Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsDiscussionReassessmentReport
Good article reassessment

Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is discussed on the article talk page and concluded by a single editor in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed for discussion on this page and are concluded according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. Many problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.

Unless an article's issues are extensive, consider taking the following steps before initiating a reassessment:

  1. Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
  2. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
  3. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

A list of all open GA reassessment nominees may be found at Category:Good article reassessment nominees.

Articles needing possible reassessment

Occasionally, rather than initiating either individual or community reassessment, an editor will merely tag the article as possibly needing reassessment. These tagged articles are listed on this page and each needs the attention of an editor to decide if reassessment is required. To tag an article, {{GAR request}} is placed at the top of the article talk page.

Individual reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the individual reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the article talk page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be yours, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is likely to be controversial, then opt for community reassessment instead)
  • Use the individual reassessment process if:
    • You are confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are not a major contributor to the article
    • You know the article has not been delisted before
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)

Note

  • Individual reassessments do not appear below on the good article reassessment page; those are all community reassessments.

How to use this process

  • The instructions for individual reassessment are:
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (while the second bold link creates a community reassessment page). The individual reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the article talk page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page.
  4. Transclude the individual assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste in{{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. During the individual reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the discussion has concluded, you may close it.
  8. To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments.
  9. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were).


Good article reassessment
Community reassessment

When to use this process

  • Use the community reassessment process when you find an article listed as a good article that you don't believe satisfies the good article criteria and:
    • You would like to receive input from a community of editors who watch the good article reassessment page
    • You believe the decision to continue listing the article or to delist it should be the result of consensus, at the conclusion of a good article reassessment discussion (unless you believe a decision made by you is not likely to be controversial, then opt for individual reassessment instead)
  • Use the community reassessment process if:
    • You are not confident in your ability to assess the article
    • You are a major contributor to the article
    • You disagree with an earlier delist decision
    • You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
    • You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article)
    • You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)

How to use this process

  • The instructions for community reassessment are:
  1. Paste {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page.
  2. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (while the first bold link creates an individual reassessment page). The community reassessment page for this article is created as a subpage of the good article reassessment page.
  3. Leave an assessment on this page detailing your reasons for bringing the article to good article reassessment. List the problems you found with the article in comparison to the good article criteria. Save the page. A bot will add the assessment to the GA reassessment page.
  4. Transclude the community assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and create a new section named "GA Reassessment". Paste in{{WP:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display the community reassessment discussion.
  5. Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
  6. Wait for other editors to respond.
  7. During the community reassessment discussion, consensus must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it (if needed, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure).
  8. To close the discussion, edit the community reassessment page of the article and locate {{GAR/current}}. Replace it with {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page and will add it to the current archive.
  9. The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
    • If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page and update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page.
    • If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at good articles, remove the {{good article}} template from the article page, remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page, update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (see example), and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were). A bot will remove and archive the assessment from the GA reassessment page.

Articles needing possible reassessmentEdit

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.

See also

Articles listed for community reassessmentEdit

The Rove FormationEdit

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

The article is a complete mess, I don't even see how it was promoted to GA in the first place. To describe the article as C class would be generous. The titular "Rove Formation" is never defined or explained. Most of the article discusses orogenies and other formations, before veering wildly off course into the Fur Trade and Endangered Flora. It is completely unfocused and overbloated. The sole contributor, @Bettymnz4: hasn't been active in half a decade. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The article seems to have been improved since this nomination. I can see no mention of Fur trades and there is a definition in the lead sentence. Still has the endangered flora section, but that seems relevant enough as to not fail the focus criteria and is easy to remove if it is still a major issue. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Aircorn: Maybe it is difficult for a non-geologist to understand, but in geology a "Formation" refers to a specific unit of rock with defined characteristics. Compare this article to another geological formation article like the Marcellus Shale. The marcellus shale is the only other geological formation GA (other than the Touchet Formation, which is a late pleistocene superficial deposit), and I think you'll agree that the Marcellus Shale artcle is the better article. The problem is that with this article, while there is a lot of information, most of it is irrelevant to the rove formation itself, and the rove formation is poorly defined. You could rename this article "the geological history of Minnesota" and lose pretty much nothing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Apple Inc. litigationEdit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The Template:update maintenance tag puts into question the stability of the article (GA criterion 5)?. —Nemoschool (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment — I don't think the article has a stability problem. The stability criteria means that the article should not be subject to constant changes due to edit warring or content disputes. I think the maintenance tag on the page goes more to broadness and whether the article addresses the main aspects of the subject. I don't know enough about Apple litigation to know for sure. I will say that there is a subsection about litigation that occurred after the maintenance tag was added. The article could also use some clean-up with its citations, including bare urls and inconsistent styles for the date. Knope7 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Vintage amateur radioEdit

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

I have noticed contents that appear to be original research as well as cited references that aren't quite what we call reliable sources in Wikipedia standard such as self published materials from enthusiasts, such as contributed materials posted on QSL.net and home made YouTube video used as a reference. I have also looked at the way it looked when it was assessed in 2008 and I didn't think the article quite satisfied the requirement #2 " Verifiable with no original research". Specifically the parts: "all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged..." "it contains no original research" The assessor wrote "2. Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." Checking to see if the article looks factually correct to what the assessor knows doesn't satisfy the requirements that contents are directly supported by reliable sources. so I think the assessment for #2 wasn't done using the correct criteria. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - : I took a quick peek at Google books. I see that a number of much higher quality sources are available since the article was first written. I'm not familiar with the GA reassessment process. Would it be worthwhile to make these improvements now, or would you prefer the GA status be revoked first and then the article resubmitted later? Never mind, I found the answer at WP:GAR (..."Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it."). I'll work on getting the issues you have noted fixed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie:, I'm merely asking that the article be reassessed using the correct criteria, because the comment provided by the reviewer in 2008 for item 2 "Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." indicates that this item was passed based on reviewer's appeal to their personal experience, which is not consistent with the evaluation guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That's a perfectly reasonable concern. Both myself and GA reviewer User:Dusti were relative newbies back in 2008. I have no problem with reassessment. In any case, the sources certainly needed review and improvement, which I have been happy to do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Re the citation to VIR History, this specific page has been named as recommended reading by the amateur radio journal QST at least twice [1] [2]. The author's work in general vintage radio history was also recommended by QST here. In other words, “an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications”, as described in WP:SPS. What do other editors think? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for hunting down those recommendations. Those recommendations are enough for me to consider the FAQ a reliable source. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the same applies to amwindow.org, it has been listed by QST as a recommended resource [3]. The citation to it is used only to refer to a published list of frequencies, so WP:OR isn't an issue. I disagree with some of the WP:SPS tags that were quite recently placed in the article. In general, amateur radio organizations (.org's) such as the Military Radio Collectors Group, Vintage & Military Amateur Radio Society, etc. are reliable sources for information about themselves and their members, which includes interest in specific types of radio collecting, operating practices in use by them, and various organized events and activities they participate in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mark viking:, the problem with the FAQ is that it's a self-published research by one guy based on contents from public posts by the general public on the rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors newsgroup BBS. It says: "Created and maintained by Nick England K4NYW." Has Nick England had his work related to the field of amateur radio reliably published according to Wikipedia definition? Graywalls (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It is the fact that the FAQ has been recommended by other experts as a good resource that makes it reliable. Such expert recommendations are a kind of informal peer-review, and the fact that are multiple recommendations gives some confidence that it is widely seen as a source of good information. More generally, I agree with LuckyLouie that for basic, uncontroversial facts, referencing with primary sources is OK if there are no better sources out there. WP:RS isn't a suicide pact where we must delete all the sources that don't meet the highest standards; it is a guide pointing us to use the highest quality sources available and to judge the source relative to the assertion it cites. If the Military Radio Collectors Group asserts it has an interest in collecting military radios, without evidence to the contrary, I am going to believe them. If that primary source is the best available for that assertion, I think it is OK for the purposes of verifying that basic fact. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 12:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Good analysis. Various issues have been raised in the process of making ongoing improvements to the article. IMO, some have been helpful, some have not. But in the end, it's WP:CONSENSUS that'll decide what actions are best. So I hope to see some wider community input in the future. I’ll be offline for the holidays, but back to work on this next week. Best Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

frequencies popular with....Edit

@LuckyLouie:, As tagged as verification failure in Special:Diff/928132458. The cited reference failed to support the claim. I also investigated page 275 as mentioned in an edit summary. The two channels did appear, within a large list in an appendix, but fails to support the main point which is the claim that those two are popular with glow bugs. It would be like saying popular residential streets are 5th and 9th avenues and referencing a long list of streets that have houses on it. Even rephrasing it "there are occupied houses on 5th and 9th avenue" wouldn't cut it as a justification to include purportedly popular streets for affluent people which doesn't have reliable sources. This is just an example of one of many verification failures in the article. Some have been corrected, and more may be revealed down the road. Graywalls (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC). If a reliable source could be locatedt that picks out 3560 and 3579 from the table, I believe that would show some significance and justify inclusion. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding this, but doesn't "with glow bugs" indicate that channels used, specifically, people using vacuum tube type amateur radios instead of home made radios in general? "Graywalls (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, glowbugs = low power (QRP) morse code transmitters that are home built using vacuum tubes. OK, I see your point that, although the frequencies in the appendix apply to both solid state and vacuum tube QRP transmitters, it cannot be interpreted as specifically applying to only vacuum tube transmitters. BTW, frequencies are referred to as frequencies rather than 'channels' in amateur radio. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

set aside for discussion: "Arland notes that calling frequencies for QRP contacts include 3560 kHz and also 3579 kHz, which corresponds with the Colorburst frequency of crystals typically found in older color TV sets.[1]

As noted, I offered the copyedited sentence above, to serve a literal interpretation of the cited source. Saying certain frequencies used by aficionados "include X, Y, and Z" rather than characterize them as "popular" is a good solution. I recall using the word "popular" in the original text 11 years ago because it was used in a number of the existing sources at the time. So it's fine with me if "popular" is replaced with more appropriate phrasing suggested above. Regarding the Aland citations relationship to glowbugs, I think after reading substantial portions of Arland's book, it's clear Arland's overarching context includes home-built QRP transmitters, aka glowbugs, which are literally low power (QRP) home built ham radio CW transmitters. As for the colorburst crystal frequency, it is parenthetically noted in the Arland source as Colorburst "xtal", which is an abbreviation for crystal. You can learn more about colorburst crystals at Colorburst#Crystals. @Graywalls, if you are the sole editor doing the WP:GAR community assessment, I'm happy to work with you to correct any errors and fix problems. I ask that you WP:AGF please, rather than assume an expectation of revealing future verification failures. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It was not intended to direct that they're attributed to you or non assumption of good faith by anyone. I was commenting that unaddressed unverified original research may come up as I compare sources and things they're supporting. I am not the sole editor doing the evaluation. This is a community assessment. As for including two channels picked out from a table, I feel it would be undue without something showing the significance or relevance of those two to merit that inclusion. Why the two that were previously said to be popular without attribution but not some other random two? Graywalls (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I can't locate the source I had verifying those two frequencies were suggested for glowbug contacts, so let's take them out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Richard H. Arland (16 August 2007). ARRL's Low Power Communication: The Art and Science of Qrp. American Radio Relay League. pp. 11–. ISBN 978-0-87259-104-2.

copy and paste from Wiki policies and guidelines to be referenced for discussionEdit

Extended copy and paste of policy

Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs WP:UGC.

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Self-published sources are largely not acceptable on Wikipedia, though there are exceptions. And even though a self-published source might be acceptable, a non-self-published source is usually preferred, if available. Examples of acceptable sourcing of self-published works:

A self-published source may be used for certain claims by the author about himself, herself, or itself. (See #For claims by self-published authors about themselves) Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[5] A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published. WP:USESPS, WP:SPS

It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. It is a third-party or independent source. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes. A self-published source can have all of these qualities except for the second one.

" A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. "WP:PRIMARY

" I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough." Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources

copied and pasted to help with discussion. Graywalls (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but we usually use links such as WP:RS and WP:SPS etc. rather than pasting the entire text of a guideline into discussions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. These extended quotes are gratuitous and unhelpfull. The particpants here are all well aware of the policies. A simple link suffices. Collapsed to reduce unnecessary clutter. Please stay on topic and suggest improvement to the article. --mikeu talk 06:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Levels_of_consensus - "7) Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. Passed 9 to 0 at 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)"
  • WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
I'll see if there's an existing broader consensus regarding the use of a self published FAQ website compiled by one individual based on posts of forum/BBS posts would be considered reliable if the website itself has been suggested as useful by expert as "informal peer review". 23:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but am very familiar with the GAR process. It is quite rare to get an editor here willing to get an article up to scratch so it is good to see someone responding. As to self published and Primary sources they are allowed, they just have to be used carefully. It really depends on what they are referencing and how it is attributed. If it is slightly controversial, there is doubt to the authorship, they have no or limited expertise in the subject at hand or better sources are available then they should not be used. I am pretty hard on these sources when I do GA reviews, taking a view that if the only source is a poor one, then the information is probably not important enough to include. There are exceptions to everything, and some subjects do not have a lot of sources to draw upon. I would think that this one would have enough reasonable sources. GARs are slightly different to GANs in that there needs to be pretty clear reasons why an article fails thecriteria for a delist to happen. We generally only require sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons although likely to be challenged is very broad. Basically if the information it is citing is WP:BLUE then there is not as much concern on the quality of the source. AIRcorn (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn: Thank you for commenting. The clear reason is that article was passed despite containing original research and failing verifiability, because the reviewer did not apply these criteria like they should have. Would you agree that their self-chosen criteria applied in 2008 was a major deviation from what should have been used? In reading through sources, checking numbers, I found quite a bit of data, such as channel/frequencies that are not found in sources or differ from sources as well as explanation and theories in prose not covered in sources, so that fails verifiability. It was also failing big time by having original research, Assertion of claim of majority scenario based on one guy's compilation from a BBS/forum posts is something that shouldn't be included in my personal opinion. The wrong criteria used was "2. Factually accurate?: Working in a radio station myself, I have found no inaccuracy's in reading ths article." is a huge deviation from the actual set of requirements that say "2. Verifiable with no original research:[3] it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4] all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism." Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure you agree that the objective of GAR isn't to build a case for delisting an article and then defend that case — it's to fix the article. In that spirit, I invite you to join in the fixing process by adding citations to RS, or suggesting text modifications for purposes of improving the article quality. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources availableEdit

I'll be integrating these and others as time allows. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Bring 'Em Back Alive!
QST August 1995, pp. 49-52
Restoring vintage ham gear is challenging and fun, but be sure you take proper safety precautions.
QST October 1995, p. 78
  • Refurbishing "Boat-Anchors" 
:QST January 1997, pp. 35-38
:Bring vintage radios back to life.

Archive is here

  • The ARRL Handbook for Radio Communications, ARRL, 2014
p. 1.1.7 "Vintage Radio"
p. 26.35 "Repair and restoration of Vintage Equipment"

No archive, but I can email page images if needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • More Glowbug Glamour
Dave Ingram
CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, November 2006 p. 60

PDF available

  • "Once there was an Ocean Hopper, when radios had names". Scott Freburg. CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, December 2003, p. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16.
PDF available.

@LuckyLouie:, are a lot of those QST articles that have author name, location and FCC registration numbers newsletters? Are they published as submitted by the membership? What is their editorial policy and where do they publish their editorial policy? They're used as a source an awful a lot and I would like to know where they stand in reliable sources criteria. Graywalls (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

QST Magazine and CQ Amateur Radio Magazine are both print magazines. Here is an example of the editorial roster (left hand column) for QST. Here is an example for CQ Amateur Radio. As you can see, they are not newsletters, and circulation is not limited to members, or even to licensed radio amateurs. You can find these magazines in the periodicals section of your local library (If you are going to be working on other amateur radio articles for WP you might check them out, they're an excellent resource). When newsstands still existed, they were sold alongside Car and Driver, Golf Magazine, Popular Science, and similar hobbyist/enthusiast publications. The "FCC registration numbers" you see included with most individual author names are Call signs; it's no surprise that most subject matter expert writers in amateur radio are also licensed radio amateurs. And regarding The ARRL Handbook For Radio Communications, this book can also be found in your local library as well as on the shelf in the technical section of your local booksellers. All this is good news for us: the sources are WP:RS by Wikipedia standards, and we can use them to improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I was curious about articles, such as this one. [4] I thought it's a bit odd it lists the author's address. Are articles such as these actually checked by editorial boards or are these opinions of individual authors published word-for-word like communication or letter to editor? Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
In some publications it is/was common to designate one or more "corresponding authors" that readers can direct questions to.[5] More recent QST issues just give name and call sign under the title with an email as the method of contact at the bottom, and it now omits the postal address.[6] That's a byline, QST has a separate section for letters to the editor. The kind of work that you are describing would be published in QEX which has a far looser editorial process in contrast to the more formal QST review, as described here]. "Occasionally, the QST Editor will forward an article to us for our possible use. The author is notified that although not accepted for QST, his or her article has been automatically submitted to QEX." --mikeu talk 00:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

TagsEdit

In the process of reviewing the inline tags, I see a citation need tag was placed on the text: "A majority of "AM'ers" stations consist of vintage transmitters and receivers housed in separate cabinets. Some operators have even obtained old AM broadcast transmitters from radio stations that have upgraded their equipment". A citation was given here. By reading the entire article, which is about AM-operating hams using separate transmitters and receivers, this is not a controversial statement. Re the second sentence, the source says: "A retired broadcast transmitter often gets pushed to a dusty, dark back corner of the technical room at a radio station. Increasingly, ham radio operators are giving a second life to these graceful old beauties, donated or sold cheaply to hobbyists by stations with no further need". So I am not sure why the citation needed tag was applied. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

How about a direct quote here which you think supports the claim that a majority of "AM'ers stations" have transmitters and receivers in separate cabinets.? "For a ham-radio operator, practical and residential considerations limit the list of desirable broadcast transmitters to those using single-phase line voltage, designed for RF power output of 1 kilowatt or under, and which take up "only" a single cabinet’s worth of space" This suggests otherwise..? Graywalls (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
That particular sentence refers to the transmitter, which is a separate cabinet unto itself. The receiver is another component, separate from the transmitter. The article briefly discusses the types of receivers typically used by AM hams, which are also housed in their own cabinets. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Could you provide the specific quote that unambiguously say that without the need for any interpretation/analysis? Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the word "cabinets" is confusing you. It really is a simple concept and a mundane fact that is uncontroversial. There is no interpretation needed, only reading and comprehension. The article cited is all about ham radio operators who restore vintage AM broadcast transmitters and repurpose them for use in amateur two-way communication. The transmitter is in a metal enclosure (or cabinet), the dark grey metal skin such as you can see here. It does not contain a receiver since it has been designed for one-way commercial broadcasting. So hams must use a separate receiver in conjunction with it in order to have two-way communications. The receiver is in its own cabinet or enclosure, sometimes metal, sometimes wood, depending on age. We could change "A majority of AM operators..." to "Many AM operators...", if that would satisfy your concerns. But a citation to a sentence stating the glaringly obvious isn't required here. We know that good encyclopedic writing that avoids plagiarism requires rephrasing or summarizing a body of information in your own words and sentence structure, so lets stick with best practices when generating text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It is not a plagiarism for you to offer the RELEVANT quote, here in discussion to clarify the discussion. What is plagiarism is if you include close paraphrasing directly into the prone. I'm just asking you to quote a sentence or two here, because, what you claim as "mundane fact that is uncontroversial." was apparently not obvious to me. Someone made a comment fairly recently with something along the line of that's like sky is blue to those with specialized knowledge. Well, this is not an academic journal or a specialized encyclopedia for those in the field, so such assumption can not be made, as often made in patents and similar documents as you know from phrasing like "those familiar with the arts will readily understand". Your statement "does not contain a receiver since it has been designed for one-way commercial broadcasting." glaringly obvious to ANYONE, or is this an "obvious to those familiar with the arts"? Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Your repeated 'citation needed tags' for WP:THESKYISBLUE stuff are tiresome, but I'll resolve this one with a new citation and some copy editing which adheres close to the word for word phrasing contained in the sources. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I contend that things in this article are not obvious like people have five fingers. Perhaps so to a circle of people involved in IEEE conferences, but this isn't a broadcast engineering journal wiki. Graywalls (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If there is any potential for confusion about what a "cabinet" means in this context I would suggest linking to the more technical term equipment rack, which is also used in the reference cited above. A curious reader will discover how common these are for mounting electronic equipment such as telecommunication gear. A footnote for a trivial detail about the number of cabinets falls into the category of {{Excessive citations}}. --mikeu talk 23:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Further progress/cleanup and improvementEdit

OK, so while others agree that local/regional amateur radio organizations are reasonable sources for uncontroversial facts regarding their interests, activities, and practices, I've removed the text cited to these that listed AM frequencies in countries other than the USA. I believe these were gradually added to the article over the last ten years by well-meaning passersby, but IMO they’re not worth holding up ongoing progress in improving the article. Same goes for virhistory.com as an acceptable source for uncontroversial statements, but since we have many other sources supplying much the same material, I removed that citation rather than let it be a roadblock to the process of improving the article. I also did some copyediting to better conform to sources and reformatting to tidy up the text and citations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed two pictures since it was starting to look too cluttered. Graywalls (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019Edit

Yet another questionable tag was placed on the article by Graywalls, this time in the lead: "time frame uncertain. 40 years old according to what source that was published in what year?". The fact that the entire article is about amateurs using radio equipment that is more than 40 years old is not "uncertain" by any stretch of the imagination. It's self evident to anyone who can read the article and the image captions of 1950s and 1960s gear contained in the article. The age range of the radio gear is explicitly stated in the article body ("Amateur radio equipment of past eras like the 1940s, 50s, and 60s...") and cited to a reliable source. I've added an additional source to make it crystal clear: CQ Amateur Radio Magazine, December 2003, page 14, Vol. 59, No. 12. Title: There Once Was an Ocean Hopper, When Radios Had Names. Author: Scott Freeberg. Quote: “Because of this interest, you can now hear many of the old classic radios on the air again. This is radio gear that is often 40 to 50 years old…” I don't get the impression this ongoing tagging has anything to do with article improvement. It appears to be a continued pattern of impeding, pettifogging, and asking for citations for obvious minor details. This type of behavior could be interpreted as an issue of WP:COMPETENCE or WP:DISRUPTION. If there are details you legitimately need clarification for, I suggest you bring them up on the Talk page, and I'll do my best to resolve them for you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

A minor tag like that isn't disruptive or too controversial. Generally we try to avoid things like "recently" or "xx years ago" because they're likely to become outdated per MOS:DATED. There are many articles that still have wording like "recently...." which was the latest at the time, but still sitting like that over ten years later and we'd like to avoid that. "xx years ago".... without point of reference should be avoided unless we're talking about history that's thousands of years ago. 40 to 50 years old... in 2003 would mean 56-66 years old now and after a few years it would be 60-70 years old You see the issue? Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Persistently adding "minor tags" is what is disruptive. Your editing shows a consistant pattern of behaviour here and at other pages. That is controversial. We've watchlisted the article. You don't need to play games by plastering sticky notes warning readers about trivial details in the text and leaving messages for us in the edit summary. Please leave a list at talk of the items that you think need to be addressed and we'll take a look at it. --mikeu talk 23:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

History of cricket to 1725Edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

The article was reviewed in 2008 and elevated to GA. There has been substantial expansion since then. By summer 2019 it had attracted a content issue banner which was subsequently removed because due process had not been followed (see article talk page), but certain cleanup banners then became necessary and they remain in place.

The main problem is use of what may be unreliable sources, especially one self-published website. There is massive overuse of quotations and many if not most of those haven't been cited. The 2008 GA version did not include the huge matchlist which was added later and may have come from a dedicated list article (needs further investigation). It is proposed that the matchlist and first mentions section are shifted into a list article, or restored to their old one if such can be identified. The use of quotations must be moderated and all must be sourced. Content taken from self-published or unreliable sources must be challenged for other sources to be cited or the content to be removed.

To summarise the problems per the GA criteria:

  • 1a. The article is generally well-written with prose, grammar and spelling of a good standard. There is a problem with excessive use of quotations, many of which are unsourced.
  • 1b. Haven't checked this thoroughly but, on the face of it, seems okay. It is proposed to take the main list out, though, as above.
  • 2a. Complies with reflist standard.
  • 2b. Serious issue with self-published and potentially unreliable sources.
  • 2c. Given 2b, it's possible there is OR in the article but it will be difficult to find without comprehensive sources.
  • 2d. No apparent problems.
  • 3a. It is a history so the scope is very wide but it seems satisfactory in this respect.
  • 3b. The matchlist and first mentions lists constitute excessive detail which is why they should be moved to a dedicated list article. As this is a history, it should be narrative only with lists and stats limited to a necessary minimum.
  • 4. No comment at this stage.
  • 5. It is stable.
  • 6. Images are appropriate and without any evident issues.

I'd be willing to take this on as an individual reassessment but, realistically, it needs community involvement especially anyone with access to relevant sources. The only source I have is More Than A Game by John Major which discusses this period in its early chapters and will be useful up to a point. Apart from possibly ESPN, I'm unaware of any online sources that might be useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

ReportEdit

I have put this off for a long time because I found it daunting but I've now worked through it and made a heap of changes. I've left several citation requests in the article but I don't think anyone will be able to supply them because I strongly suspect original research. This means that the article should be delisted, in my opinion, because OR and unverified content both contravene the GA criteria. I'll leave the review open for a period to see if other editors wish to contribute. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • No Great Shaker, you could also just remove the unsourced/OR content. buidhe 01:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I'd like to compare the article with John Major's book in case that provides source for any of the needed citations. There are about a dozen statements for verification. I'll try and do that soon and then, as you say, remove anything still unsourced or apparently original. Received wisdom is that Major's book is highly rated. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

All citation needed tags have been addressed. Some of the content can be sourced to John Major, one piece is well sourced within a linked article and a couple of useful internet sources were found. A small amount of content could not be sourced, despite searches, and has been deleted. The cleanup banners have all been removed so perhaps this can now remain a GA? It would be good if another reviewer could decide. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jhall1: Hello again and thank you for the notification which has just flagged up. This GAR is open for consensus and you'd be welcome to comment here if you wish. Thanks very much for your help. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I confess that I either hadn't noticed or had forgotten about the GAR. The one thing that you've removed that I'd question is, from memory, the reference to Sir Robert Paston having seen cricket played on Richmond Green in the mid 17th century, which did have a supporting citation. JH (talk page) 09:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
That's correct but the source appears to be a self-published website and those are held to be unreliable, even if they are actually good works, so I've had to follow site policy and guidelines there, especially given the GA criteria. I suspect the use of that website, for many statements, could have been why the disputed content notice was placed in the article, though this was never explained. If you believe that the Paston piece should be included I'd be happy to restore it and place a citation needed tag on it. I checked the John Major book but he doesn't mention it and I can't find anything about it among various references to Paston on the internet. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Bell X1 (band)Edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
It seems to have been reviewed by HJ Mitchell at Talk:Bell X1 (band)/GA1. It is very brief, but they are an experienced reviewer. AIRcorn (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Penrose tilingEdit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

Recently the prose criteria was expanded [7] to include understandable to an appropriately broad audience (see Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#Understandability criterion for discussion). Penrose tiling seems like a good case study to test the practicability of this on old Good Articles as it has had a tag specific to this on it since August 2019 and some discussion on the talk page regarding the technical aspects of the article. I have read it and did find much of it difficult to follow. I think it could probably be written much clearer (for example I don't know what the difference between a non-periodic tiling and a Penrose tiling is). The lead at least should be clearer. We have things like Thus, the tiling can be obtained through "inflation" (or "deflation") and every finite patch from the tiling occurs infinitely many times. and It is a quasicrystal: implemented as a physical structure a Penrose tiling will produce Bragg diffraction and its diffractogram reveals both the fivefold symmetry and the underlying long range order. The lead at least should provide a relatively easy entry into the topic. Personally, I don't mind having overly technical details in the body as long as there is enough basic information before we get to that level. I am opening this as a community GAR as to my knowledge it is the first GAR since the criteria was updated and could benefit from a deeper discussion. I have come across other articles with similar issues and would like to get a feel for what the community feels is the level of technical language that is acceptable here before I start any individual GARs. AIRcorn (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Note Left a message on the users talk page who added the template and initiated the discussion, and discovered they have been recently indefed. AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. To me this reads like any piece of writing on mathematics for a popular audience, and not at all like the way mathematicians write professionally to each other. The nominator's concern such as "I don't know what the difference between a non-periodic tiling and a Penrose tiling is" is mystifying, both because it doesn't actually make sense (Penrose tilings are examples of non-periodic tilings, not different things from them) and because the exact phrasing "an example of non-periodic tiling" appears in the very first line of the article. If what you're looking for is a single sentence to put in the lead that by itself will let you tell what a Penrose tiling is, to someone who doesn't understand any mathematics, then you're not going to get one. See Euclid's reply to Ptolemy: there is no royal road to geometry. If what you're looking for is where in the article to go to find out what they actually are, the answer is (surprise!) the section titled "Penrose tilings", the first one after the background section. I'm sure there are improvements in understandability to be made to the article, and I have attempted to make a few, but to me the framing of this nomination is a very bad start towards that. In particular, the nominator does not seem to have paid any attention to the qualifier "appropriately broad" in the new rule, includes no evidence of considering who the audience might be and how educated they should be expected to be, and instead seems to think all mathematics articles should be "relatively easy" to all readers, a completely different criterion.
Mathematics articles are periodically targeted by naive editors who think that only elementary-school mathematics is an appropriate for an encyclopedia and that anything beyond that is too technical; when that happens, we can look to see whether any of the difficulty in readability is actually unnecessary, but let's not overreact. I went on at considerably greater length about exactly this issue in the discussion leading to the above-mentioned change to the GA rules, and was reassured that it would not be a problem, so I am dismayed to see that those reassurances were false and that it has indeed become a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't tag the article. My interest is purely clean up. We can't have an article orange tagged as something that the criteria implicitly states fails. Either the article is technically fine and we remove the tag and carry on as normal or it does have issues and needs to be fixed or delisted. I don't want to turn this into a back and forth between me and you, so I will just ask you to trust me that I don't care what the outcome is. Look through the archives here and you will see that I close 90% of these GARs, so it is important to me to know where the line is. Please try to approach it from that perspective than one of me being on a crusade to delist all mathematical articles. AIRcorn (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment this is certainly creating a lively discussion. For my feeling, we need to get back to the essential point which is that some editors have stated on the talkpage that the intro is too technical, which probably means that it is. The user who posted the template message is banned but has also made some cogent points on the talkpage. I feel that the template could be removed without fuss if the introduction was made a bit clearer. From my perspective as a lay reader, "shifted copy" is hard to parse, I really don't know what "shifted" means there. And it seems curious that in "aperiodic set of prototiles" "aperiodic set" links to Aperiodic set of prototiles and "prototiles" to prototile. Most of the intro does make sense, although again for me "persists over long distances" seems odd, since I'm taking distance in the literal sense. That's my feedback but I don't feel qualified to edit the intro. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • To me this comment reads like "oh dear, this looks like mathematics, and it took me longer than five minutes to understand the whole thing" level anti-intellectualism rather than an honest reading of the article. In many cases, in mathematics, it takes a little background (here, not very much) to understand material, but if we tried to expand out everything to first principles we'd be here all day, and it wouldn't actually be more accessible. (The classical example of this is Principia Mathematica taking hundreds of pages to prove that 1+1=2.) But in any case: "shifted", here, is intended as a less-technical way of writing "translated". Do you have a suggestion for an even-less-technical way of saying the same thing, in an appropriately concise way for a lead? And yes, distance is intended in the literal sense. Why wouldn't it be? What is odd about it? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • If you want to throw your mathematical dick around elsewhere then go ahead, I don't see why you need to be so condescending here. Everyone is trying to improve the page, but I guess you can't see the wood for the trees any longer. "Translated" is much better than shifted and it even links to another page for the curious! For distance, "persists over long distances compared to the tile sizes" just reads weirdly to me, I'd suggest changing it to something like "infinitely persists" or "persists" or even just take out the whole phrase.
    • One editor in the past year said on the talk page that the introduction is too technical, in a discussion that attracted only one other participant, who disagreed. I don't think much anything about the technicality of the article can be inferred from that. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I guess you interpreted the comment of Ael 2 differently to me then. Mujinga (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Now I'm confused. Ael 2 hasn't edited anything since 2016. I said "one editor in the past year" because most of the discussions on the Talk page are quite stale (going back to 2005, with only one section added in 2018 and one in 2019), and it's not apparent that the old discussions are at all applicable to the article as it stands now. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have serious issues with the lede, which is what most of the discussion seems to be about. It's possible that throwing words like "tiling" and "aperiodic" in early on will make a reader's brain switch off, but saying that about a reader who has looked up a mathematics topic seems rather condescending to me — and if we're willing to be that condescending, well, there's a pretty picture for them to look at right there, too. Nor are the non-techy explanations of these terms buried deep within the page; in fact, they're in the very first section. I can see ways that I might tweak the opening paragraph, but I'm not convinced that any of them would be a clear and dramatic improvement. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Addendum Having now made a first pass through the article, I haven't found any serious problems, just some minor cruft accumulation and some peculiarities of writing style that were easily fixed. Reassessing the GA status is probably a good thing to do, since that status was granted in 2009, but I have found no grounds to demote it. (Arguably, having a big banner about how technical the page might be is at least as intimidating as any of the words in the introduction.) Currently, the article is adequately comprehensive and contains no reputation-killing flaws. It would be accessible at the very least to people who read Martin Gardner and Eugenia Cheng books or watch videos by Vi Hart, Mathologer, PBS Infinite Series, etc. Could parts of it, particularly the introduction, be made more widely accessible? Perhaps. (One proposal: A Penrose tiling is a scheme for covering a flat plane with an arrangement of shapes that leaves no gaps and never repeats. In more precise terms, Penrose tilings are examples of non-periodic tilings generated by aperiodic sets of prototiles.) But that's a matter of making a good thing better. There exists a level of expertise such that this article is clear and helpful for readers at that level. Moreover, that level is reasonably consistent with the broadest population likely to need this article: it's not an article about a topic of pop-math interest that is only accessible to professional mathematicians. (Like, say, E8 lattice is, IMO.) XOR'easter (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Re your proposal: I think at the least something like the current "an example of" needs to be earlier, in the "Penrose tiling is" sentence, unless what follows actually specifies the Penrose tiling and not something more general, to prevent exactly the confusion exhibited in the review nomination: if a Penrose tiling is (definition of aperiodic tiling), and the linked article on aperiodic tilings also says that an aperiodic tiling is (same definition), why do we have two different articles that tell us they're about the same thing? They're obviously not the same thing, but that needs to be made clear even to people who read only the first sentence. I'm skeptical that it's possible to specify the Penrose tiling in an accessible lead sentence, rather than merely stating that it's an example of something else, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong in that. (Also re your E8 example: yes, that one actually does deserve the technical tag, because it's clear that it can be made better with even a little effort.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Ah, yes, I see your point. It does need some phrase like "an example of". Or, putting the bold part in plural, Penrose tilings are one type of.... Something like that. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Brainstorming something like this for the first paragraph: A Penrose tiling is an example of a scheme for covering a flat plane with an arrangement of shapes that leaves no gaps and never repeats. In more precise terms, Penrose tilings are examples of non-periodic tilings generated by aperiodic sets of prototiles. These tilings, a special case of the more general concept of non-periodic tilings, are named after mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose, who investigated them in the 1970s. I'm not convinced the current opening needs revision, but I don't think it hurts to contemplate how we might go about it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
          • My immediate reaction is: what do the words "a scheme for" and "an arrangement of" add to this? Those can be technical words (scheme more in algebraic geometry but arrangement is standard in low-dimensional geometry; see arrangement of lines); is the usage here intended to reflect their technical usage? But, stepping back, it would probably be helpful to get opinions from non-mathematicians on which wordings appear clearer to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Hmmm. Perhaps one might say a way to cover instead of a scheme for covering and a pattern of shapes instead of an arrangement of shapes ... the curse of writing about a subject where every ordinary word has a technical meaning, from category to pencil. But this whole exercise of crafting a "pop" sentence to precede the moderately technical one seems vaguely pointless without further input. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Update I think the recent changes to the intro have taken it in a good direction, and the "too technical" tag is even less appropriate now than before. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment My point of view on this is that the additional criteria links directly to WP:MTAU, a kind of best practices for making technical articles more accessible. The most important parts of that guideline are effectively, "write one level down" and "put accessible material at the beginning". I think the article satisfies the write one level down advice, especially with David's improvements. Aperiodic tilings and quasicrystal are subtle bits of mathematics and geometry; it is one reason that this stuff was not discovered and figured out until the 70's onward. The article already does a good job of putting accessible material first. We might consider putting the real-life applications earlier in the article, but that would also go against the tradition of putting impact in other areas toward the end of the article. I am involved in the editing, but my POV is that the article passes the additional GA criteria. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is this review supposed to be as directionless as it appears to me? Normal first-time GA reviews have a reviewer who leads the process, assesses compliance with the GA rules, finds specific points in the article that need to be improved, and discusses with editors whether those issues have been properly addressed. Instead, in this review, the nominator opened it by telling us that the article needs a review because a sockpuppet tagged it, and then...nothing. Is the specific issue that needs to be addressed the removal of the tag? Who is expected to do that part, the editors, the sockpuppet, or the reviewer? Could we have headed off this whole effort just by removing the tag earlier, with the sockpuppet blocked and unable to edit-war to restore it? What conditions need to be met for the review to be over? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Aircorn: Hello? Is anyone there? In the absence of any guidance whatsover from you or any response to how this GA review is supposedly being run, I have boldly removed the tag myself. Did you have anything concrete that you wanted done with the article other than the removal of the tag? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    It is a community reassessment. Hopefully someone uninvolved will read through it and decide whether to keep or delist the article based on the comments left here. You can always request closure through the normal means. See point 7 on the community reassessment panel at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. The tag was incidental. Obviously it needs to be removed before the article can be deemed good, but the underlying issues either needed to be fixed or deemed acceptable as is. That is what this discussion will determine. AIRcorn (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Korean Air Lines Flight 007Edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

"Well-written" violations: There is some puffery (i.e. "single-handedly" in Interim Developments) and editorialization (i.e. "really" in "continues to believe that he shot down a spy plane, when he really shot down a passenger aircraft"). Often, quotes are included as standalone sentences in jarring manners (i.e. "The border guards. What ships do we now have near Moneron Island, if they are civilians, send [them] there immediately.").

--BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)