I didn't "smell" the right-wing tirade-ness of it. It mostly feels like a WP:OR brain dump, "stuff I know about steak and while I'm at it beef in general". --Macrakis (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Joan Crawford

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) 21:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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) 21:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have information about its writing style, political leanings or other critical commentary. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article, and the "Subsequent history" has many short paragraphs, which should be reformatted into longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 1, I looked at the time of your "GA concerns" Talk page post on this but didn't find anything solid about writing style or critical commentary. As for political leanings, they are evident throughout the article – the paper was in favor of the growth and connectedness of Reform Judiasm, in favor of civil and religious rights for Jews, in favor of a creation of an educational institution (that became Hebrew Union College), and against the newly formed Zionist movement.
Re point 2, I added a bit to the lede following your "GA concerns" mention of this. At this point I don't know which specific 'major aspects' you now consider to be missing from the lede.
Re point 3, if you look in mobile view, those paragraphs aren't that choppy, and paragraph grouping is a little subjective to begin with. But you, or anyone else who looks at this GAR, is welcome to arrange them the way you think is an improvement. In particular, I suppose the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs could be combined into one, although that pulls some disparate material in one clump. Others may think the 1st and 2nd belong together, but I think publisher and editor Segal is important enough to warrant his own paragraph.
Note that I did fix the "GA concerns" item about the three uncited paragraphs at the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 11 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.

Burney Relief

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) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I see what you mean re oversection; will take a look at condensing the TOC. There are also way too many images. Ceoil (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rate this article at Best a B. For one thing it is twice a long as it should be for an artifact which is not all that notable. A lot of text duplicates facts in other articles like Art of Mesopotamia. I would delete the Geopolitical context entirely. To get back on track, no it is not GA caliber. PS I suspect that the mystery "Pauline Albenda (1970)" actually is "[3]Albenda, Pauline. "The Burney Relief Reconsidered." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 2.2, pp. 87-93, 1969" Ploversegg (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To note have removed the "Geopolitical context" sect and condensed the "Iconography" sect. No opinion yet on wheather it is B class vs GA, but this review at least gives an opportunity to get eyes on improving the page. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Council of the European Union

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) 21:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can you clarify where you think it is undersourced? There are citations on virtually every paragraph and I only see one citation needed tag. meamemg (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meamemg: I added cn tags for the paragraphs that need additional citations. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is eligible for a {{primary sources}} cleanup tag. Needs a rewrite based on independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@meamemg, do you intend to keep working on this? Thanks (please   mention me on reply) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Kelvin Tan

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) 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

British Airways

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) 21:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several "reliance on primary sources" orange banners that need to be addressed. There are uncited statements throughout the article, MOS:OVERSECTION concerns, and I think the "Incidents and accidents" section can be incorporated into the article's history or removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; can you give me some more detail on some of these items. I'll try to make some improvements. Kyteto (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyteto: The areas with primary source concerns have already been placed. That would be a good area to start. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kyteto do you still intend to work on this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do, I've been a bit ill recently, it's why my normal article writing has fallen off in recent weeks - finally feeling better for the first time, but it is still not great. I am also having an issue with the primary source problem, in that in several instances they are extremely trivial bits of info, to the point where I'd suspect nobody but BA would ever care to mention them. I see a very strong case for third party sourcing of any claim that is, or remotely is, extraordinary, such as "British Airways was the most profitable airline in the world in the mid 1990s" (a true fact indeed) while a statement like "British Airways has a class of seating called [X]" is... mundane. Does it really need to even be cited at all? WP:Cite had never demanded absolutely everything to have a cite, technically only that which is challenged; so, can I resolved the primary source tag by simply removing them and leaving them uncited? What's the best course of action for the mundanes? Kyteto (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kyteto, GA criterion 2b) requires that all content that could reasonably be challenged be cited inline. I think it fairly likely that travel websites would mention details of BA's seating classes or loyalty programs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google isn't always complying with that fairly likely... I am trying... Kyteto (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I have some specifics of the aspects not related to the areas with primary source concerns please? I have knocked most of those away. Kyteto (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyteto: There are uncited statements throughout the article. These will need to be resolved before I can recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all citation needed tags are resolved. Two were recently added in the lead for items that were already in the body (and cited there), while the other had the relevant cite already on its dedicated article that has been brought across. Are there areas that aren't tagged that are of concern? Kyteto (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(not Z1720) Good work on this thus far, @Kyteto. There are still several unsourced bits, which I've tagged. There are also a few {{Primary source inline}} tags that should be resolved for this to be kept. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The repeated requested resolution of tags, even to the extent of vandalism, has now been implemented. Kyteto (talk) 01:17, 19 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.

Forestry in the United Kingdom

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) 09:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria:

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

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

  • I seem to have unwatched this article by accident. I certainly didn't mean to. I was therefore unaware of the maintenance tags and talk page commentary, and I haven't satisfied the tagger's demands. I would however note that if changes are needed and sources exist, then the edit button is available... Otherwise I'll get to this in due course.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to edit this myself as I am busy with Forests in Turkey. But I don’t think there is any rush. Maybe people who are out walking in the woods now will take this up once winter storms force them inside. I have notified some other editors but if you know any more who might be interested please let them know. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping! I'm coming at this from a botanical rather than commercial forestry angle. The tree list is of uncertain value as it stands at the moment, as a lot of the trees on it (including many of the native species) are not of commercial forestry significance, being little more than shrubs and/or very rare (e.g. the native whitebeams, many of the willows), or only of horticultural interest; but there are also a few species used in forestry that are not included and should be added. I'd recommend changing the order to ! Scientific name !! Common name !! as it makes maintenance easier (the option of sorting to sci name is how found a duplicate in the list just now). The 'Period' is also of limited value, but if wanted, much more precise introduction dates are known for most introduced species; I can add them if need be. I'd also suggest changing the lead photo from Epping Forest (basically, a public park, not a commercial forestry site); perhaps something like File:Timber harvesting in Kielder Forest.JPG which shows more what 'real' forestry is like, and with forestry work in progress - MPF (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPF As there is already an article List of trees of Great Britain and Ireland perhaps we should just delete the list in this article to avoid duplication? If this article needs a list it could maybe excerpt the list article? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced the lead image as suggested, obviously an improvement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly worth considering, though that list does not include several commercially important forestry species that happen not to be widely naturalised in Britain - MPF (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we avoid duplication?—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To make the list easier to maintain if new species entered the UK, for example those better able to tolerate climate change Chidgk1 (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Well, this is why we have WP:LST. It's a relatively new feature which we used extensively in articles about the COVID-19 pandemic, so we could update the case numbers once and propagate that information to lots of articles. I would suggest that we convert List of trees of Great Britain and Ireland into one or more sortable wikitables, then merge the lists, and then use the LST feature to selectively transclude the commercial forestry species. That way we only have to maintain one list but we can display a complete set of information everywhere we need to!—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall, do you still intend to rework this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I won't be able to do so in a short timescale.—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then in that case (and without prejudice to your reworking the lists one day), I'll just remove the list of tree species now, a link to the other article is enough to be going on with as it enables readers to find the information at one click. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What timescale do you have in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry -- I have no idea when I'll get to it.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Earth's magnetic field

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

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

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.

Civilian Public Service

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

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

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.

Ahmad Hasan Dani

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) 10:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hurricane Rick (1985)

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

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

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.

Survivors (2008 TV series)

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

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

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.

1920 Buffalo All-Americans 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: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of uncited text, with citation needed tags from 2020. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 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.

Fleance

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) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@AndyJones: Some answers:

  • Probably two separate articles, though if the historical figure is not notable, then it can't get its own article.
  • If the article focuses on the Shakespeare character, it doesn't need too much information about the historical figure.
  • I don't think the article needs to have too much information about its various depictions, especially since Macbeth has been staged and depicted several times. Instead, it should focus on what academics have said about the character's role in the play.
  • I have added cn tags per the GAR. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I'd say probably not in a major way, but I will look through my sources again to see if I have anything which helps to address the issues raised here. If I don't repost here by 28th you can safely assume I concluded I had nothing new to say.
I miss Wrad! AndyJones (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mephedrone

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) 13:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have updated the pharmacology section using more recent sources. Still could use more review articles though. Boghog (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia could I ask for your opinion of the sourcing in this article, if you have the time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Matt Byrne

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) 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Virginia Lottery

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) 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Appalachian School of 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 • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nicki Minaj

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) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pinging music editors like @Flabshoe1, SNUGGUMS, MaranoFan, and Ben0006:. Also @PHShanghai: you are one of the main editors to the article so I'm sure you could help. 750h+ 14:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to help but the article is so bloated that most of my editing would be content deletion, (12 paragraphs for one career section is insane) and that is usually frowned upon and might start an edit war. I wouldn't participate, but it has the potential to get messy PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ^ Paul Lendvai; (2004) The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat p. 94-100 Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691119694
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_80&oldid=1253909583"