Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 77

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment
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 76) Good article reassessment (archive) (Page 78) →

2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack

edit

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) 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails criterion 2c: The article is overwhelmingly sourced by primary sources, which is an original research issue per WP:PRIMARY.
  • Fails criterion 3a: The article provides little coverage outside of news-style reporting of the actions involved. No meaningful analysis or study is covered.
  • Fails criterion 3b: The little content outside of that is a list of tangentially related events that go out of scope Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re 2c: Your interpretation of 'primary sources' is kind of a stretch here - Everything is properly sourced to reputable news sources, the majority of which could not be considered "breaking news" as it wasn't even published on day of the attack.
re 3a, 3b: Not to be rude, but you're making up criteria here. 3a states that "it [the article] addresses the main aspects of the topic" (which it does), and 3b "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", kind of the opposite of what you're implying here. Rami R 11:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien, have you seen the above from Rami R? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have. I felt that no response was warranted to the claim that new information cannot be primary after something had been ongoing for more than 24 hours. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • News sources are secondary sources. So primary sources is not really the correct complaint here. Are there any secondary sources you think should be consulted? I did a Google search + Google Books search, and saw almost entirely 2008 articles coming back from Google, and nothing substantive on GBooks (references the attack happened, mostly, not in-depth dives). It's not great to be mostly sourced to at-the-time coverage, but if that's all that exists, then that's all we have. (But if something else can be found...) SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRIMARY: For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
    • WP:RSBREAKING: When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution
    Also, if all of the sources are from 2008, then this isn't a GAR issue, it's an AfD issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not temporary. This topic would obviously be kept at AFD, so I wouldn't suggest bothering. The matter reached the attention of both the PM of Israel at the time and the Attorney General, who had to respond to it.
    • Checking... that line in NOR was added just a few months ago. Granted, it's been at the RS guideline for longer, but I'm not sure it's ever come up much there. Regardless, suffice to say that this is just a case of a policy being poorly phrased IMO. It's not worth quibbling on this too much, since I agree that heavy sourcing to contemporary news reports is not ideal, but IMO calling them "primary" sources dulls the meaning of just what a "primary" source is. Primary sources would be, like, interviews with people at the incident or the like. Breaking news stories might be inaccurate and outdated, but that doesn't make them primary, in the same way that a published book by an independent amateur on a topic who makes factual errors might be unreliable, yet still secondary.
    • Back to the merits: So are you saying by the AFD comment that you agree no better sources exist than what's currently used? The best outcome is just to find the better source and save the article, after all. I checked the Hebrew WP article and it seems its sources are from 2008 as well (although, to be clear, not all breaking-breaking news, i.e. stuff from the day after, but rather the weeks after). It's possible there's a better source in some unknown Hebrew work, but it might be worth verifying whether such source exists. SnowFire (talk) 15:33, 24 March 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.

Han van Meegeren

edit

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) 20:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done anything related to a good article reassessment before, but I'm interested in crime, so I'll give it my best shot to bring it up to snuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PARAKANYAA, do you intend to continue working on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Yes I do, and will get back to working on it now. I acquired some of the book sources and am looking through them. I'm unsure if I can get it good enough to maintain its status but I will try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey PARAKANYAA, are you planning on returning still? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Yeah I don't think I can save this. I could probably fix the citation needed issues with enough time but after reading some of these books there are more severe structural/content issues with this article that I can't fix in any reasonable amount of time. Should probably be closed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 7 April 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.

Cultural depictions of dinosaurs

edit

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: Delisting, a week has passed and no clear interest in fixing the major issues of this article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GA status of this article is very old, dating all the way back to 2008. As a result, it's not up to standards in a couple of ways. For one, there's a glaring lot of uncited paragraphs, which fails criteria 2 of the Wikipedia:GACR criteria. Another is that there is clearly much more that could be written about the impacts of dinosaurs on culture and vice versa, as the ~169,000 results on "culture" plus "dinosaurs" on Google Scholar demonstrate. This article needs to be improved drastically to meet the GA criteria again. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has the same problem as the parent dinosaur article - everything from 1980 onward is given such a brief and rushed treatment that it does the subject matter zero justice. But, more fundamentally, where should and shouldn't this article overlap with paleoart? It's really many of the same key players and events with both. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it proves to be especially important to cover cultural depictions of dinosaurs in the 1980s onward considering that they've gained increased relevance and interest amongst public audiences, and it looks as if such high interest is here to stay for the time being. I think this article can stand if it extensively discusses dinosaurs in literature (writing, fictional media, public engagement with science, etc.), but this article currently does that very poorly which proves highly problematic. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under the current state of the article, if it receives no interest for GAR by other editors by the 10th of April and there is no opposition, I will mark it off as a Delist for GA for major unaddressed issues of the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:18, 8 April 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.

Sue v Hill

edit

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: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant unsourced text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 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.

Multiple sequence alignment

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to substantial uncited text, the lead of the article is a bit too difficult and the body contains large numbers of external links. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request to make the lead image smaller from GA1 doesn't seem to have happened. It is still too big for MOS:IMGSIZE. As well as the unsourced sections and inappropriate extlinks there is a lot of material that appears to be primary-sourced and promotionally worded about individual research projects or implementations, rather than being based on published works by disinterested parties surveying and reviewing the methods that are available, I think maybe problematic with respect to WP:GACR#3b (going into excessive detail). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make time to go over this article this weekend, and I'd appreciate the reassessment remaining open for just a few extra days. Thanks ― Synpath 04:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and removed external links in the body of the article and adjusted the lead, but that only amounts to cosmetic changes to the article. I can see now that handling the citations and removing the conversational tone of the article is more editing than I'm willing to spend time on. Thanks for keeping the discussion open. ― Synpath 06:01, 8 April 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.

Astronomical Observatory (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)

edit

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: Issues unaddressed; delisting. Hog Farm Talk 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite significant unsourced text, especially in the history section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 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.

Kansas City Chiefs

edit

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: Issues unaddressed, delisting. Hog Farm Talk 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pre-GAR notice on the article's talk page listed specific concerns with uncited text and source-text integrity issues. These issues are substantial and have not been addressed; in fact more uncited text has been added to the article since my notice. Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 29 March 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.

Traditions of the Georgia Institute of Technology

edit

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) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few unsourced or semi-spurced paragraphs. Hasn't been kept up-to-date: for instance the jargon section is largely based on 1996-2007 sources, and it's unclear these terms are still in use. There is a private YouTube video link in the middle of the text. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 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.

Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2009 GA that currently has numerous citation needed tags, too many quotations, and a tag stating so in critical reassessment. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. Igordebraga (talk · contribs) and I are fixing up the citation errors (including the dead ones) and maintenance tags where needed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect thank you! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed tags have now been addressed and the legacy section has been rewritten. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:01, 6 April 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.

Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)

edit

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) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not an article needing the most dire work, this article has clearly rotted since first being listed back in 2008. My following concerns are:

  • Some sources I'm also unsure on the reliability of, such as " classicgaming.com" (not listed at WP:VG/S). There's also a not verified in body tag in the lead (which was previously a citation needed tag from 2023 before being replaced mere minutes ago).
  • The entire Master Collection version section is unsourced.
  • Some unsourced statements that aren't marked as such right now, but are still unsourced.
  • I don't think the "Related media" section has very encyclopedic writing.
  • Reception could easily be expanded upon for a game that was so influential and got as many reviews as it did. It doesn't necessarily explain very much of why critics liked the game, and rather just focuses on the headlines. An example is below.
  • Just extremely weird writing throughout that I can't see being very beneficial to a general reader. For example, "Next Generation reviewed the PlayStation version of the game, rating it five stars out of five, and stated that "rest assured that this is a game no player should miss and the best reason yet to own a PlayStation." is its own line. λ NegativeMP1 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just look at the reception and found how bad it's layout for example, the legacy section could be it own section similar to Banjo-Kazooie, and some of paragraph in the reception could easily be merged with other and be expanded in which I agreed with you so. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some comments from a cursory review that may be of value:
    • The lead section for the Gameplay could benefit from a more general description that it is an action-stealth game and generally what this encompasses, given this is a genre-defining game.
    • There's an overuse of leading sections and paragraphs in passive voice (Despite, Except) etc.
    • The reception section really needs a thematic rewrite as per the WP:VG/MOS. Listing the praise from every review source, one by one, is not really best practice or organised to read.
    • The 'Windows version' section is crufty. The reception should be integrated with the main section, and given there isn't much sourcing for it, it does not stand to reason to provide technical details on the nuanced differences. The executable files are not really worth discussing! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. There's also a problem with WP:LEAD. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 13:34, 16 April 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.

Jos Buttler

edit

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) 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article hasn't been updated recently, and so fails criteria 3a, as it isn't broad enough in coverage. And also fails 3b by being overly detailed in places. Domestic career section has too much coverage of 2010-2013 and almost nothing since (and absolutely nothing about the 7 seasons he's played for Lancashire). International career section hasn't been updated since 2022. There are numerous sentences of unsourced text, some of the teams listed in the infobox aren't mentioned in the text at all (e.g. Paarl), or with more than one sentence (Originals). Also, the T20 franchise sections have way too many headers for one paragraph, which aren't needed, and looks to be bordering towards IPL excessive stats and focusing only on incidents too, rather than encyclopedic, WP:NPOV content. So in conclusion, it fails criteria 1b (MOS violations), 2b (unsourced content), 3a and 3b (lacking details in places, overdetailed in others), 4 (IPL section is POV). Looks like it just about survived a GA review in 2018, but the article has got significantly worse in quality since then, and cannot be considered a GA anymore in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified everyone who participated in either the GA promotion and/or first GA re-assessment in 2018, as well as WP:CRIC, and mentioned this on Talk:Jos Buttler where I raised some of these concerns earlier this year. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - article is nowhere close to GA status on a number of criteria. I did some work on it in 2017 but it was hard going and it's much, much worse now. Huge amounts of over detail, far too many subsections, many of which are unnecessary and entirely unsourced - it would be easy to do so, but there's just far too much detail. The lead and domestic section are fine and the playing style bit is probably OK as well. They'd make the basis of a decent article - with a bit of an update in the domestic bit. But the rest is a pretty epic fail as Joseph says above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Keeping any article of a current player of such prominence to GA/FA standard is virtually impossible. Currently, it falls a long way short of the standard required, having been hijacked by IP's and editors of poor competence. AA (talk) 23:03, 5 April 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.

Riya Sen

edit

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) 15:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was assessed 16 years ago and it underwent a lot of edits since then. There are a lot of citation-needed templates, along with unsourced filmography sections, a lot of grammatical, (especially punctuation and wording errors), as well as factual discrepancies and poor sourcing. For example, as of this nom, it incorporates her birthday being on two different dates and years. In the lede and infobox, it is listed as 24 January 1989, but in the personal life section, it is listed as "Born on 24 January 1981." It also does not follow conventional section ordering and manual of styles. Right after the lede, there's the "Acting career" section, wherein, it should've been another section, such as Early life and family. But these details are listed sporadically in the latter sections.

It is also generally not well written.

Anyone with a cursory look can tell this does not meet the standard of Good Article we have set here. X (talk) 05:10, 7 April 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.

Arrested Development

edit

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) 02:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons four and five, which premiered after this became a GA, are not meaningfully covered Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the plot summary. A lot of the article is frozen in time. Production is about the production of seasons 1-3 with one paragraph tacked on to the end just mentioning that seasons 4 and 5 exist. Characters and reception don't acknowledge that they exist at all. Right now the article looks like it was written in 2012 and then a few season 4/5 details were added on after the fact, which is exactly what happened. If I were reviewing the article at GAN, I would also take issue with the "controversies" section, giving undue coverage to certain events during production solely because they are controversies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OlifanofmrTennant do you intend to continue addressing the issues? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to but my focus has shifted to my ongoing GA. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:10, 16 April 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.

Centennial Light

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

short lead. several outstanding inline cn tags. ltbdl (talk) 06:50, 7 April 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.

Fortress of Klis

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant amount of the article, including almost the entire "Importance" section is uncited. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 it looks like most of this "Importance" section is uncited because it was in the lead section, as it had been added in edits like [1] or [2] decades ago, but was then broken out in this unexplained edit in 2013, by an account that was later indefinitely blocked for other abuse (I found this using the "Who Wrote That?" extension). Maybe the logic of that needs to be reassessed first. --Joy (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've re-integrated the old lede into the lede and edited it mildly for concision. The nomination does not appear to be correct that a "significant amount of the article is uncited" - can you clarify where exactly these uncited parts are, if you're standing by that?
  • While I'm not sure if it's GAR-worthy, the prose is not particularly tight, and it seems to have some Croatian nationalist vibes in parts (which I'm sure is in the sources, but it doesn't mean that has to be transmitted here - I removed a "Turkish menace" for example). I'd argue that would be a more productive area to examine and spruce up in this. SnowFire (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I noticed as well was the quality of the supporting materials - I swapped out the top image immediately. The laundry list of historical years in the infobox also doesn't strike me as well documented or a good use of screen-estate. --Joy (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed now that @Edgars2007 noticed this in 2015 (!). I've moved it around a bit, is this better? --Joy (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to SnowFire's recent edit, I had a look at one of the main sources, the municipality's history page:
  • Listeš, Srećko. "Povijest Klisa". klis.hr (in Croatian). Službene stranice Općine Klis. Archived from the original on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2010-05-16.
This archive link implies that the text was taken from a 1998 book called Klis: prošlost, toponimi, govor published by an NGO called Croatian society Trpimir Klis. It would be better to get this referenced to the actual work, which seems to be ISBN 953-96751-3-8, with page numbers.
At the same time, the current website's history link goes to this:
--Joy (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would request that this GAR not be closed too aggressively - I do think that this article could use a tune-up, even if not for the reasons the nominator cited, but it will probably take more time. SnowFire (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't had the time to come back to this like I'd hoped. I think this article has the bones of being in great shape and only needs some minor work to get back to GA quality - just some rereading of the sources and rephrasing, mostly. @Joy:, would you have time to take a go at this? If not, I suppose I'd be fine with a reluctant delist-by-default. SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 15 April 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.

Bristol Harbour

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Contains quite a fair amount of uncited material. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:44, 9 April 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.

Thom Darden

edit

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) 00:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This passed as a GA in 2009, and it definitely does not meet the standards of a 2024 GA. In fact, I'm not sure if it should have passed in 2009 either. The pro section is sorely lacking for someone that had a 10-year career, and reads rather disjointed as written even if the prose was long enough. Wizardman 15:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some expansion was done so I'll make some time and look to see if it was sufficient. Wizardman 22:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a look Wizardman? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now so I guess it'll suffice. Wizardman 13:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to close this?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to do closures so I'll let Airship handle it. Wizardman 20:19, 21 April 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.

Hull City A.F.C.

edit

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: Regardless of whether Untitled740's edits were disruptive, there is massive amounts of uncited material in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. Just a disgusting amount of things to fix according to the multitude of notifications in the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Onegreatjoke: There are a lot of false positives, I see the hand of the disruptive editor Untitled740 and frankly I don't trust this editor, there are probably a lot of things to be fixed. One of them is to remove all the crap that Untitled740 added which ruins the enjoyment to the reader. So I am not sure about a reassessment is truly needed at current, the vandalism needs to be fixed first. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 16 April 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.

Mohanlal

edit

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) 16:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article still has numerous "citation needed" tags in the "2016-present" sub-section of the "Film career" section that are still valid. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:54, 16 April 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.

Slender Man

edit

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) 16:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is reliable sourcing (2b) and due weight in the "References in media" section, where the listings seem to include every media reference regardless of importance, and include unsourced statements, primary sources, and fanwiki sources.

Besides that, the article structure is unorthodox. The "History" L2 contains the entirely-unrelated-to-history "Description" L3. "Folkloric qualities", "Copyright", and "References in media" are all at least unusual L2 headings. ~ A412 talk! 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured. As for the media section, how does one decide which inclusion is worthy? Serendipodous 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements to the article structure.
Regarding the media section, it's an essay, but WP:IPCEXAMPLES is a good guide on this stuff, and basically says that the work should be significant, the mention should be significant, and that the mention should have been noted by reliable sources. ~ A412 talk! 20:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concretely going through a couple examples from the article, if that helps:
  • Minecraft Endermen: This one is probably fine, as a significant element of a popular game, but ideally we'd have better sourcing than igxpro.com, which appears to be a blog reposting social media speculation. [3] [4]
  • Lost Girl: This one is fine, seems to be a major element of a popular television episode, sourced to RS.
  • "Sympathy for Slender Man": This one's very shaky. A filler short; the cited source doesn't actually say anything other that hosting the short.
  • My Little Pony: This isn't a significant mention. As the text indicates, it is a "brief cameo". ~ A412 talk! 20:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • +Article doesn't even have reception section; which is important for every fictional character articles. Same issue with Michael Myers. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is extremely outdated. At least four academic works (Chess and Shira, Peck, Asimov, Slender Man is Coming) dedicated to Slender Man exist, none of whose content are adequately covered in the article. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 00:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links? Serendipodous 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "reception" section would have been easier ten years ago. Nowadays the Slender Man is a forgotten and discredited meme tied forever to an act of senseless violence. Serendipodous 15:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the references in media title should be renamed as "In popular culture". Also, that section shouldn't be written like that. Article a little bit outdated as it seems? and there are still unsourced claim. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What unsourced claims? And outdated in what way? Also, while your sources do make the connection between slenderman and enderman, igxpro is the only one that explains how the connection was made. Serendipodous 23:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have rewritten it. Looks good now. There are still some cn tags at development section and it might need a bit expansion I think; the quote in history sec seems to be a bit messy? Also, try removing citations on the lead and cite it in the body. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortex3427:, @Greenish Pickle!:, could you please sort your comments? There seem to be a couple threads here, but they're all broken up between indents. ~ A412 talk! 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt like some were not covered yet (like what Voltrex said) for such a popular character like this, but for now, my concerns were from the history section that I replied to above. I'll leave it to Vortex since he is more familiar with this than I am as a video game character editor. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412, Serendipodous, Greenish Pickle!, and Vortex3427: are the issues resolved to your satisfaction? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issues I raised (bloated, poorly sourced "References in media" / IPC section), and section organization, are resolved to my satisfaction. I don't know about the outdatedness concerns. ~ A412 talk! 23:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the folklore qualities should be renamed "reception"? and then moved it into the last section. I also feel like it should be expanded more with scholar sources. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 12:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were going to call it reception I would have to split it, since it isn't all about reception. And reception by whom? The parents of Waukesha, Wisconsin? I also think it is where it needs to be, because the idea that it's folklore should be above the fact that it is not public domain. As for more sources, well, there's a book apparently. Almost everyone in said book is already cited in the article, but if you want it, I suppose I could buy it. I'm not exactly rolling in cash, does anyone want to go halvsies on it? Serendipodous 13:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Hmm. Then the remaining issues for you would be to fix the refencing issues and add authors like ref 66 and ref 67 then replace the ref 71 into better one. After that I don't have problem with article keeping its GA status. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Serendipodous 11:11, 24 April 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.

George Rogers Clark National Historical Park

edit

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) 16:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the talk page back in March, this 2009 GA promotion contains significant uncited text, as well as lesser source-text integrity issues. In addition, the material on the administrative history of the site seems underdeveloped. Hog Farm Talk 14:24, 16 April 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.

London, Ontario

edit

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. The Sydney Morning Herald 07:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2009 listing includes numerous unsourced paragraphs, some punctation errors, and some single-sentence paragraphs.  750h+ | Talk  08:32, 17 April 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.

Clementine cake

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it from the recent AFD, where I also mentioned that it needs a reassessment. The article is surprisingly so brief for a GA. It has just 3 sections, the last 2 (History and In Popular Culture) are tiny. I understand that for an article of a cake, this one's above the average quality, sure, but I'm not sure that it merits a GA status. Speaking on technical terms, it fails criteria 3: "Broad in its coverage" - for the reasons mentioned above. NB: It was assessed 8 years ago X (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • During the process of creating and expanding the article, I pretty much used up all of the reliable sources that were available online at that time (e.g. from Google Books, Google News, Highbeam, etc.) Personally, I don't view the article or its sections as short or "tiny". For a cake article, it is very comprehensive as well as informative, relative to the actual sources available for the topic. Regarding the In popular culture (IPC) section, extensive listings are actually discouraged. There's even a template for overly long IPC sections in articles: {{In popular culture}}. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Handling trivia. North America1000 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC) (Article creator)[reply]
  • I think over the years -- and especially during the recent AfD, when there were multiple edits including additions from now-available sources -- the narrative flow has suffered. And the images could be improved. But the coverage isn't incomplete, it's all cited and verifiable, other than the recent AfD and those edits it's stable, it's neutral. Agree with NA1000 that we don't actually want any pop culture section to be longer than is strictly needed. And that applies to the article in general -- broad coverage doesn't require a certain length. I'm not sure this is a fail, it's just a GA that needs to tending to. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've improved the images and narrative flow. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 22 April 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.

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007. Contains expansion needed tags and numerous uncited areas. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:09, 21 April 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.

Kaunas Fortress

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs major work to meet the broadness criteria:

(t · c) buidhe 04:05, 16 April 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.

California Southern Railroad

edit

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) 15:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2006 promotion was last reassessed in 2009 and is so old the initial promotion was literally just "I trust the printed sources are sound" [5]. Substantial passages are uncited and the article's prose is not really up to modern standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 23 April 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.

Citroën C3 Picasso

edit

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: All users involved have declined to improve the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is an advertisement. Much of the article focuses excessively on the trim levels and violates WP:NOPRICES. Lead is five paragraphs, and some parts do not summarise the article. Also, some of these references do not seem reliable.  750h+ | Talk  13:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the vehicle is encyclopaedic then so are the differences - the trims in this case. I have no opposition to the prices being taken out, and included them only as they seemed valuable at the time for historical information. They certainly weren't added for sales, since the vehicle was discontinued long long ago. The original GAA had no issues with any of this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that content wasn't in the article at the time of the original GAA - here's the diff between then and now. I'm not expressing a view on that content btw, just pointing out it wasn't part of that GAA review. WaggersTALK 11:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prices were clearly in the article at the time it was passed as a GA without any issue, and that's present in the link above. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, Jenova, please go ahead and remove the prices. I would also recommend removing the "Full model line-up and engine availability" table since that's literally just an advertisement in itself, ensure the lede summarises the article (some parts of the lede are not in the article itself), replacing references of questionable quality with those of good quality. By the way, when this article was promoted, it fell well short of GA standards. Given the tightening regulations, the articles should maintain a high level of quality. Best,  750h+ | Talk  05:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to edit it as you see fit. I'm semi retired, and not here to obstruct - rather i'm here to see what the result of the assessment is. Giving detailed or technical information isn't the same as an advert, or everything would be considered an advert - and the vehicle hasn't existed for sale since 2017, so that just strikes me as an odd line to take. I gave historical information that was available to state what variants Citroen offered worldwide - a common practice with vehicle articles, and a thorough attempt to stop the article from becoming centric to just the US - which is prevalent throughout all of Wikipedia. The article isn't different from any other vehicle article. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenova20, I'm sorry but this burden isn't on me. Unless you or another editor would like to help bring this back to GA status, this will see a delist. I understand your point about trying to make this article comprehensive, but if a buyer would like to buy one, they would go to a catalogue territory--which no offence, but is what some of this article looks like. Eg this Code Red/Code White was released in January 2012. The limited edition C3 Picasso Code Red and Code White replaced the Blackcherry in the UK. The Code has the same engine as the Blackcherry and has been finely tuned for a marginally increased fuel economy and lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It features obsidian black bumpers and 17-inch (43 cm) Polar White or Cherry Red "clover" alloy wheels, and can be equipped with extra features, which include roof bars, curtain airbags, cruise control and a speed limiter. Body colours exclusive to the trim are Belle Ile Blue, Shark Grey and Cherry Red. sounds like an advertisement to me. Pinging @GAR coordinators: to see their opinion.  750h+ | Talk  12:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I have seen this ping. I will need to get back to you once I've had a chance to look over the article fully (hopefully tomorrow). There is also the caveat that I am not carsandotherthings but I'll try my best. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing immediately stands out to me as advertising as I know it, could you pick out examples of passages you believe are advertising? I'm not familiar with trims as a concept (in the train corner of the encyclopedia I deal with people obsessing over locomotive paint schemes in unencyclopedic manner all the time, not sure if that's an equivalent or not) but far as I can see everything there is cited appropriately, so it's a question of is the content appropriate for inclusion. I could definitely see an argument for trimming (pun not intended) the text in that section particularly for trims where it appears only minor changes were made. Clever reorganization could likely convey the same basic information in fewer sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTPRICE.  750h+ | Talk  03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking the time to engage with your concerns. I asked you for examples, and all you do is link some policy pages. Please meet me halfway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I will supply some instances alongside other things I found wrong.
Examples:
  • "C3 Picasso went on sale in France in February 2009 for €14,950"
  • "The LX was the most basic and least expensive model, with a 71 kW; 96 PS (95 bhp) VTi engine, priced at €12,590, while the Exclusive model was most expensive with a 82 kW; 110 PS (110 bhp) HDi Airdream engine at €18,650. The C3 Picasso was launched in the United Kingdom on 9 April 2009, where it went on sale for £11,495 for the 1.4-litre VTi, the most basic model with 6.4 L/100 km; 37 mpg‑US (44 mpg‑imp), while the most expensive was the 'Exclusive' with a 1.6-litre HDi engine and 4.6 L/100 km; 52 mpg‑US (62 mpg‑imp) at £15,595."
  • "As bonus, it came equipped with £1,000 of extras and was released..."
  • "..comes with a free white Samsung Galaxy Tab 16 GB.."
  • "...the least expensive being the Attraction with a 95 bhp (71 kW; 96 PS) VTi engine at €12,250 and the most expensive being the Exclusive with a 115 bhp (86 kW; 117 PS) HDi engine at €18,475."
  • "In September 2010, Citroën do Brasil launched the Citroën C3 Aircross in Brazil and Argentina. The car is a C3 Picasso-based mini SUV with styling differences including: raised suspension, chrome roof bars and mirror covers, side skirts, and a rear spare tyre." isn't sourced
Prose is fine in my opinion. Self-published sourcing, I believe, is okay every once in a while. But this article excessively uses it, as well as some unreliable sources.  750h+ | Talk  10:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's blatant advertising, but I can see where the impression comes from. The prose could be shaped up, especially with regards to writing the WP:LEAD as a summary. CMD (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not blatant, a lot of the content just feels more catalog-ish than encyclopedic, I think.  750h+ | Talk  06:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment but didn't reply because i thought it was ridiculously arrogant and hostile for a public forum. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenova, I then apologise if I've used an aggressive tone and will try to keep it mild for the rest of this conversation. I'm not actually trying to sound arrogant or hostile, but if is to you, then I will milden my tone.  750h+ | Talk  10:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that doesn't seem to have aged well at all. I don't think it's worth mentioning that it came with a free tablet for example. Not sure how that was ever worth mentioning. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
750h+, do you intend to remove the material you find objectionable? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about this. I'm not the main editor of this page and I'm not particularly interested in this car either, so probably not, but maybe in the far future. I'd be willing to stay and watch the page's issues get rectified though. 750h+ 15:24, 2 May 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.

Patrick Omameh

edit

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) 17:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger is citing the status of this article as a GA to justify submitting subpar GANs like Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1 and Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)/GA1. However, it's clearly not at GA status today. It was perhaps a defensible promotion back in 2013, before Omameh's football had progressed. But it's far short of the GAC in 2024. His professional career is inadequately summarised in choppy prose – tiny sections detail little more than the dates he signed for and left his various teams. – Teratix ₵ 02:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the moment, the article violates MOS:OVERSECTION; that is easily fixed, but a quick couple of searches on newspapers.com and Google shows that there has been large amounts of coverage on Omameh's professional career, especially in its early years, which the article eschews in favour of endless statistics and all-star team inclusions. Thus, the article does not meet GA criterion 3a) as it stands. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teratix do you feel that the issues are resolved? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the basic problems with paragraph structure and comprehensiveness remain unfixed. The article really speaks for itself on this account. – Teratix ₵ 05:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the issue was deficient content. I'll revisit this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Structure has been fixed. As noted above, there is not any significant content missing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All you did was mash the tiny one-line sections into one big chunk. That doesn't actually fix anything. I mean, come on, you look at a section like:
Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.
You honestly think "structure has been fixed"? You honestly think "there is not any significant content missing"? You honestly think that's a well-written summary of Omameh's career that adequately addresses its main aspects? – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Teratix, what I am hearing is the encyclopedic content that you (me) have summarized is very heavy on roster transactions and little else, but there surely must be other interesting stuff. Otherwise, this can't be a GA. Please be advised that my role is to summarize encyclopedic content from secondary sources. There are some people who are not in the public eye for their entire lives and thus only portions of their life will be fleshed out in a WP biography. Others may be in the public eye with limited exposure for parts of their lives. It is my current understanding that Omameh is no longer the feature of original secondary source research beyond transaction detail and rehashing his WP bio. I am not aware of new stories regarding his biographical summary. I am well aware that this biography trails off in terms of biographical intrigue. Unless, you can explain to me that I am overlooking biological topics of intrigue, the fact that what I am presenting is boring transaction stuff, is not really a big strike against comprehensiveness. WP is a tertiary source and is only responsible for summarizing encyclopedic content of reliable secondary sources. A comprehensive summary of boring sources is still comprehensive. Telling me what I present is boring content of limited depth is not a mark against comprehensiveness unless there exist secondary sources that contain encyclopedic content that I am not summarizing. I do not believe oversight to be the case.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are five substantive sources on Omameh that are completely unused in the article.[1][2][3][4][5] They were all on the first page of a basic Newsbank search.

References

  1. ^ O'Halloran, Ryan (4 June 2017). "Omameh plays better than he practices". The Florida TImes-Union.
  2. ^ Johnson, Luke (15 May 2020). "Patrick Omameh is happy to find some continuity by re-signing with the Saints". The Times-Picuyane.
  3. ^ Lombardo, Matt (20 October 2018). "Giants to bench Patrick Omameh, start Spencer Pulley at center". The Star-Ledger.
  4. ^ Dunleavy, Ryan (10 November 2018). "Giants cut free agent bust Patrick Omameh". The Star-Ledger.
  5. ^ Just, Amie (26 November 2019). "Saints' OL Patrick Omameh 'prepared for anything' as he's the latest to fill in after injuries". The New Orleans Advocate.
Note these are intended as representative examples to demonstrate how much this article is missing, not to be exhaustive. You could include all five and that wouldn't fix the problem. So yes, you are overlooking significant secondary sources.
But I shouldn't even have to pick these out. It should be blindingly obvious, when two full years of Omameh's career is mechanically summarised as:
Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, 2020. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He was waived on December 14, 2020. On December 15, 2020, Omameh was claimed off waivers by the New Orleans Saints. He was waived on December 24, 2020.
...that the article is evidently missing coverage. – Teratix ₵ 06:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that at 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC), I pinged Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Patrick_Omameh/1-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a ton that could be added about those portions of his career, although Tony, you probably could add things in between like, e.g. Omameh was signed to the Las Vegas Raiders practice squad on September 19, 2020, and was promoted to the active roster four days later. He appeared in six games for the team before being waived on December 14, 2020. (See PFR). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph is also very poorly written (even relative to the rest of the article) and fails GA criterion 1a). I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know why constantly repeating the years is necessary, nor why three sentences with an average length of nine words are necessary to describe a ten-day period. – while the years may not be necessary, the second part you mentioned is definitely necessary as it explains important details / transactions of his career (something all modern football player articles have), although it could be combined into less sentences. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tail end of the careers of pedestrian players is often a lot of choppy content like you see here. It is rare that anyone is ever asked to pay such close attention to the content of this portion of the biography for as mediocre of a player. It seems quite unnatural to me. There are many much more worthwhile expenditures of my editorial time. I am not above delving into the biographies of mediocre players. However, I consider it far more worthwhile to flesh out a redlink into a decent biographical picture than it is to spend time detailing precisely how mediocre a player is who already has a biography that gives a decent picture of that mediocrity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's perfectly alright to say "I don't care enough about these players to justify spending my time on fixing their articles. I'm going to spend my time on other things instead."
But taking this stance means accepting the possibility that these players' articles will degrade over time as their careers progress, that other editors will notice this and put the articles up for reassessment, and thus that if not enough is done, they will lose their GA status.
Ultimately, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There's no GAC exception saying "articles must be well-written and adequately address the main aspects, except if they're on mediocre NFL players". – Teratix ₵ 07:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teratix, you no doubt have shown that content is missing. The question is what is considered encyclopedic. I don't know what the football term is, but baseball statasticians (I have a Masters Degree in Statisitcs, BTW) use a term called replacement player. It is a generic term that star players are compared against in a statistic known as Wins Above Replacement. It is used to statistically assess how valuable a player is in comparison to the average player that would replace him if he could not play. What we see in Omameh is someone who is basically the embodiment of a replacement player, which is a bit of a digression. Certainly, if WP:V secondary sources that are WP:RS present content, it is our duty to summarize that content at some level. However, we must keep in mind WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which says "Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". We need to consider WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I view expanding upon mediocrity as a violation of WP:ROUTINE. I generally spend time seeking out content examples of excellence. Facts that document excellence are encyclopedic. A haystack of facts that are verifiable and sourced to document that which is run-of-the-mill is not what I use my time for. The vast majority of facts that I include in athlete biographies demonstrate things distinguishing a person from a replacement player. Documenting facts that further solidify a player's status as an embodiment of a replacement player seems ROUTINE and unencyclopedic to me. Furthermore, many athletes who are fairly pedestrian play positions in sports where they can have a great game that can be reported. Even a scrub basketball player who finally achieves double digit scoring in a game is an interesting element of content. However, for an offensive lineman there are not really any stats that if he has a decent day that we can present. If Omameh had a game where he played 50 snaps with any quarterback hurries, sacks, pass deflections, or penalties, it would be hard for me to write about it. Basically, if a guy is good enough to start in the NFL, we can give his article some facts. So for a lineman, we might end up with signings, releases and starts. Explaining his mediocrity is a waste of time, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teratix, I'm not seeing precisely what more is needed here? IMO, "adequately addresses the main aspects" does not mean "include every detail known to man" – the article doesn't look that bad to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Tony has expanded the article a bit having done some Newsbank searches of his own. This is good! For instance, the section on his 2016 season at the Jaguars:

Omameh signed with the Jacksonville Jaguars on June 2, 2016. Despite not looking that good to coach Doug Marrone in practices, Omameh made the roster over Mackenzy Bernadeau and others. When left guard Luke Joeckel had season-ending surgery in October, Omameh took his place. He was placed on injured reserve on November 21 after sustaining a left foot injury in Week 11 against the Detroit Lions. According to Ryan O'Halloran of The Florida Times-Union, despite his mediocre pass protection performance, in Omameh's six starts (453 snaps) at left guard, he performed superior to the other 4 people who started in 2016 at that position for the team.

now at least references some actual analysis of Omameh's performance. This is the standard I'm thinking of when considering whether a main aspect has at least been "adequately" addressed. Now if we can get the rest of the sections on his NFL career to at least this standard, the article would be well on the way to a retention. – Teratix ₵ 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding Newsbank, the Chicago Public Library has a different set of sources than whomever your Newsbank subscription is through. So our search results will overlap but differ. I have added one source that you listed above. We do not seem to have access to The Star-Ledger at this time, so I have found a source from the time frame of your TSL sources. You do not seem to be hearing me. Omameh is a biography that could be cluttered with WP:Run-of-the-mill content. I have shown with the edits since you listed sources to pursue that the content in those sources is Run-of-the-mill. As per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, & WP:ROUTINE, I will not clutter his article with further ROTM content. User:BeanieFan11 has opted observe this on behalf of WP:NFL. I consider the ROTM content that I added describing how mediocre he is to be unencyclopedic and do not want to add more ROTM content. We are at a point where "Find more stuff" is not acceptable. I think Beanie is impartial. Unless substantial facts that are known to you are missing, you need to explain why you wish to disregard WP:Run-of-the-mill, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, & WP:ROUTINE.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you don't understand what those essays mean. "Run-of-the-mill" is a concept that relates to notability – it's about whether a particular subject is different enough from the ordinary to deserve an article in the first place, not about what is covered within that article. "Routine" is another concept that relates to notability, not article content – it's about whether something like a wedding announcement, a criminal charge or an everyday sports match deserves its own article.
    Similarly, you don't understand what WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTEVERYTHING means. "Indiscriminate" is a concept that relates to things like articles that log every single software update for a particular app. An indiscriminate article on Omameh would be something like analysing every NFL match he ever appeared in. When I ask, e.g. that the article use the many secondary sources available to say a little more about his stint with the Saints than Omameh was signed by the New Orleans Saints on July 29, 2019. On May 14, 2020, Omameh re-signed with the Saints. He was released on September 5, that's not "INDISCRIMINATE".
    I've lost my patience here. I've been very clear about the article's obvious failures to adequately cover Omameh's NFL career and the ample secondary sources that haven't been incorporated, even to the point where I had to go out and explicitly pick out five examples for Tony. This GAR has been open for over a month now and there has been every opportunity for interested editors to get it back to a decent standard.
    Barring some substantive improvement, the article should be delisted for failing GAC (3a), adequately addressing main aspects. – Teratix ₵ 04:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am done. Thanks for your time. Of course a GAR is not an individual effort so others may want to take up the slack.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no comments on the overall broadness of the article, but the lead needs expansion to fully cover the (new?) body content (GACR1b), especially the College and Personal Life. I'd also suggest dividing the Professional Career section into a couple more paragraphs for readability, although this isn't something I'd hang a GAR on. CMD (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fallout: New Vegas

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: With thanks to Famous Hobo ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has lots of unsourced content and issues with prose (the gameplay section is one long paragraph). The page also displays too much content on fan-made mods, as posted about here by an IP in January of this year. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: To address that IP's comments, the mods that are mentioned are the mods were covered by reliable sources. I could see an argument for creating an article titled Fallout: New Vegas modding, splitting most of the current info there, and making a small summary in this article, as was done with Skyrim. No comment yet regarding the other issues mentioned. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is the similar Skyrim modding so if there is enough content to warrant a separate modding page for New Vegas I don't see why we couldn't split. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro I took a stab at shortening the mods section on my sandbox. Frankly I'm not sure what else to include. Yes the mods themselves have received media attention, but considering the article is about Fallout New Vegas itself and not the individual mods I wanted to keep the section short. Also, this article says that the modding scene was instrumental in turning the perception of New Vegas into a beloved classic, so I could merge the mods paragraph with the reappraisal section. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they shouldn't have individual sections. If the mods were integral to the game's lasting reception I think that should surely be discussed in reappraisal. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo- I'm biased since it's a part of my username but the mention of Tale of Two Wastelands had more than enough reliable sources, including an article by IGN on it two weeks ago. I'll leave it up to you on how to re-add it but I think it definitely should be mentioned. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HadesTTW: So the mods section was the first thing I rewrote simply because it was one of the main issues brought up at the beginning of the good article reassessment. But after reading through some other info about Fallout: New Vegas I can across this article, which among other things, talks about how the active modding scene was integral to making the game the beloved classic it is today. Whether or not that's actually true, I have no idea, I play on console. Regardless I plan on expanding the reappraisal section to include info about how important the modding scene was, and I want to include info about the bigger mods like New California, The Frontier, and Two Wastelands. You're right that the Two Wastelands mod does deserve to at least have a brief mention. I'll get around to it eventually, I'm just slowly but surely working my way through the article. I plan on rewriting the initial reception section next. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you are doing great work with the GA rewrite so far. I just wanted to make sure that the mod was kept since it's definitely notable for inclusion.
I will have to say in regards to the notability of other mods- I would love to write an entire article on New Vegas modding as its a subject that I know a lot about, but reliable sources are sparse and oftentimes recommend poor quality mods (Project Nevada is mentioned in a lot of publications, but it has been deprecated by the community and largely been replaced by non-notable mods that aren't buggy and broken). I definitely would write an entire "Fallout: New Vegas Modding" article if there were more sources- but as it stands, the best and most reliable information on modding are all self-published sources or guides on GitHub. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sadly I just don't think there are enough sources available to write about the modding scene as a whole. Your best bet would probably be to focus on some of the individual mods like New California. I'm honestly shocked there isn't an article about The Frontier mod considering how much was written about it when it came out. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this looks like a very, very clear Delist. The article as a whole is hard to read and there's citation needed tags/unsourced content throughout. λ NegativeMP1 16:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking my delist following the improvements made by Famous Hobo. I think the article should be good enough to keep the GA status of. λ NegativeMP1 03:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There seems to be a lot of unsourced material, and a decent amount of it is questionable in terms of its objectivity. I also think the quality of the writing in general could use improvement. I personally find it a bit awkward, but that’s a secondary issue. Cleaning up the information is definitely more of a priority.
I don’t meet the requirements to edit protected articles yet, but should I propose specific edits if I want to add/delete content? I see some things that could be cut out or restructured, but I don’t want to upset anyone (I’m very new to Wikipedia editing so I’m not familiar with the social norms here). FlookieBee (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FlookieBee I'm interested in saving this article from losing it's GA status, and copied the entire article onto my sandbox. You should be able to freely edit on there. Just a heads up I am also editing on the sandbox so some of the text will change over the next couple days, but I don't mind you editing there. Also you can't include copyrighted images on a sandbox, which is why the cover art and gameplay screenshot have been removed (surprisingly none of the other images are copyrighted). Famous Hobo (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as GA Hobo did a great job streamlining the article and removing unsourced material. I'll look into creating a separate article for New Vegas modding although I expect to run into problems with sourcing and the like. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Just an update on what's going on. The gameplay section has been completely rewritten (although you might want to read through the second paragraph to see if it makes sense. I'll admit it's a very simplified explanation of how skills work in this game). The plot section mostly seems fine, although I'll make a few touch ups here and there to make it seem more encyclopedic. I'm almost done rewriting the development section with new information. From there, I'll expand on the remaining sections. The nice thing about the TV series is that more information is being rewritten about New Vegas than ever before. In its current state, I think this article passes the GA requirements, but regardless I'll keep working on it. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear! I'm glad there's actually editors dedicated to cleaning it up and bringing it back up to standard (especially considering, like you said, the TV series has brought renewed interest to this game more than ever). Now if only Bethesda will make a damn remaster... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: Update 2. Pretty much every part of this article has been rewritten. The one exception is the initial reception section. I'll be blunt, I fucking hate writing reception sections for video game articles, so I've been heavily procrastinating writing that section. But as it stands now, even if the reception section is left as is, I firmly believe this article passes modern GA standards. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think the improvements have brought the article back up to GA standards. Thanks again for the great work! Famous Hobo – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:26, 7 May 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.

Louie Caporusso

edit

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) 13:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was reviewed as a GA in 2009 (by me). While it did pass GA standards in 2009, at the time he was still a college hockey player, and in the meantime he has had essentially his entire professional career. As a result the article has atrophied, with 2013 to present in particular lacking in depth. Wizardman 21:16, 29 March 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.

SR Lord Nelson class

edit

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) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple passages missing citations. Several existing citations are missing page numbers. I am not convinced that "Southern Railway E-mail Group" is a reliable source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:01, 26 April 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.

Columbia University

edit

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) 13:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a CCI request that includes as evidence some diffs leading up to this article's original GA promotion. It appears that widespread copyright issues were introduced at that time and unfortunately not caught, with the result that the present article includes some direct and some derivative copyvio from multiple sources. Examples:

  • Current article: "The university is governed by 24 trustees, customarily including the president, who serves ex officio. The trustees themselves are responsible for choosing their successors. Six of the 24 are nominated from a pool of candidates recommended by the Columbia Alumni Association. Another six are nominated by the board in consultation with the executive committee of the University Senate. The remaining 12, including the president, are nominated by the trustees themselves through their internal processes. The term of office for trustees is six years. Generally, they serve for no more than two consecutive terms. The trustees appoint the president and other senior administrative officers of the university, and review and confirm faculty appointments as required. They determine the university's financial and investment policies, authorize the budget, supervise the endowment, direct the management of the university's real estate and other assets, and otherwise oversee the administration and management of the university."
    • Source: "The University is governed by 24 Trustees, customarily including the President, who serves ex officio. The Trustees themselves are responsible for choosing their successors. Six of the 24 are nominated from a pool of candidates recommended by the Columbia Alumni Association. Another six are nominated by the Board in consultation with the Executive Committee of the University Senate. The remaining 12, including the President, are nominated by the Trustees themselves through their internal processes. The term of office for Trustees is six years. Generally, they serve for no more than two consecutive terms. The Trustees appoint the President and other senior administrative officers of the University, and review and confirm faculty appointments as required. They determine the University’s financial and investment policies, authorize the budget, supervise the endowment, direct the management of the University’s real estate and other assets, and otherwise oversee the administration and management of the University."
  • Current article: "McKim, Mead & White invited French to build the sculpture in order to harmonize with the larger composition of the court and library in the center of the campus. Draped in an academic gown, the female figure of Alma Mater wears a crown of laurels and sits on a throne. The scroll-like arms of the throne end in lamps, representing sapientia and doctrina. A book signifying knowledge, balances on her lap, and an owl, the attribute of wisdom, is hidden in the folds of her gown. Her right hand holds a scepter composed of four sprays of wheat, terminating with a crown of King's College which refers to Columbia's origin as a royal charter institution in 1754. A local actress named Mary Lawton was said to have posed for parts of the sculpture. The statue was dedicated on September 23, 1903, as a gift of Mr. & Mrs. Robert Goelet, and was originally covered in golden leaf. During the Columbia University protests of 1968 a bomb damaged the sculpture, but it has since been repaired".
    • Source: "Draped in an academic gown, the female figure of Alma Mater wears a crown of laurels and sits on a throne. The scroll-like arms of the throne end in lamps, representing Doctrina and Sapientia. A book signifying knowledge, balances on her lap, and an owl, the attribute of wisdom, is seen in the folds of the gown. Her right hand holds a scepter composed of four sprays of wheat, terminating with a crown of King's College which refers to Columbia's orgin as a Royalist institution in 1754.... Architect of the Low Library, Charles Follen McKim of the firm McKim, Mead & White, invited French to execute this sculpture which was to harmonize with his larger composition of the court and library. The base was designed by McKim, Mead & White. The sculpture was a gift of Mr. & Mrs. Robert Goelet, Jr. Originally, the sculpture was coated with gold leaf. During a student demonstration in 1968, a bomb damaged the sculpture, but it has since been repaired. The actress Mary Lawton was said to have posed for parts of the of the sculpture."
  • Current article: "With a design inspired by the City Beautiful movement, the steps of Low Library provides Columbia University and Barnard College students, faculty, and staff with a comfortable outdoor platform and space for informal gatherings, events, and ceremonies. McKim's classical facade epitomizes late 19th-century new-classical designs, with its columns and portico marking the entrance to an important structure."
    • Source: "With a design inspired by the City Beautiful movement, the steps of McKim, Mead, and White's Low Library provides Columbia university and Barnard College students, faculty, and staff with a comfortable and spacious outdoor platform and space for informal gatherings, events, and ceremonies. McKim's classical; facade epitomizes late 19th century new-classical designs, with its columns and portico marking the entrance to an important structure."
  • Current article: "The InterGreek Council is the self-governing student organization that provides guidelines and support to its member organizations within each of the three councils at Columbia, the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, and Multicultural Greek Council. The three council presidents bring their affiliated chapters together once a month to meet as one Greek community. The InterGreek Council meetings provide opportunity for member organizations to learn from each other, work together and advocate for community needs."
    • Source: "The InterGreek Council (IGC) is the self-governing student organization that provides guidelines and support to its member organizations within each of the three councils at Columbia, the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, and Multicultural Greek Council. The three council presidents bring their affiliated chapters together once a month to meet as one Greek community. The InterGreek Council meetings provide opportunity for member organizations to learn from each other, work together and advocate for community needs."

Etc. It also appears that there may have been some copyvio predating the GA run, particularly in the history section compared to this archive. I do have other concerns wrt the GA criteria, but the copyvio issue will require a significant rewrite anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nominator. Article has a significant amount of plagiarism/copyvios, failing GACR 2d. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 30 April 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.

Capitol Limited (B&O train)

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 promotion has a number of uncited passages, severe sandwiching throughout the article, and a lead of insufficient length to summarize the body of the article. I also question the relevance of the schedule table which seems like excessive and inappropriate detail to me. One might also expect some basic detail on Amtrak's version of the train; the current article says almost nothing about it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've axed the schedule table. I have no comment on the other points raised, which do seem valid. Epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 1 May 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.

Field Spaniel

edit

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 improvement; has two citation needed tags and an SPS tag. Closing as delist. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13 years since original review, now contains self-published/unreliable citations which I've removed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So are the issues resolved Traumnovelle? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the citations, not the content. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 29 April 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.

Primer (film)

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No comments or improvement in two weeks; closing as delist Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

promoted in 2008. among other things, cites imdb and amazon, and has out of place sentences like The American director Steven Soderbergh is regarded as a fan of the film and one of the more fantastical elements of science fiction is central to the film. ltbdl (talk) 09:41, 26 April 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.

LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3

edit

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) 13:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the article is uncited, including the entire "Wartime service" section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 26 April 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.

Michael Myers (Halloween)

edit

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: There seems to be consensus that the article does not cover essential aspects of the character in enough detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive usage of primary sources, aritcle isn't broad in coverage (lacking scholar sources, copy the article like Slender Man), unsourced statements, lack of Folkloric qualities or reception section, and the usage of some unreliable sources in the concept/creation section like Youtube and Reddit and primary sources in the popular culture section. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:

1. Excessive use of primary sources? Are you referring to the plot section being sourced to the films? If you're referring to interview books and documentaries, they would be the best sources for information pertaining to the creation of the actual character.

2. Broad coverage is defined as "main aspects of the topic". The main aspect of the topic would be the creation of the character and his impact on popular culture. The article covers those (the former in great depth). This is a GA article, not an FA article. The criteria for "broad" certainly didn't change between 2008 and now. What I can tell you from going through the history is that sometimes in 2009 some IP vandal successfully deleted a huge section of information and it was never caught.

3. What unsourced statements? The only unsourced part of the article is in the plot section, and it isn't technically required to have an in-line citation for a film summary. It's a fixable issue.

4. Lack of folkloric qualities and reception? I don't know what you mean by folkloric qualities. Michael is a film character, not an urban legend.

5. Youtube and Reddit were used for one source as confirmation of a Halloween film appearing in another film. the entire thing is removed because it's not relevant. That was a single instance for both Youtube and Reddit (as it was the same source). Your statement makes it seem like the article was riddled with the use of Youtube/Reddit pages.

If you're going to request a reassessment, you need to provide more specific issues and not vague statements that force people to guess at what you're referring to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that my statement is kinda exaggerating, I'll redo again. Oh btw, I already raised my concern here [12] before, so I wouldn't even know that the IP removed a lot of content way back from 2009. So, if this article wasn't sent out to GAR does it mean that the content will never be restored? This is the problem with some Old GA articles being forgotten. I also disagree with "the criteria for broad certainly didn't change between 2008 and now", the article easily passed the GA process before unlike now. There are some sources doesn't have author's name that should be implemented. ref51, ref53 ,ref55, ref56, ref58 sources should be replaced into reliable, ref 57 dead source, and instead of using unreliable source like ref61 just remove it and add other merchandise instead with these sources [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. There are some recent sources that could potentially expand the article [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and maybe this two also? [25] [26] Note: I understand your frustration, but I'm not here just to destroy the GA icon. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ There were no mentions about the novelizations of Halloween: The Official Movie Novelization (2018), Taking Shape: Developing Halloween from Script to Scream (2019) and Halloween 3 - “Where the Hell is Michael Myers?”: A definitive history of horror’s most misunderstood film (2022). The lead should also be updated + the infobox image rationale should be improved. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 05:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue there are several statements in the article that are not backed up by their respective sources. The infobox lists several actors (Chris Durand, Brad Loree, Tyler Mane, etc.) who are not mentioned anywhere in the prose. Other infobox details like his "choice weapon". Some statements such as being seen in a commercial in Halloween III are unsourced. Halloween H20: 20 Years Later says it ignores the events of the first three films, but is that stated on the DVD? There are curious highlighted information about the differences between the novel and the book (i.e: Myere's having an erection) that just cites the book, but if this is a big deal or notable, we should have a source discussing the character variations from the novel and film. Some of the more specific video details sourced to dvds in the creation section have no time stamp, which is kind of expected nowadays in sourcing for this kind of material. The statement "Michael Myers is regarded as one of the most recognizable and most iconic horror villains, alongside..." is cited to just a dozens of "Top 10" or "Best---" lists, which isn't quite stating what the sources say. All the trivial mentions of him appearing on tv shows that cite the show itself are basically trivial and feels like a bulleted list written out as prose (Michael Myers is seen in this show. He's also been sold as prop from Spirit of Halloween. Michael appears in...") we can't list every piece of outside media citing Michael, so why hunt and choose? I would agree with Greenish Pickle that there is no reception section and it's mostly down to top 10 lists that summarize "oh he's one of the most iconic of all time", which, no matter how many lists you find, doesn't quite state that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at work, but when I have time I'll go through the article line by line and see what's there. I've only monitored the page for basic vandalism (which, obviously, I didn't do a good job of back in 2009) and haven't paid that much attention to what's been added over the years. That said, "broad coverage" is NOT "comprehensive coverage", which is an FA criteria. So, listing things that aren't used in the article doesn't mean that it isn't broad in its coverage. There doesn't need to be a source in the info box for actors that have portrayed the role, as basic IMDB credits have always been accepted for essentially demographic information about a film. Again, I'll go through it line by line to see what doesn't make sense (I'm not sure why someone put anything about an erection in there for example, but random editors will be random editors).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue definitely need sources for material like that. Even going beyond WP:RS and WP:OR, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article." And yeah, this is what I mean by some trivial mentions. I'm not expecting a featured article content as I barely touch those, but based on the information I suggested, if this was being submitted as a good article today, I think it would be close to passing, but its reception section and infobox material would hold it back for me. No rush on getting back to me if you are at work, I'm definitely not in the market to try and say remove the good article status for this article within a day, week, etc. There are just some things we could definitely work on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have been watching this article for a while now, I have noticed that the scope of the article is incomplete. There is not a lot of information going into the creation and the development of the character. I see a lot of information on the people that played him and some characterization that could be associated with the creation of the character. I do agree that there are plenty of sourcing issues and the article is long overdue for an update and expansion.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. You said there is NOT a lot of information going into the creation and development of the character? Are we reading the same article? There are 3 rather extensive sections on his creation and development. Not having information from the last 3 films (which is probably on their respective pages...I haven't looked at them), does not mean that there is "not a lot" of information. What sourcing issues? So far, this GAR has been a lot of vague ideas of problems and not real, specific issues. The only sourcing issues that existed that have been pointed out were a deadline (which isn't as relevant because it was a journal article, the link was for ease of access), the use of primary sources to cite an episode of a show (nothing wrong with this, so long as the information isn't an interpretation and in those cases it was not). I think people are confusing "unreliable" with "primary" and thinking that all primary sources are either unreliable or unusable. I would point you all to WP:PRIMARY. The problem that exists is that when you're talking about fictional characters, movies, tv shows, etc. you're going to use a lot more primary sources than a normal article because that's where the real world, behind the scenes information is going to come from. It isn't going to come from secondary sources. Secondary sources would be used for interpretive, analytical information that is being used to support the article. Context is important when it comes to the breakdown of the categories for sources in an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What @Paleface Jack: is saying isn't complicated to understand. There is a ton of information about what actors brought into the role (paragraphs upon paragraphs), but little about what was involved with creating the character from the writers or anyone else involved on the set. You also just said it's lacking information on the last three films. And yes, third-party sources would be interpretive, but that is art and we require more third-party interpretations of the character. There is a ton of material here from the people who made them, but barely anything outside the bubble of people who made it. As for your citing WP:PRIMARY, dont' forget "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents." In short, you need more input from outside sources. The journal link is a good start, but just saying "he's one of the most recognized and iconic horror villains" means nothing when you just cite a bunch of top 10s. These kind of statements need context, and you can add a dozen more "best of" lists, but that doesn't really help much here. How does he fit into the pop culture? Why is he iconic/recognizable? Were there tests done? These part needs a re-buff. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I wad meaning. we have some of the lore but a lot of information going into the creation of the character is absent. I always look to the article on Jason Voorhees as a shining example of how to structure articles like this and have used that as a template for my own contributions. Michael, being the influential slasher villain that he is, there needs to be balance and consistency with how the article is structured and written without going overboard with the information. As to the sources, there are a lot of new sources both literary and web that can be used here. Video and periodical citations are good too if they are reliable enough. As it stands though, the article, I am sad to say, is not GA material as it once was. I am certain though that is will be in the future. just not in into current state.Paleface Jack (talk) 16:28, 30 April 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.

Crusading movement

edit

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 closing this with a consensus to delist. I count three editors in favor of a delist, versus one opposed, and most editors who have weighed in are not convinced that the article has been fully cleansed of close paraphrasing. Let's not get into a WP:FIXLOOP situation here - the article may be renominated for GA status when involved editors are in agreement all copyvio has been removed and any other issues precluding GA status have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During the article's FAC review, it became apparent that the article does not meet all GA criteria: 2c. it contains original research; 2d. it contains copyright violations and plagiarism; and 3a. it does not address the main aspects of the topic. Furthermore, its prose is not clear and concise as a consequence of copyright violations and plagiarism. Although the article could be delisted without further review because it is a long way from meeting criterium 3a, and contains copyright violations, I think giving a last chance for improvement is a better approach. Of course, the article should be cleaned of copyright violations and plagiarism as soon as possible, because copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion was closed as delist by Borsoka; I have reverted the close as a WP:NACINV-breaching action which contravened the WP:GAR instructions. I suggest, to avoid a WP:FIXLOOP, that Norfolkbigfish attempt to eradicate all plagiarism from the article and ping Borsoka when they feel this is done; if Borsoka feels that the article should still be delisted, they can simply !oppose and their !vote will be taken into account by an uninvolved closer. This will not only avoid excess use of other's time and energy, but will also demonstrate if Norfolkbigfish properly understands the copyright policies, which may be helpful in deciding whether the other articles they have contributed to need immediate reviewing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To begin the process, I copy my remarks from the FAC review page here:

General remarks

edit
  • A general remark on sourcing: more than 30% of the article is verified by references to individual articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Our relevant policy says, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I think the use of a tertiary source goes beyond this boundary, and the rationale beyond the selection of individual encyclopedic articles is unclear. As a consequence of this approach, the article looks like an encyclopedia with individual articles following each other without much connection between them. I am not sure that this method can secure that the movement is presented in WP as it is presented in relevant scholarly literature. Could we write an article about "Humanity" based on arbitrarily selected articles from Encyclopædia Britannica?
The Encyclopedia is WP:RS. Where particular facts are insufficient this can be addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the encyclopedia is a reliable source. I have never questioned its reliability. However, we need a coherent encyclopedic article about the crusading movement, not an abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia, with individual articles within it. Right now, this article could hardly be regarded more than a collection of individual articles on topics like "Penance and indulgence", "Knights and chivalry", etc. Even the seemingly chronologicaly organised "Evaluation" section is a mostly incoherent mixture of texts from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia (often with texts copied from its articles about indvidual popes). For the time being, the article does not introduce the crusading movement as it is presented in scholarly literature: arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another can hardly be regarded as an encyclopedic article. Therefore, sourcing must be changed radically. Not only because the extensive use of tertiary sources contradicts our relevant policy, but also because editors' task is to present an article's subject as it is presented by scholars writing of the topic. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • While an issue for FA, I am not sure this is as important for GA. If 30% of the article is sourced to a tertiary source, 70% is still cited to secondary sources. I am uncertain how an article 70% based off secondary sources can be described as "arbitrarily selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia placed one after another". Could you please clarify? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no separate policies for FA and GA, we need to meet the same standard. If you review the article, you will find that it is structured around the encyclopedic articles arbitrarily selected from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. These are placed one after another, and all other information is organised around them. The encyclopedic articles form this article's backbone. This contradicts our principal logic: we write articles based on high-quality comprehensive studies, present topics as they are presented in these studies, and in some cases we add some supplementary information citing encyclopedias. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • "There are no separate policies for FA and GA, we need to meet the same standard." That is undeniably incorrect, Borsoka; you may wish to acquaint yourself with the GA criteria, the FA criteria, and the difference between them. You have perfectly outlined the reason why this article is not an FA, but over-reliance on tertiary sources is not a reason to remove GA status. Copyright, on the other hand, is. If your next argument is that by "policies" you refer to the formal policies and guidelines, please point to where we write articles based on high-quality comprehensive studies is in WP:CONTENT.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • With regard to secondary and tertiary sources, we do not have separate policies. GA requires reliable sources, FA high-quality reliable sources: The Crusades: An Encyclopedia is without doubt a high-quality reliable source, so it could be cited in a FA, but only in accordance with our relevant policy: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight...". How randomly selected articles from The Crusades: An Encyclopedia could provide broad summaries about the whole crusading movement? For instance, the encyclopedic articles "Finance of the Crusades" and "Women" are ignored, although these are two major themes in books about a crusading movement. On the other hand, each encyclopedic article about an individual pope is cited, even his original name is sometimes mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A point on the first sentence, there are 35 citations to the Encyclopedia in this article out of a total of 169, a fraction over 20%. None of these citations are particular contentious and all are written by academics who quote their own sources. There are 41 citations to the Oxford Illustrated, so the the Encyclopedia is not even the most popular source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sudden changes in tone and vocabulary and redundant content suggests that significant texts may be closely paraphrased. Has the article been reviewed from this perspective? I have only reviewed about one fifth of the article, but I have found several cases of close paraphrasing and copyvio. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can be dealt with on an incident by incident basis. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is an extremly urgent task. For the time being, I cannot exclude that the whole article will be deleted for plagiarism. I think you know which texts were copied from the cited sources, so you are in the position to solve this problem. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think the article is eligible for WP:G12 speedy deletion or WP:AFD, you should nominate it there at once Borsoka; as you have kindly pointed out, copyright is a serious issue, so playing around with GA reassessments is like passing the buck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is a serious issue. You may not remember but it was me who first raised it about a week ago during the FAC review. However, I have not reviewed the whole article, so I only assume that it will be deleted due to plagiarism. After reviewing about one third of the article (or rather collection of texts), I need some time for recovery to continue this exceptionally irksome work. Moreover, I would give a chance to the nominator to clear the article, because a version free of plagiarism could be kept. Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Borsoka, the versions of the article you believe are irrevocably tainted will still reside in the page history even if a version free of plagiarism is created, and will need to be WP:REVDELled. As someone who has nominated many pages for CSD, it is easier to nominate now then later. I will not do this myself as I personally believe there is 0% chance of either G12 or revdel deletion, but if you really think it's needed, it is legally proper to do it now and not later; otherwise, you are knowingly cooperating to keep copyrighted material on WP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I am not knowingly cooperating to keep copyrighted material on WP, because I have listed several cases of probable copyright violations during the FAR review. I shared all my knowledge with the community, including yourself. I assume that Norfolkbigfish's other articles, like the House of Lancaster also contain copyvio, because I have more than one time had to remind him to the dangers of plagiarism since the first time we met during a FAC review years ago. Should I review that article as well because of my assumption? Could you quote the relevant policy? If there is an obligation, I will do it but I sincerely hope that Norfolkbigfish will be cooperative and achieve the deletion of versions filled with plagiarism. Sorry, I do not understand the terms "CSD", "G12", and "revdel deletion". Sometimes links are helpful for stupid people like myself. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just for curiosity: if you "felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing" during a previous review[27], why did not you investigate it? When I feel close paraphrasing, I always compare the texts in the article and the cited sources during a review. Borsoka (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did: see Talk:Crusading movement/Archive 2#Recent Edits, a discussion you were very much part of Borsoka. The reason I did not take it further then is that it took place in April 2022, and I had begun to edit WP a couple of months earlier—I was still unsure of many of the finer details. Ignoring the "stupid people"—you are well aware that I think you precisely the opposite—CSD refers to WP:CSD: criteria for speedy deletion, of which one is WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement); if not all versions of the article contain close paraphrasing, we might need WP:REVDEL (revision deletion), where versions in the page history get deleted for copyright infringement.
            • Right now, the close paraphrasing is far less blatant than it was in April 2022, when I provided this link as an entire paragraph which was plagiarised. From what I can see below, the close paraphrasing is now restricted only to sentence fragments—as such, G12 deletion is out of the question. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Borsoka-I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that. Will work through this from the top, line by line, and ping you when complete Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary sources cited in the article dedicate several pages to the Muslim world and the influx of the Turks in the politics of the Middle East [Asbridge (pp. 17-29), Jotischky (pp. 40-47), Lock (pp. 3-19), Madden (pp. 1-5), Tyermann 2019 (pp. 33-45). Several other sources that follow the same path could be listed. Why does the article ignore this usual scholarly approach?
This article is not about the crusades, it is about the crusade movement e.g. the ideology and institutions of crusading. For this reason there is no MILHIST is this article, as suggested by another editor. It is a Latin Church institution.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not suggest that MILHIST should be added. The development of the crusading movement should be presented as it is presented in reliable sources. Right now, readers who consult with this article will not understand why the crusading movement began. The presentation of one single scholar's PoV does not solve this problem (I refer to Latham). Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above named works are narrative histories of the crusades and go on to detail numerous campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is natural that they give background on the political and military situation in the East. This article is a subtly different topic, it is about the institutions and ideology that was developed to support crusading that almost entirely occurred in Western Europe. Bull for one saw no need to mention the Turks in any detail when discussing the Origins of crusading because they weren't relevant. Christian Muslim warfare existed for hundreds of years prior to the crusades and would have continued for years even if the crusades did not exist. By definition the instituition of crusading only came into effect because of reformists within the church. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really say that rhe article's non-encyclopedic sources do not cover the article's topic? Why are they cited? Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited, are cited because they contain valuable information on this article's topic. That does not mean or imply that everything written in them is relevant to this article's topic. Equally, just because information is not included in those works should not be taken to mean or imply that it is not relevant to this topic. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bull's perspective differs from your above summary: "What the Mediterranean theatres of war [between Muslims and Christians] had in common ... was that formerly Christian lands were being wrested from infidel control. Consequently the Holy Land, which had been overrun by the Arabs in the seventh century, was bound to attract the Church's attention sooner or later. ... The perspective of a Mediterranean-wide struggle was visible only to those institutions, in particular the papacy, which had the intelligence networks, grasp of geography, and sense of long historical tradition to take a broad overview of Christendom and its threatened predicament, real or supposed." [Bull (1995), p. 19] Jonathan Riley-Smith - who is the editor of the book to which Bull is a contributor - emphasizes, after mentioning Pope Urban II's call for the First Crusade, that "The crusading movement had begun in the melodramatic fashion which was to be typical of it thereafter. ... Now about 60 years old, [Pope Urban II] had embarked on a year-long journey though southern and central France. The summoning of an expedition to the aid of the Byzantine empire had probably been in his mind for several years and it had been aired at a council held at Piacenza in March which had heard an appeal from the Byzantine (Greek) emperor Alexios for aid against the Turks, who for over two decades had been sweeping through Asia Minor and had almost reached the Bosphorus." [Riley-Smith (1995), pp. 1-3]. We can conclude, there is no book cited in the article that ignores pre-Crusades Muslim-Catholic clashes or the Turks' expansion in the Levant. Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, all this does is rather proves the original point. Rather than an idepth summary of several centuries of military history Bull and Riley-Smith feel only a reference or two is necessary. And only the regarding events during or subsequent to the Gregarian reform. This point remains irrelevent and against consunsus on this article. An aricle that has successfully passed both a GAR and a ACR without a single other editor raising this point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus on this article. That a point was not raised during the article's reviews does not indicate that it is not relevant. Bull dedicates about 1 page to both pre-Crusades Muslim-Christian conflicts and the Gregorian Reforms. Again, the article should present the movement's background as it is presented in the cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 page on Muslim-Conflicts demonstrates an appropriate weight for this. You have rathered made my point. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my above remark again. In a chapter containing nineteen pages, one page is quite significant, or at least as significant as the one page about the Gregorian Reforms in the same chapter. Borsoka (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather 1 page in a book of 436? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not counted the pages about pre-Crusades conflicts between Muslims and Christians, but there are at least two pages in two chapters. The Gregorian reforms are mentioned also on two pages in the book, according to the Index. If you think pre-Crusades conflicts can be ignored, you should also ignore the Gregorian Reforms. Can we agree that it would be a quite original approach? Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, Riley-Smith in his chapter "The crusading movement" in "War, Peace and World Order" didn't think to mention those pre-Crusades conflict at all. What is novel is you thinking you know more about the subject than he did. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite unusual that you are referring to a source you do not cite in the article. Nevertheless, Riley-Smith neither mentions the Council of Clermont or the Gregorian reform in his chapter. Do you suggest that references to the Council of Clermont or the Gregorian Reform should be deleted from this article? I rather think that he does not refer to the origins of the crusading movement because from the perspective of "War, Peace and World Order in European History" this is irrelevant. No, I am not thinking that I know more about the subject than Riley-Smith does. Above, I quoted a text from his work cited in the article proving that he also emphasises the Turks' invasion of the Byzantine Empire when writing of the beginnings of the crusading movement. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is not the case. Riley-Smith emphasises Alexios I Komnenos requests for military support against the Turks, that is not the same. Neither he nor Bull consider the military history of the Levant in the earlier centuries relevant. Whereas the reforms, the reformers and their institutions are mentioned and relevant. It was they who invented the crusading movement, and without them there would have been no movement. Simply put this is covered in sufficient detail. Unless there is something specific that you can identify as missing, but unless I have missed something that is not the case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read more carefully the quote from Riley-Smith's work, it refers also to the decades before the crusades. I have never suggested that you should present the military history of the Levant in this article. However, our readers need a complex background to understand the beginnings of the crusading movement. For instance, Thomas F. Madden, Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, goes as far as stating that the Reconquista—the "reconquest" of Iberia from the Muslims—"was the training ground for the theological and moral justification of the crusading movement". (Madden, Thomas F. (2013). The Concise History of the Crusades. Critical Issues in World and International History (Third ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4422-1575-7.)
As you point out Madden makes a good point. I would add this to the Christianity & War section, but I am using the First Edition and it doesn't seem to be there (or a page 4 for that matter). Does he make the smae point anywhere else? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote is from one of the last paragraphs of section "Holy War". I think Madden's PoV nicely fits into a Background section. Right now, the article does not distinguishes developments occurring before the beginnings of the movement, and features of the movement itself. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, thank you, agree and added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's structure is diffuse, and seemingly lacks any detectable logic: several elements of the flourishing crusading movement are mentioned in section "Background". (For instance, why are the military orders or the development of the crusading ideology in the 13th century mentioned in this section?)
These are cross topic themes, a narrative structure would mean that detailed commentary would be lost.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say that we should follow a narrative structure (even if the article, incoherently, follows it in section "Evolution"). I only said that background to the crusading movement should clearly be differentiated from its features, elements and consequences. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of Background seems to cause some confusion, I will amend to Features as you suggest. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, a major restructuring is needed, but without a background one could hardly understand the development of the movement. However, I suggest you should concentrate now on copyright issues. Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another nonsensical point. Structure is only a perceived issue to you. Consensus, GAR and ACR indicate that it makes sense to a consensus of editors and reviewers. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the principal problems is that the "article" is actually a poorly edited, extremely abridged version of The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. One can delete subsections from the article without having an effect on any other (sub)section. This is not an encyclopedic article but a collection of individual encyclopedic articles. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is you and only you who is making this point. Almost by definition PoV pushing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearing the article from plagiarism would be a progress. All other issues are less relevant for the time being. I think the article should summarise the principal points of the movement as it is presented in its sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is wip, thank you for pointing that out. The article pretty much matches Riley-Smith's view of the subject, as his definition of a crusade is now pretty much universally accepted it would be fair to say that the pricipal points are presented. The topic is, as it has always been the crusading movement. Not the crusades, not Muslim/Christian relations in the 7th/8th/9th/10th centuries, not the Orthodox church and not campaigns in the Eastern Mediterrean or anywhere else for that matter. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most cases, the article does not explain the events, but mentions facts or PoVs without making clear the connection between them, or providing our readers with a coherent (or incoherent) story: "Pope X said this, Pope Y told that, and Pope Z said another thing, etc".
This article is about the ideology and institutions. As such PoVs are key, as are facts. The facts relate to changes to this. The events mentioned here are probably outside the scope of the topic.
If so, this is unintentional and can be remediated as part of the review. Nothing here is WP:OR, everything comes from academic writing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
specific FAC comments

Specific remarks

edit
  • The Crusading movement's beginnings were propelled by a significant shift in the western Church during the mid-eleventh century. Reformers, supported initially by Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor and later opposing his son Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, assumed power over the papacy around 1040. They astutely perceived the papacy as the optimal vehicle for their mission to eliminate corruption in the Church and strategically took control of it. 1. The cited source does not verify the two sentences. 2. The texts in italics repeat the same information. 3. The date is not around 1040 but in the late 1040s [Barber (2012), p. 84] 4. Link to Western Church? 5. Consequency: "mid-eleventh century" vs. "mid-19th century". 6. The "reformers" were specifically reformist clerics. 7. Why did they perceive the papacy as the optimal vehicle?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Crusading movements origins can be found in the significant changes within the Latin church during the mid-eleventh century. In the 1040s church reformers gained control of the papacy. This was with the initial support Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor, but later in conflict with his son Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor. The reformers viewed this as the most effective method to eliminate what they saw as corruption in the church. 1. The cited source does not verify the three sentences. (Bull writes of debates about the concept of mutation féodale, and the use of the term miles.) 2. Link to church reformers? 3. What did the reformers view as the most effective method? The conflict with Henry IV?
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially done. Bull does not verify the statements, and we still do not know why reformers regarded the papacy so important. The article makes no reference to the preeminent position of the papacy within Catholic church hierarchy, although billions of our non-Catholic and non-Christian readers should not be expected to know it by heart.
  Done—cited to Barber. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They believed in Papal primacy. That the Pope, as heir of St Peter, was the hierachical leader of all Christendom, including Byzantium. Secular rulers were only appointees who could be removed. 1. The text in bold is not explicitly verified by the cited source which refers to the Byzantine Church in this context. 2. There have always been many secular rulers who are only appointees. What is the novelty?
  • Who is Augustin Fliche?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain "simony" with two or three words.
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventually, the reformist faction within the Roman Church took the lead... This fact is mentioned twice in the section's second and third sentences.
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite this, this faction created an ideological framework and a cohort within the clergy who viewed themselves as God's agents for the moral and spiritual renewal of Christendom. The cited source (Latham) does not verify the sentence. (Latham writes of the Cluny Reform, not about the Gregorian Reforms.)
  • Is Latham's PoV about the preconditions for the crusading movement widely accepted by medievalists who have published general works on the crusading movement or monographies about its origins?
—  Not done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the reference to Latham deleted if his PoV is described? Even if he is not mentioned, the relevance of his thoughts should be verified as per WP:DUE.
—  Not done This and the above. Latham is WP:RS, the view is uncontentious and one of several touched on,Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that Latham's PoV is widely accepted by historians who write of the crusades. Nikolas Jaspert, a German historian lists more than three preconditions for the crusades (Jaspert, Nikolas (2006) [2003]. The Crusades. Routledge. p. 32-33. ISBN 978-0-4153-5968-9.). Jaspert "widely published on the crusades", according to the back cover of his books. Latham often refers to the "feudal revolution", a concept no more universally accepted by historians (comp. Bull p. 22).
Yes, Jaspert is interesting on this. He doesn't contradict Latham who is applying International Relations Theory to the same facts, and as a specialist is WP:RS in this. Jaspert's 8 elements, all of which are touched on in the Major Features section are describing features that supported the enthusiasm for the first crusade, not the development of the movement itself. Even so he supports Latham's first two points in that all his factors are either related to reform of the church or the creation of crusading as a social institution. He does not touch on the third point about the creation of war making capability, but this is because he is not talking about the creation of a movement. Only the enthusiasm. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Actually, Jaspert does write of the making of the war making capability in his last point: "the view that it was possible to find forgiveness for these sins through a special act of penance before God, and even to win remission of all temporal penalties for sin by taking part in a sanctified military expedition." Jaspert and Latham are discussing the same issue (why did the crusading movement begin), but they did not come to the same conclusion. 3. Is Latham's PoV widely cited by historians who study the crusades? I think the article's over reliance on Latham's PoV is not fully in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.
  • Three initiatives were necessary before this could be but into action. Firstly, this reform of the Latin Church into an independent force that was motivated by the belief it had divine authority for religious renewal. This belief would lead to conflicts with the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian groups, and pagans. Secondly, the creation of crusading as a social institution through which the church could act militarily supported by armed nobility considered Knights of Christ. Could you quote the text from Morris' cited work verifying the statements? Morris writes of chivalry, not about the crusades/crusading movement on the cited page.
Morris is literally describing the enlistment of knights for the crusades, the point in question and throws in a description of the meaning of milites Christi. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Morris does not verify the whole quote; consequently the quote still represents Latham's PoV without a reference to this fact.
  • Reform of the Latin Church identity:... Does "Latin Church" differ from "western Church" mentioned in the section's previous paragraph?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Latin Church underwent a significant transformation, becoming an independent force motivated by divine authority for religious revitalisation. Was the Latin Church indeed motivated by divine authority?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This new identity led to conflicts with various entities, including the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian sects, and pagans Who and why was brought into conflict with these groups? Does the article suggest that relationship between the Christian communities/polities/leaders and Muslim polities, heretics "sects" and pagans had been peaceful before the Gregorian Reforms? Can the Eastern Orthodox Church be described as a sect?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This belief would lead to conflicts with the Holy Roman Empire, Muslim states, other Christian groups, and pagans. What about the previous conflicts between the papacy and the Holy Roman Emperors, Muslim states, Byzantines, and pagan Magyars?
  • ...milites Christi or knights of Christ... The cited author (Morris) does not verify the translation. He describes "milites Christi" as an "expression which until then had been the monopoly of monks had been extended to knights".
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—  Not done Not the crusades, the crusading movement Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Christianity and war" is quite confusing from chronological and logical perspective: Augustine is mentioned in at least three separate paragraphs, so the section does not clearly summarise his views. The section obviously mixes Augustine's views with his high medieval interpretators' thoughts (I will add at least one example below). As the section does not point at the differences between the classical just war theory and Augustine's views, and between Augustine's views and the high medieval theology of Christian holy war, the development of this important aspect of crusading ideology remains unclear.
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is a little bit clearer, but it is still unclear who came to what conclusion and when. (For instance, you write of bellum sacrum and religious war in two sentences without clarifying the relationship between the two terms.)
  • Erdmann documented in The Origin of the Idea of Crusade the three stages of the development of a Christian institution of crusade:... 1. Erdmann's work published in 1935 should be cited instead of Latham. 2. Is Erdmann's PoV still widely accepted by historians? For instance, Pope Gregory I is not mentioned in connection with the development of just war/holy war theories in other works cited in the article.
1) Erdmann anda Latham are using different techniques and describing different things. Even so they do not contradict each other and both are valid. 2) Tyerman writes that "Erdmann's thesis survives" and quotes H. E. J. Cowdrey, an academic expert on the Gregorian reforms as "all subsequent enquiry has in the last analysis sprung from " Erdmann on page 191 of the 2011 work cited in the article. He also mention Gregory I in God' War, as does Barber, Morris, Madden and Riley-Smith. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to Latham. I did not mention Latham in this context. 2. Gregory I is not mentioned in connection with the crusades/crusading movement in any of the books you refer to above. 3. Consequently, could you quote text from the cited sources confirming that Erdmann's three stages of the development of the crusades are still widely accepted? Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of Christian pilgrimage. The Church defined crusading in legal and theological terms based on the theory of holy war and the concept of Christian pilgrimage. The theology developed from a merger of two themes. Firstly, the wars fought by the Israelites in the Old Testament. It was believed these were instigated and assisted by God. Secondly, the Christocentric concept of forming an individual relationship with Christ that came from the New Testament. Holy war was based on bellum justum which was the Greco-Roman just war theory. This was Christianised by a 4th-century theologian called Augustine of Hippo, and canon lawyers developed this further in the 11th century into bellum sacrum. This is what became the paradigm of Christian holy war. Maier writes of four principal elements: holy war theology, the model of pilgrimage, Old Testament history, and New Testament theology, thus this and the subsequent sentences do not reflect Maier's thoughts.
—  Not done all are covered Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. However, their presentation in the article differs from Maier's approach. 2. Tyerman's cited work does not verify the sentence in context, because Tyerman writes of the development of Christian just war theory centuries before the crusades.
  • Theology merged Old Testament Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God with New Testament Christocentric views on forming individual relationships with Christ. What does this mean? I doubt that Israelite wars were any time merged with Christocentric views, first of all because of chronological reasons.
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Israelite wars that were instigated and assisted by God... Were these wars indeed instigated and assisted by God?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...canon lawyers developed it from the 11th century into bellum sacrum, the paradigm of Christian holy war. Maier mentions theologians as well. Could you name some of the theologians and canon lawyers?
—  Not done too detailed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the text in the article does not reflect the cited work. Perhaps, you could clarify that Anselm of Lucca is one of the canon lawyers, to introduce him.
  • ...his supporter Anselm of Lucca consolidated the just war theories. Whose just war theories? What is the outcome of this consolidation?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the new text (Later, Anselm of Lucca consolidated the writing on just war theories into Collectio Canonum or Collection of Canon Law.) is still unclear.
  • In the 11th century, the Church sponsored conflict with Muslims on the southern peripheries of Christendom, including the siege of Barbastro and the Norman conquest of the Sicily. Absolutely out of context statement.
—  Not done Yes it is in context, that of a church reformed involving itself in warfare. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it relevant for the crusading movement? Above you argued that pre-Crusades conflicts are not relevant. Without a proper Background section the article is bombing our readers with fragmentary pieces of information without context.
  • Augustine's principles formed the basis of a doctrine of religious war that was later developed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, canon lawyers, and theologians. In the 13th century these principles formed the foundation of a doctrine of religious war developed by Thomas Aquinas and others. Redundant with the exemption of its reference to Thomas Aquinas. Tyerman writes that Aquinas is responsible for "producing a codified theory of Christian just war".
—  Not done he was not alone Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Perhaps, but the statement does not reflect the cited source. 2. What is the difference between bellum sacrum mentioned in a previous sentence, and religious wars?
  • This movement's influence is apparent in Pope Urban II's speeches... Why are Urban II's speeches relevant?
—  Not done it is the foundation of the movement Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the connection between Latham's three pre-conditions for crusading (mentioned in section "Background") and Erdmann's three stages (listed in section "Christianity and holy war"). Why is Latham cited instead of Erdmann? Is Erdmann's PoV is widely accepted by medievalists who published general works on the crusading movement or its origin? I think the three bullet points could be distributed in the text in chronological order to better understand how the Christian ideology of Holy War developed.
—  Not done Similar related but alternayive view. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Church viewed Rome as the Patrimony of Saint Peter. This enabled the application of canon law to justify various Italian wars waged by the church as purely defensive crusades to protect theoretical Christian territory. Absolutely out of context. Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—  Not done absolutely in context, Political crusades Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put yourself in our readers' shoes. They will not understand the statement, for them it is absolutely out of context.
  • By the 11th century, the Latin Church developed a system that provided for the remission and absolution of sin in return for contrition, confession, and penitential acts. The Latin Church had formulated a system enabling forgiveness and pardon for sins in exchange for genuine remorse, admission of wrongdoing, and acts of penance. 1. Why? 2. Perhaps "contrition, confession, and penitential acts" could be rephrased to avoid close paraphrasing. 3. The term "confession" could be linked to the more specific "sacrament of penance".
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...in support of his causes, if selflessly given. Gregory VII resolved this with the offer of forgiveness for sin resulting from supporting him in Church-sanctioned violence as long as service was altruistically given. Could you quote the text verifying the words in bold?
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory VII offered all who fought for his cause, in whatever fashion, absolution of their sins and the prospect of eternal salvation. Provided their motivation was grounded on selflessness and faith not gain, such soldiers could combine penance and violence.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Latham does not verify the statement in the cited work, and Tyerman's cited work (according to its preview) does not contain similar statement in the cited pages.
  • Is reference 11 necessary? (Furthermore, Tyerman explains Erdman's PoV in the cited page.)
—  Not done no longer ref 11?? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done::— rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was developed by subsequent Popes into the granting of plenary indulgence that reduced all God-imposed temporal penalties. In time subsequent Popes developed this into the granting of plenary indulgence that reduced all temporal penalties that were considered God-imposed. Could you quote the text verifying the statement, or fix the page in the citation? Did indeed God impose temporal or any other kind of panalties?
  • At the Council of Clermont in November 1095, Urban II effectively founded the crusading movement with two directives: the exemption from atonement for those who journeyed to Jerusalem to free the Church; and that while doing so all goods and property were protected. Why is this in the "Background" section? Why is the protection of property mentioned in section "Penance and indulgence"?
  • The weakness of conventional theologies in the face of crusading euphoria is shown in a letter critical of Pope Paschal II from the writer Sigebert of Gembloux to the crusader Robert II, Count of Flanders. Sigebert referred to Robert's safe return from Jerusalem but completely avoided mentioning the crusade. The weakness of conventional theology when confronted by crusading excitement was evident in a letter critical of Pope Paschal II from the writer Sigebert of Gembloux to the crusader Robert II, Count of Flanders. Sigebert referred to Robert's safe return from Jerusalem, but completely avoided any mention of the crusade. The text in bold represent copyvio; the remaining text is not verified by the cited source (it does not mention to whom Sigebert addressed the letter); The two sentences make no sense, because they ignore the cited source's main message: "Sigebert attacked the idea of penitential war". Furthermore, why is something happening years after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • It was Calixtus II who first promised the same privileges and protections of property to the families of crusaders. Later, Calixtus II promised identical privileges and protections of property to the families of crusaders. 1. Reference 22 Riley-Smith does not verify the statement. 2. The text in bold is not verified by any of the two sources. 3. Why is something happening decades after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"? 2. Not the pope, but the council promised privileges and protection for the crusaders' families. 2. Why is the protection of property is mentioned in section "Penance and indulgence"?
  • Under the influence of Bernard of Clairvaux, Eugenius III revised Urban's ambiguous position with the view that the crusading indulgence was remission from God's punishment for sin, as opposed to only remitting ecclesiastical confessional discipline. Eugenius III revised Urban's more ambiguous position by viewing the crusading indulgence as remission from God's punishment for sin, not only remission of ecclesiastical confessional punishment. 1. The text in bold is not verified. 2. Urban's ambifious position is not previously mentioned. 3. What is Eugenius's conclusion. 4. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • Innocent III emphasised crusader oaths and clarified that the absolution of sins was a gift from God, rather than a reward for the crusaders' suffering. 1. Reference 25 Tyerman does not verify the text. 2. Why is something happening more than a century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • With his 1213 bull Quia maior, he appealed to all Christians, not just the nobility, offering the possibility of vow redemption without crusading. In the 1213 bull, Quia maior, he appealed to not just the nobility but to all with the offer of vow redemption without crusading. In this a precedent was set for the trade in spiritual rewards which became a practice that scandalised devout Christians. 1. Could you quote the text verifying that indeed the bull Quia maior offered the possibility... 2. Did he appeal to the Orthodox, Nestorians, Copts also? 3. Which vow? The crusading vow is not previously mentioned in the article. 4. Why did he do this? 5. Are we sure that the payment did not constitute as an act of crusading? 5. Why is something happening nearly a half century after the First Crusade mentioned in section "Background"?
  • This set a precedent for trading in spiritual rewards... No spiritual rewards are mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • ...a practice that scandalised devout Christians and became a contributing cause of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. Could you quote the text verifying the statement?
  • As late as the 16th century, writers sought redemptive solutions in the traditionalist wars of the cross, while others – such as English martyrologist John Foxe – saw these as examples of papist superstition, corruption of religion, idolatry, and profanation. 1. The text in bold is not verified, the text in italic is closely paraphrased. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased. 2. Why is Tyerman's encyclopedic article about "Historiography, Modern" (one of the cited sources) revelant in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 3. What is the relevance of Foxe's PoV in connection with "Penance and indulgence"? 4. Why is something from the 16th century mentioned in section "Background"? Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics blamed the Roman Church for the failure of the crusades. War against the infidel was laudable, but not crusading based on doctrines of papal power, indulgences, and against Christian religious dissidents such as the Albigensian and Waldensians. Justifying war on juristic ideas of just war to which Lutherans, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics could all subscribe, and the role of indulgences, diminished in Roman Catholics tracts on the Turkish wars. Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius developed international laws of war that discounted religion as a cause, in contrast to popes, who persisted in issuing crusade bulls for generations. 1. Original synthesis? 2. Why are events happening in the 16th and 17th centuries mentioned in section "Background"? Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fighting of wars against the infidel was considered laudable. Crusading based on doctrines of papal power, indulgences, and against Christian religious dissidents such as the Albigensian and Waldensians was decried. War could be justified on grounds to which Lutherans, Calvinists, and Roman Catholics could all subscribe, which led to a decline in the role of indulgences in Roman Catholics tracts on the Turkish wars. Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius developed international laws of war that discounted religion as a cause, in contrast to popes, who persisted in issuing crusade bulls for generations. 1. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased. 2. Whose PoV is mentioned in the first sentence? 3. What are the Turkish wars? 3. Who are Gentili and Grotius?
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If chivalry was in its infancy at the beginning of the crusading movement (as the article states), why is "Knights and chivalry" mentioned in the "Background" section?
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the beginning of the crusading movement, chivalry was in its infancy; but it went on to define the ideas and values of knights, and was central to the crusading movement.}} The reference to Flori's article should be fixed to verify the statement in italics.
  • When crusading began chivalry was in its infancy, but in time it played a central role in the crusading ethos, by shaping the ideals and principles of knights. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased.
  • Texts from the 11th and 12th centuries portray a class of knights who were comparatively closer in status to peasants within the preceding generations. 1. The text is still unclear: were their fathers peasants or only close to peasants. 2. The texts in italics is not verified. (I think the cited encyclopedic article simply says that there were knights of peasant/humble origin.)Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 13th century knighthood became equated with nobility, as a social class with legal status, closed to non-nobles. The texts in italics contradict the cited source (Flori).
  • It was only by the 13th century that knighthood became equated with nobility and was a social class with legal status, no longer open to non-nobles. The text in bold contradicts the cited source (Flori).
  • Chivalric development grew from a society dominated by the possession of castles. The sentence makes no sense and is not verified by the cited source (Flori): development cannot grow from a society, and possession of castles cannot dominate a society.
  • Those who defended these became knights. Copyvio. Some explanation?
  • Society was dominated by the possession of castles and those who defended these became knights. Texts in red represent copyvio or are closely paraphrased.
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...coupled with the growing naval capability of Italy's maritime republics,... Could you quote the text from the cited sources verifying that there is any connection between the naval capability of the maritime republics and knighthood?
  • Contrary to the representation in the romances... Which romances?
  • Instead, raids and sieges predominated, for which there was only a minimal role for knights. A previous sentence claims that those who defended the castles became knights.
  • Knighthood required combat training, which created solidarity and gave rise to combat as a sport. The cited source (Flori) writes of special forms of combat.
  • Crusade preachers used tournaments and other gatherings to obtain vows of support from attending dignitaries, begin persuasive campaigns, and announce a leader's taking of the cross. 1. This happened from the Second Crusade. Why is it mentioned in section "Background"? 2. Close paraphrasing and original synthesis (Lloyd mentions church synods when referring to the "attending dignitaries", and church synods can hardly be associated with "Knights and chivalry".
  • ...medieval institutions were immature in feudal Europe... The statement makes no sense.
  • ...the crusades in the Levant were typically unimpressive. PoV statement by a 19th-century historian. Is his view accepted by modern historians?
  • Developing vernacular literature glorified the idea of adventure and the virtues of valour, largesse, and courtesy. This created an ideal of the perfect knight. Chivalry was a way of life, a social and moral model that evolved into a myth. The texts in bold represent copyvio.
  • The chivalric romantic ideals of excellence, martial glory, and carnal—even adulterous—love conflicted with the spiritual views of the Church. Texts in italics are unverified, in bold represent close paraphrasing/copyvio.
  • These ideals of excellence, martial glory, and romantic love... The adjective contradicts the cited source (Flori).
  • WritersLiterature lauded those who fought for the Church; others were excommunicated. Writers? 1. Literature? 2. The text in italics is not verified by the cited source (Flori).
  • By the 11th century, the Church developed liturgical blessings sanctifying new knights. The Church developed liturgical blessings to sanctify new knights, The text in italics is not verified by the cited source. (Flori's text could be summarised as "By the 11th century, new knights were blessed at their investiture by priests." or something similar.)
  • In 1100, kings depicted themselves as knights to indicate their power. 1. Texts in italics are not verified by the cited source. 2. Where did they depict themselves? 3. I think this sentence contradicts the section's third sentence: "11th and 12th century texts depict a class of knights that were closer in status to peasants...".
  • Reference 43 is obviously wrong. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you list scholarly works verifying tha the the military orders can be mentioned in the background to the crusading movement?
  • The section about the military orders lacks any inner coherence.
  • The crusaders' propensity to follow the customs of their western European homelands meant that there were very few innovations adopted from the culture of the Crusader states. Three notable exceptions to this were the military orders, warfare, and fortifications. Is this a good introduction for the military orders? Why were the military orders established?
  • The Knights Hospitaller were founded in Jerusalem before the First Crusade but added a martial element to their ongoing medical functions to become a much larger military order. The cited source (Asbridge) does not verify the statement.
  • In this way, knighthood entered the previously monastic and ecclesiastical sphere. 1. The texts in bold represent copyvio.  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2. Prawer's PoV about the Hospitallers' role as pioneers of the military orders is quite marginal. Other authors cited in the article make it clear that the Knights Templar were the first military order (Asbridge pp. 168-169, Barber p. 135, Tyerman [2019] pp. 151-155). 3. If the Knights Hospitaller were indeed established before the First Crusade, what is the connection between the origin of the military orders and the Crusader states?[reply]
  • Military orders – like the Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar – provided Latin Christendom's first professional armies, to support the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the other crusader states. The cited author (Asbridge) does not verify the stament.
  • These orders became supranational organizations with papal support, leading to rich donations of land and revenue across Europe. The text in bold represent both close paraphrasing/copyvio and original research. (Asbridge does not associate the development of the military orders into supranational organizations with papal support.)
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In time, the orders developed into autonomous powers. 1. When? 2. Asbridge is more specific.
  • After the fall of Acre,... Some explanation?
  • Section "Common people" mainly presents facts from the period when the crusading movement flourished. Why are these facts presented as belonging to the background to the crusading movement?
  • Women also formed part of the armies. Were all women who joined the crusading armies commoners as the section's title suggests?
  • Historians have increasingly researched the motivations of the poor who joined the early crusades in large numbers and engaged in popular unsanctioned events during the 13th and 14th centuries. Text in italics belongs to historiography.
  • ...amongst the poor, Christianity and crusading were aggressive. Texts in bold are not verified.
  • An emphasis on popular preaching, developed in the 12th century, generated a wealth of useful resources. 1. The text in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Does the statement imply that the Church started to urge commoners to join the crusades? If not, why the commoners were targeted by preachers?
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most popular example began in 1268,... The text in bold contradicts the cited source.
  • The popular but short-lived outbreaks of crusading enthusiasm after Acre fell to Egypt were largely driven by eschatological perceptions of crusading amongst the poor rather than the advanced, professionalized plans advocated by theorists. The sentence is not verified.
  • Pilgrimage was not a mass activity. Copyvio and original research. (The cited source specifically writes of pilgrimages to Jerusalem.)
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this way, what was known as the remotest place in 1099... The text in bold is not verified.
  • The literate classes were hostile to this particular unauthorized crusade but mytho-historicized it so effectively that it is one of the most evocative verbal artefacts from the Middle Ages that remained in European and American imagination. The texts in italics are not verified. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Humbert of Romans?
  • Chroniclers used the ethno-cultural terms "barbarians" or barbarae nationes, which were inherited from the Greeks of antiquity, for "others" or "aliens", which were thus differentiated from the self-descriptive term "Latins" that the crusaders used for themselves. The texts in italics does not present the views of the cited author, Jubb. 1. Jubb specifically writes of the chronicles of the First Crusade. 2. She specifically writes that the Greeks used the term for 'others' "alien to their urban civilisation". 3. She does not say that "Latins" is a self-descriptive term used by the crusaders for themselves.
  • Jubb's work is not properly listed among the sources: isbn and pages are needed, and the doi points to another study from the same book.
  • Although there are no specific references to crusading in the 11th century chanson de geste Chanson de Roland, the author, for propaganda purposes, represented Muslims as monsters and idolators. The text in italics is not presented as a fact but as a possibility in the cited source.
  • Visual cues were used to represent Muslims as evil, dehumanized, and monstrous aliens with black complexions and diabolical physiognomies. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio. 2. The sentence does not summarize the main message of the cited author (Jubb). She says that a "black/white dichotomy" was used in medieval literature, especially in popular works, but it symbolised "religious and cultural difference, as much as race". She mentions "diabolical physiognomies" only when writing of the Song of Roland.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This portrayal remained in western literature long after the territorial conflict of the crusades had faded into history. 1. The sentence is closely paraphrased. 2. The cited author (Jubb) specifically writes of the medieval period following the age of the crusades.
  Done—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "Saracen" designated a religious community rather than a racial group, while the word "Muslim" is absent from the chronicles. 1. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing. 2. Which religious community?
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conflict was seen as a Manichean contest between good and evil. 1. The text in italics is not verified by Jubb. 2. Who saw "the conflict" as a Manichean contest?
—  Not done 1) it 2) Christian clergy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historians have been shocked by the inaccuracy and hostility involved in such representations, which included crude insults to Mohammad, caricatures of Islamic rituals, and the representation of Muslims as libidinous gluttons, blood-thirsty savages, and semi-human. Texts in bold represent copyvio/close paraphrasing.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historian Jean Flori argues that to self-justify Christianity's move from pacifism to warfare, their enemies needed to be ideologically destroyed. 1. The article does not refer to Christian pacifism in previous sentences. 2. Flori's work should be cited or at least mentioned in a footnote.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From where did Christianity move to warfare? Or why did they need to destroy their enemies ideologically for this move?
  • Poets often relied on the patronage of leading crusaders, so they extolled the values of the nobility, the feudal status quo, chivalry, martial prowess, and the idea of the Holy Land being God's territory usurped and despoiled. 1. The text in italics contradicts the cited author (Routledge) who does not make connection between patronage and statements in the second part of the sentence. 2. Text in bold is not verified (actually, Routledge writes of the restoration of status quo ante.)
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reformist Church's identity-interest complex framed Islam as a particular form of heresy. The text in bold represents copyvio.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muslim rule in formerly Christian territory was an "unjust" confiscation of Christian property, and this persecution of Christians required repayment. 1. The text in italics is closely paraphrased. 2. The text is bold is not verified by the cited author (Latham), since he does not define the persecution of Christians as the unjust confiscation of Christian property.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Islamic polities' own identity-interest complexes led them to be equally violently opposed to the restoration of Christian rule. Copyvio.
—  DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to call for a delisting of this article. If the issues were only editorial, I'd be willing to give time for those to be addressed (FARs—as a similar example—go on months!); there's no deadline after all. The issue that demands immediate attention is the copyright/close para issue, one which not only negatively impacts other policies such as WP:N (also itself a pillar), but has legal implications. While G12 may not apply (i.e., when there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety, and maybe revert to an earlier version), #2 of WP:QF is clear that if It contains copyright violations it will be discounted. Multiple editors have established these issues. So: if this was a new nomination, it would literally never get off the starting blocks.
    Revert to last version and let more recent stuff be revdel'd? ——Serial Number 54129 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am working through all raised incident at present. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the older versions contain even more plagiarism. AirshipJungleman29 mentioned at the beginning of the FAC review that "I believe that the last time I looked at this article, I felt that there was substantial close paraphrasing. I do hope that issue has been adequately looked at and resolved—because that of course is a reviewing dealbreaker." ([29]). Norfolkbigfish answered that "I remember, this has been rewritten repeatedly since then so I am expecting/hoping this is no longer an issue." [30]. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Borsoka: I don't care where the bloody thing was put in, only that if there is a relatively clean version—and frankly, since it's from 2003, it's almost impossible that there isn't, even if it's only a stub—going back a few years, the GOCE did a copy edit—then we revert to that and then revdel delete. I mean, there must have been a time when there was minimal plagiarism unless it's been overlooked for 20 years. Or is it being suggested that NBF was responsible for their insertion when he augmented the article? I note, you see, that a previous FAC failed promotion over much the same problems(the source reviewer stated, the article needs a complete source check ... Too many issues I found with things not matching what they were sourced to. Mind ye, that had been resolved to the point of promotion six months later (non obstante, though, that it never got the source-integrity spot-check Ian Rose asked for...) ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think only Norfolkbigfish knows when he began copying texts from the cited sources. I have not monitored the development of this article for years. Norfolkbigfish's remark here suggests that the article was originally a redirect, which was developed into a separate article on or before 4 October 2020. No, I did not see the FAC review of House of Lancaster (sorry, Plantagenet). I referred to this article because I know from one of his remarks (saying that his article is one of the best WP articles about a dynasty, or similar), that he developed it. Based on my experiences, I would not be surprised that it would also contain plagiarism but I would not like to review it. Borsoka (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the time being, let's forget other issues than blatant plagiarism. Do you guarantee that you cleaned the text of plagiarism? Borsoka (talk)
All now addressed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GAR coordinators: this is not going anywhere, and I am too involved to close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not going anywhere because it is a particularly malformed GAR. Nominated, flooded with comment by the nominator who has a history of trying to get the article deleted, and then even closed by that nominator. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a helpful comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 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.

Compliance requirements

edit

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: Consensus to delist. Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 addition has 5 citation needed templates. I am also concerned on the broadness of the article; currently it is like a summary of the directives, no history of how it was created or necessary background information, updates to the directives throughout the years, etc. Spinixster (trout me!) 10:17, 4 May 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.

Middlesbrough F.C.

edit

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) 02:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007, and hasn't been reviewed at all since 2008. Has many citations needed tags as well as other tags as well (I see some better source needed and failed verification tags as well), and some sections need lots of work (e.g. Colors and crest and Player of the Year award winners). JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support delistation of article
48JCL 17:38, 8 May 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.

Giant Schnauzer

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article relies on a self-published source for several claims Traumnovelle (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The American Kennel Club is recognized as the most influential purebred dog registry, and both acknowledges the work by Catherine Brown and publishes the breed standard, which should make them the foremost experts on Giant Schnauzers. I don't see why these sources should be singled out as self-published when they are likely the best sources available and only self-published by means of being self-hosted, but definitely not user-generated or published through a vanity press or some such. Also, you should notify WikiProject Dogs of this reassessment by using the following template: {{subst:GARMessage/''Giant Schnauzer''/''1''}} Reconrabbit 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the wrong part. Obviously the American Kennel Club are fine to use for the breed standard and registration figures per WP:ABOUTSELF, when it comes to stuff like history they shouldn't be used in a good article. Fanciers do not always accurately represent the history of a breed.
>I don't see why these sources should be singled out as self-published when they are likely the best sources available and only self-published by means of being self-hosted, but definitely not user-generated or published through a vanity press or some such
They're not WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject which is an obvious issue in regards to many claims.
>Also, you should notify WikiProject Dogs
There's notification via the article alert which automatically lists articles undergoing a GAR. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I will admit that my area of knowledge is more in rabbit breeds, so my question here is - who else is going to document the history of a breed than a fancier group? I will do a search for independent sources on this topic but I fear they will not be as comprehensive or will be drawing from the same documents.
On the notification - I forgot about article alerts. Some reviewers like AirshipJungleman will still post notifications on the talk page. Reconrabbit 13:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cynologists, there are independent people writing about the history of dog breeds - they may rely on fanciers for information but they are hopefully critical of it, compare information with historical evidence, and go through a publishing and review process. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Traumnovelle, the GAR instructions require notifications to be sent to involved WikiProjects and major contributors. As noted in the instructions, {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ is an easy notification method. Article alerts are not considered sufficient. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Traumnovelle notified WP:Dogs, I added a notification to WP:Germany. On content, the Temperament section could use a bit of copyediting, it reads very disjointedly. Is it suspicious of strangers or accepting of novel people! CMD (talk) 07:07, 3 May 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 Nora (2003)

edit

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. CMD (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following merge discussed at Talk:2003 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Nora (2003) into 2003 Pacific hurricane season. CMD (talk) 05:45, 15 May 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.

Golubac Fortress

edit

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: More than a week, no stated intention of fixing article nor effort to do so. Delisted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the GAs from the 2023 GA Sweeps listing. This 2007 promotion last formally reviewed in 2008 contains some uncited material, but more importantly, as I noted on the article's talk page in March, many of the web sources used are of questionable reliability. Hog Farm Talk 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: in addition to the issues above, which are serious enough in themselves, it also blanket-cites two Wikipedia pages with an editorial note. This is suboptimal practice on a number of levels and means that it now fails the citation requirements of the GA criteria. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: for the reasons stated by Hog Farm and UndercoverClassicist. Not only are there sources of dubious reliability, most sources are foreign language sources. I think it is safe to assume that there are only a few users who can access, understand and determine the reliability of the sources. Unless someone objects and will make an effort to improve the article in the near future, I doubt that deficiencies in the article will be remedied. It may have potential but I think it is not up to current GA standards in its current state. Donner60 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 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.

Gethin Jones

edit

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: More than a week, no stated intention of fixing article nor effort to do so. Delisted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 Good Article relies on self-published sources such as IMDB and has some unsourced bits that have been tagged. Additionally, I think that the subject's post-2012 activities are not as meaningfully covered as the others, which concerns criteria 5b. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:55, 7 May 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.

Sanctioned Suicide

edit

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) 17:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is poorly written and should not be marked as a "good article".

> Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The page's information is overwhelmingly negative, with almost no positives of the site and numerous criticisms throughout:

- "Although the forum frames itself as a "pro-choice" suicide forum, it has been widely described as "pro-suicide"."

- "has generated widespread scrutiny from news outlets and government officials for the encouragement of suicide by members on the site"

- "banned by the domain name registrar Epik, allegedly for the presence of minors on the site"

- "members' discussions have been characterized as condoning, downplaying, or advocating violence against women"

- "The forum has been widely described as pro-suicide"

- "noted that members have responded to attempts to direct people to hotlines or other supports with antagonism and accusations of being "pro-life""

- "including both detailed discussions of suicide methods and encouragement to commit suicide"

- "the first person in the UK convicted in connection to the site"

- "a male minor who was encouraged on the site to take his own life via the meat preservative sodium nitrite"

- "died by suicide after members of Sanctioned Suicide taunted him and suggested he should film his death"

The site URL was also removed from the article.

> Illustrated: ... media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

The only media (other than the site logo) is a screenshot of the "Suicide Discussion" page, but the search was filtered to only show "method" threads, which is not representative of the site.

> Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The page was semi-protected because of edit-warring. Cat or other (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cat or other: I opened the first GAR and continue to agree that the article does not meet the criteria. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cat or other, you have not notified involved WikiProjects, as required at WP:GAR. Please do so at once.
You appear to have three criticisms of the article: that positive viewpoints are not in equal proportion to negative ones, that the article is not illustrated adequately, and that the page was semi-protected:
  • Do reliable sources give equal prominence to the positives and criticisms of the site? From a quick look at the sources available online, it seems that most take a negative approach. Per WP:BALANCE, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If the article was written to portray the site's positive aspects as having equal prominence as the negative ones, that would be a distortion of RS and a WP:FALSEBALANCE.
  • The GA criteria note that "the presence of media is not a requirement" for GA status; it also does not require that the media be "representative" of the site, but merely "relevant". If you feel that more representative images could be added, please be bold and add them yourself.
  • I must admit, I don't quite get your last objection. You are saying that because the page is semi-protected to achieve stability, it does not meet the GA criterion requiring stability? Some semi-protected articles are even FAs, like J. K. Rowling. I also don't understand why the removal of the site URL following a Request for Comment is relevant.
The arguments above are not persuading me, and thus I land at Keep. {~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I've read the article on reliable sources, and the sources used are not reliable. Firstly, a number of the sources make unsubstantiated claims which are repeated in the article. Secondly, many of the sources are out of date, with repeated mentions of former owners, and 5-year old sources (the site was founded 6 years ago). There are not many sources about the website, which explains the negative majority. The article details a large investigation into the former owners, which constitutes undue weight.
2. The sole image is neither representative nor relevant. The paragraph beside the image is a site overview, not a focus on methods in the "Suicide Discussion" board. It is not my responsibility to make the article a good article; rather it is the responsibility of those who marked it as such. Cat or other (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to provide any examples of what you are talking about, Cat or other, or to notify involved WikiProjects as I noted above, which is your responsibility. Which sources are unreliable or out of date? Which claims do you feel are unsubstantiated? Why is the investigation undue weight? Why is an image of the forum irrelevant to an article about the forum, and what image would be an appropriate representation of the "Site overview" section? Have you read WP:BALANCE?
I note that you have no experience in writing articles (unless your account is a WP:CLEANSTART), with only this reverted edit in mainspace, so please take your time to familiarise yourself with the appropriate parts of the Manual of Style. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> You have yet to provide any examples of what you are talking about
The original post contains ten examples, four of which (6, 7, 9, 10) are objectively unsubstantiated.
> Which sources are unreliable or out of date?
The sources making the aforementioned claims (New York Times, BBC, ABC News).
> Why is the investigation undue weight?
The former owners (as stated in the article) resigned in 2021. The article is about the site, not the owners.
> Why is an image of the forum irrelevant to an article about the forum, and what image would be an appropriate representation of the "Site overview" section?
I have already explained this: "The paragraph beside the image is a site overview, not a focus on methods in the "Suicide Discussion" board."
> I note that you have no experience in writing articles (unless your account is a WP:CLEANSTART), with only this reverted edit in mainspace, so please take your time to familiarise yourself with the appropriate parts of the Manual of Style.
Your attitude is condescending, and this point is unreasonable. Cat or other (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be taking the time to reply further until you notify WikiProjects, which WP:GAR instructs that you do when opening a nomination and which you have been requested to do twice now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the objects presented as credible. Keep --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains misinformation. Sanctioned Suicide does not promote suicide. Its members make strenuous efforts to help people solve their problems, and the site has certainly saved many lives, as is clear from the posts of members themselves. It does, however, recognise that some problems do not have solutions, and so it is pro-choice in the sense that it considers that when an adult person has made a rational, non-impulsive decision to die by suicide, that decision should be respected. All other sites that I know that offer advice to suicidal people discourage suicide in all circumstances, and that is not always the most productive way to interact with someone who is potentially suicidal. It certainly doesn't prevent all suicides. Sanctioned Suicide offers a different approach, and fills a gap. I am not suicidal, but I have been active on Sanctioned Suicide for nearly 4 years, trying to support people who are, and I have seen for myself how much good the site does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:8efd:bee:a01d:8890:420e:616b (talk) 12:06, 10 May 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.

Mezhyhirya Monastery

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No indication the article will be improved further. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Article status no longer seems justified, if it ever was. The article systemically suffers from WP:OR, WP:UNSOURCED claims and claims made by non-WP:RS, failing WP:GACR no. #2. This has been the situation since January 2008, when it was promoted. The DYK with which this article made the Main Page on 1 January 2008 (10 days before achieving GA status), Talk:Mezhyhirya Monastery#Did you know, turns out to be a disproven speculation, a busted myth. This was already known to the DYK nominator, who cited the 17 September 2007 sovremennik.ws post by TatianaZ admitting that excavations in the 1990s never found any library or manuscripts. It's also unclear who believed this (MOS:WEASEL), and why it matters if it has been disproven, or why we should take seriously the hope that one day it might still be proven (TatianaZ saying 'What if [the library of Yaroslav the Wise] is really hidden in one of the dungeons, and is just waiting for the moment when it is finally removed from almost 800 years of imprisonment?' is clearly WP:CRYSTAL). Its entire claim to fame appears to be based on a refuted assumption.

The remainder of sources cited is often still questionable, ranging from newspapers or news sites which do not have the proper scholarly expertise to be making claims about what happened centuries ago, to blog posts, to museums speculating about Andrey's role, to the OKO architectural website (one of the more reliable and neutral sources, but also hardly scholarly). A 19th-century bishop can claim galore, but is not a reliable source. People want to believe lots of things about this former building, and seem to prioritise confirmation bias over reliable sources. But this is Wikipedia.

I've already removed a lot of rubbish, especially stuff related to the Mezhyhirya Residence and the WP:COATRACK on Andrey Bogolyubsky / Virgin of Vladimir, which would probably have made it fail WP:GACR no. #3, and possibly no. #4 due to the heavy focus on the political controversy of Yanukovych owning the Residence. But there is still a lot to do. In terms of being well-written and neutral (no. #1 and no. #4), the article should stop basking in "mysteries" and being allegedly "destroyed" many times, yet rebuilt every time, as if that must mean it is somehow a supernatural miracle that should be attributed to the building's religious status. I'm sure that such speculation appeals to a rather narrow audience of devout Eastern Orthodox Christians, but not "to an appropriately broad audience", and may well be WP:POV.

I think the article does not immediately WP:GAFAIL, but it needs serious work to keep its status. I've already done what I can, but I believe other editors should take a look as well. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This is the first time I've initiated a GAR, I hope I've done it appropriately. The tone of my rationale may be somewhat negative, due to frustrations encountered while trying to improve the article, but I think all editors involved have made an honest effort to write an interesting article. It passed the GA criteria all those years ago, but the criteria seem to have gotten stricter as Wikipedia has professionalised its standards and practices over the years. There is still a possibility that with some serious improvements it can keep its GA status. I just don't feel comfortable overhauling the article all on my own; I think it needs a broader review from the community. NLeeuw (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale being negative hits the spot on the mark.. I think it is accurate to state that the GA criteria is updated every now and then and has become stricter. If anyone is up to the task of updating original sources and content, that would be most welcome!
However, it is important to note that the history behind the monastery and the exact facts referenced in the article with the original sources provided will not become more available as time goes on. If anything, it will become more difficult to find such sources, since history in Ukraine is constantly being erased due to war, destruction, and constant conquest. Don't ask me - just look at the history (and present-day) itself!
I admit, this article was written a long time ago - and there may have been archaeological expeditions and new books that have come out to date that will become most useful in expanding this article with regards to the monastery itself. I'd like to say that there is more information out there that we can reflect in this article, but I could be mistaken.
BTW, props to removing the paragraphs about the Mezhyhirya Residence - to my knowledge, that Wiki article was not around at the time of this article's writing. § DDima 02:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DDima Thank you for responding. I think my criticism may have been a bit too harsh, sorry about that. You're right that most text about the Mezhyhirya Residence was added only after you published the article, although you did mention at the end that there was a controversy about it. What seems to have happened is that, as the scandal unfolded over the course of 2008 and onwards, other Wikipedians added more and more off-topic information to it. Finally in December 2013 a separate article about the Residence was written, and text about the Residence in this article hadn't yet been transferred to that separate article yet. I can't blame you for that.
I should also clarify that indeed, in this time of war and destruction inside Ukraine, there are risks of sources and artefacts being lost or looted, as has unfortunately happened to several museums and heritage sites in occupied or frontline areas. It's important to cherish and protect what there still is, and documenting this on Wikipedia is one way to do it. I've been doing that myself, mostly in the area of (hand)written documents rather than architecture. It is, in fact, because I was planning to translate Mezhyhirya Chronicle from ukwiki to enwiki (which I have now completed), that I ran into this article about the Mezhyhirya Monastery, and saw a lot of problems with it.
If I could be of help in improving it, I would gladly do so. (I think the Cossack period should be its focus, and not speculations about its legendary founding during Kievan Rus'). Unfortunately, I can find only 2 English-language books on Google Books about it, both of which say very little. Google Scholar also has very few results in English. I'm slowly learning Ukrainian, but I can't really read a PDF article yet (because translation machines like DeepL or Google Translate can't help me read it), like I Antchyshkin, Запорізька Січ та грамота патріарха Йоакима (2015). Науковий щорічник «Історія релігій в Україні». So I'm afraid I won't be much help content-wise. This is one of the reasons why I said I just don't feel comfortable overhauling the article all on my own; I think it needs a broader review from the community. I'm pretty sure there are enough reliable sources in Ukrainian to improve this article, so that it is worthy of keeping its GA status. But for that, we will need Wikipedians who can read advanced Ukrainian, and I cannot do that myself. But I could aid in improving the style, grammar, structure etc. So perhaps we could work together, or ask others to assist? Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw and DDima: do either of you intend to continue improving this article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the foreseeable future. As I said above, I think I have done enough already, and that it is up to others to give their reassessment of the article, and make some improvements where needed. NLeeuw (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I think the obscurity of the topic means that the chances of others improving the article is very low, so if DDima does not intend to improve the article, it will likely be delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:05, 10 May 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.

Northallerton

edit

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: Remaining cn tags should mean a delist, but considering the massive work done I am IARing and choosing to keep. They can be fixed in their own time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 GA promotion has become out of date in many sections. The demographics section is still dependent on the 2001 census, and other out-of-date content is present as well, such as It was due to close in spring 2008, as the building which opened in 1877 is not up to modern standards. However, the move has been delayed due to lack of space at the Friarage sourced to an article from 2008, or housing prices also from 2008. In addition, uncited text has crept in over the years, including material such as Hambleton Seals Water Polo are a newly formed team which aims to attract local children to a quite small, yet fun sport. that is not in an encyclopedic tone. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esemgee, Ed1964, Keith D, Finlay McWalter, and Hog Farm: Regarding the census; is it necessary for the whole comparison statistics table to remain? This is not cited and is far too detailed IMHO. I am in favour of removing it, if you are...? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer that we source the data better (that is, see if we can get a verifiable stable link instead of the what we have for ref [58]). I don't think the table is excessive, but I wouldn't be opposed to it being in a collapsed box - it is dull, but encyclopedias often contain dull things. I'm trying to see if we can massage the ONS query system (perhaps with one of their "custom data set" options) to source the data we have. And hopefully address Hog Farm's concerns about using such old data. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see it kept and sourced, as the information about long-term population trends is useful for the reader. Hog Farm Talk 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per above I would try to keep the information but update to the 2011 census for now, until ONS publish the full set of 2021 stats, unless we can easily get to the information on 2021 without using the citypopulation site. If this is a stumbling block to retaining GA status then reduce to minimum and fill in later when info is available. Keith D (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with 2011 for now - that's certainly an improvement over using the old 2001 stats. Hog Farm Talk 18:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found most of the missing cites - there are still a couple to complete. I will look at the census data. The joy of all things (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The joy of all things, Keith D, and Finlay McWalter: is anyone able to resolve those remaining cn tags? If not, I'll probably comment the relevant parts out and close this GAR with a keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I cannot find a reference for the Subsidence Inversion comment in the climate section, so that is probably a non-starter. The claim is right as fog does linger here for ages, but that is WP:OR. The paper relating to the cite in the sports section about the Northallerton Stallions ceased printing in 2009. I will look in the library on Wednesday when I am in Northallerton, but I might be able to get a replacement cite. The population section needs a good look at, though. The joy of all things (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to be an archive of the Northallerton and Bedale Times from the 21st century. Northallerton library only has a microfiched copy until 1994. I will hunt for an alternative cite for citation #76. The joy of all things (talk) 19:46, 1 May 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.

Loitering munition

edit

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) 17:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily due to unreferenced statements. There are also the issues of vague language, overcitation, and what appears to be either overcitation or poor citation by listing all of a couple paragraphs' references at their ends. – Primium (talk) 17:53, 15 May 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.

Bristol Rovers F.C.

edit

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) 17:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2007, and hasn't been reviewed since 2009. Similar problems to the Middlesbrough article, many citations needed tags, lots of other tags in general as well, some sections like Stadium History need serious cleanup, and History could be expanded a little as well, since it covers 1920–2014 in only 2 small paragraphs. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 19:01, 14 May 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.

Croatia–Hungary relations

edit

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. 48JCL (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giving this 1 week until it’s delisted. 48JCL (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To fix the issues, I mean. 48JCL (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC) update tag and a whole paragraph without a citation.[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.

2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka

edit

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. 48JCL (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead has no citations. Every here and there you’ll find a citation missing or an issue. Other than that, this would be an OK article, however the lead is too long and there are some issues. This will probably be fixed after this reassessment. Also, there are typos here and there, not only that but the article has been deemed “not neutral” according to the talk page. 48JCL (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JcL48: Uninvolved quick note, but per WP:CITELEAD, the lead does not actually need direct citations. It should, however, summarize content that is cited somewhere in the article. Per Template:Citation needed/doc, that template is not supposed to be used on lead sections; {{Citation needed lead}} should be used instead for leads that contain information that's not verified in the body. Aside from that, there's only one thing in the article that's explicitly uncited.
If you could point out (or even fix) the typos, that would also be appreciated. The only major issue I'm seeing here is the neutrality issue. If, indeed, there is "a WP:POV that is sympathetic to and has soft tone to the Hindu "activists" who threatened NLFT with more violence in order to stop conversions/ freedom of religion", as mentioned on the talk page, that could potentially be a major issue. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well apparently the main issue is the POV. Other than that, I really wish I could delete this stupid reassessment I requested because now I feel as if it is useless. 48JCL (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've shortened the lede to address the lede-too-long tag. That said, I don't think bringing this to GAR was useless, @48JcL48:; judging by the talk page, it's been through a lot of edits since 2012, and ideally needs a volunteer to comb through carefully for neutrality issues that may have crept in after 12 years. Definitely work to be done here. SnowFire (talk) 04:39, 5 May 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.

En passant

edit

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: Issues addressed. Kept. 48JCL (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification tags- whole section is uncited. Some sources may be unreliable. A bit many primary sources to my likings. If this is not fixed by 29 May 2024, then this article shall be demoted to C class. 48JCL (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section with no citations is En passant#Chess variants. It was added largely in a couple of edits in January and March 2021. The question of which variants have en passant and which do not is not one that I have seen discussed in my reading, and I would be happy to remove the whole section, if there were consensus to do so. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "failed verification" tag is on the citation of McCrary's article in Chess Life. The article is interesting, and discusses en passant, but it does not support the claim that the earliest references were from the 16th century.

That citation was added last November, by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing! Before it was added, we weren't any better off, because the claim that the earliest references were from the 16th century wasn't supported by any cited source at all.

I would have guessed that Murray's A History of Chess would at least discuss the question of when en passant was introduced, but I don't see it. On page 812, he mentions en passant in listing the differences in the rules used in Spain versus in Italy, and on page 815, he mentions it in connection with Ruy Lopez's book. One can infer from this that the rule was referenced in the 16th century, but not that this was the "earliest" century. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that whole section got removed, wouldn’t this article now fail criteria 3? 48JCL (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The summary also got removed @Bruce leverett 48JCL (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't have a reference for the first appearance of the rule being in the 16th Century, let's say that it was by (or no later than) the 16th Century, since it was in Ruy Lopez's book. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett @Bubba73 would it be possible to add the previous section back with some sources? If not, I will keep either way 48JCL (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to the section on Chess Variants. I and another editor opined that this section could be removed, and nobody spoke up for it, so somebody removed it. If you want to make a case for it, go ahead.
The point of my own complaint was that if no one out there really wants or cares about en passant in chess variants, we don't have to discuss it in Wikipedia. There are few hard-and-fast rules about what material is worth including in an article, but lack of notability is certainly something that should be considered. Although I myself might be curious about which chess variants have en passant, my own curiosity isn't important.
BTW, since there are two threads of discussion here, one about chess variants, and the other about history of en passant, it would be helpful to try to keep them physically separate, rather than asking about chess variants in a reply to a suggestion about Ruy Lopez. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:45, 24 May 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 Ignacio (1985)

edit

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) 21:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural delisting, as the article has been merged per consensus at Talk:1985 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Ignacio (1985) into 1985 Pacific hurricane season. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:14, 25 May 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.

Wayzata Bay Center

edit

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: Issues not resolved after MORE than a week- delisted. 48JCL (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely no mention of anything notable happening at the mall between its building and the 21st century. Fails WP:WIAGA criterion 3. Compare other GA-class mall articles like Castleton Square which go into depth about how the mall's site was selected, and what changes occured in the early years.
  • Severe link rot: sources 1, 10, 18 are all dead. Source 18 also appears to have been a personal website of some sort.
  • Source 9 appears to be a personal newsletter, and I doubt that's an RS.

Pinging @Carbrera: @Sainsf: for yet another smaller article on a Minnesota mall that I think was too quickly promoted to GA. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:58, 17 May 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.

SR Q class

edit

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: Still CN tags after about a week. Delisted. 48JCL (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant portions of this article are missing citations, and one of the existing citations is missing page numbers. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 18 May 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.

SR V class

edit

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: Been 1 week since GAR, so delisted 48JCL (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significant portions of this article are uncited, one existing source has no page numbers. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:31, 18 May 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.

Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion

edit

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) 18:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing discussion at WT:GAN (link here) questions whether this article is overreliant on primary/non-independent sources, leading to issues with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BALASP, all part of the GA criteria.

Pinging discussion participants @JoelleJay, Hawkeye7, Asilvering, Trainsandotherthings, Thebiguglyalien, Chipmunkdavis, TompaDompa, and David Fuchs: the GA nominator/reviewer will be notified on their talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't done more than a quick skim, but I have WP:OR concerns about some sections, particularly the parts talking about the meaning of the names of various angels. References should be checked to make sure they actually support conclusions about Evangelion and aren't WP:SYNTHy. Brief bits giving background would be fine (eg, "In the Catholic tradition, Gabriel is the angel who..."), but whole paragraphs appear to lean on sources that aren't about eva at all, which is an issue. -- asilvering (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE. The fact that a significant majority of the sources, especially the ones in the angels' sections, are offline and in Japanese is also a problem when there is no indication the reviewer actually spot-checked any of them. JoelleJay (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand the points of the previous users. @JoelleJay: Since the series is Japanese it's pretty obvious that some sources are in its "mothertongue". The sources are not unreliable or impossible to check: an user who knows Japanese can read them and find the original material. If a user does not know the language it's not a limit of the source. Non-English sources are allowed. Also, almost all the material mentioned in this article can be easily find in many scans and downloads online: e.g., the whole Evangelion Chronicle. I can link all of them, if you want. @Asilvering: What sources you are talking about? I know that there are many notes and it's impossible to list them all, but can you list some of them? Regarding the names of the Angels: yes, the sources are about Evangelion and its Angels. Like Evangelion Chronicle, the Red Cross Book, or the Evangelion Encyclopedia, for example. These are not sources that are discussing the religious angels alone. There's no OR in this: everything is sourced and the sources themselves discuss in detail about the symbolisms and connection behind the names.
I can give you evidence of this. There's no synthesis. The sources are clear and explicit, as per WP:SYNTH. These are just two examples I also mentioned on it.wiki: "なお、シャムシエルはユダヤ、キリスト教の神話や伝承における天使の名で、「神の力強き息子」と称される第4天の支配者。 エデンの園を守護する天使の王子でもあり、モーゼを連れて天国を案内したとされる。 「光輝の書」によれば365の軍団を率いるとされており、また、「エノク書」においては「昼」を司る天使とされ、堕天使のひとりにも数えられている ". "Incidentally, Shamsiel is the name of an angel from Judeo-Christian mythology, he's the head of the Fourth Sky and it's known as 'the powerful son of God'. He's also the prince of the angels who guard the Eden Garden, and a legend says that he guided Moses in the Sky. According to the Zohar, he guides 365 legions, and in the Book of Enoch he's the angel in charge of controlling the 'day' and it's listed among the fallen angels" (Evangelion Chronicle, vol. 10). Obviously I didn't mention all of this religious role: it would be too-long, too-detailed, and I briefly mentioned just the important part alone, like with other Angels. "かの天使の時間帯といえる日中に侵攻し、初号機を圧倒したものの、日没間近の夕暮れ刻に斌減されたのは皮肉といえるだろう". "Interestingly, Shamshel invasion happens during the day, which is the period of time of the angel [Note: of the original angel, obviously], fighting against Eva-01, but ends during sunset, at the dusk." (EC, vol. 7). Oguro on Style.fm - he personally knows Gainax members and was in charge of editing the Red Cross Book - says, after explicitly mentioning angel symbolism : "例えば、海中から登場したサキエルは「水」の天使と同じ名であるし、昼間に現れたシャムシェルは「昼」の天使と同じ名だ". "Sachiel, for example, appears from the sea and he has the name of the angel of water, while Samsiel, who appears during the day, has the name of the angel of the day". So, the first issue (WP:OR) can easily be dismissed.
Regarding WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, as IIRC other users agreed during the JoelleJay doubts mouths ago, we are talking about a character article, so it's pretty obvious and allowed to describe the characters also using sources like Evangelion Chronicle. Many other sources like Napier talk about the Angels, their battles and so on in detail, but we should mention the most reliable source: and Evangelion Chronicle or the official Death and Rebirth pamphlet it's more reliable than an academic. But many, and I mean many parts of the article are about their creation, the storyboards, the original scenario, academic analysis, reception, and so on. So I can not understand the point of this reassesment page. It's obviously wrong.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TeenAngels1234, my read of JoelleJay's comment is not that it's a problem per se that there are offline, Japanese-language sources, but that there is no evidence in the initial GA review that the reviewer checked any of those sources. It would be really helpful (both to allay concerns, and for the sake of readers) if you could link those sources that can be found online. -- asilvering (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure, I can give you everything! Just wait a few hours; the material is huge and I have to list all the links. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that these sources discuss the symbolism. However, at the very least anything produced by Gainax (like the Red Cross Book), Kadokawa, or their affiliates is neither secondary nor independent and so should not be a source for such wide swathes of the article. We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion.
Looking at citations for the first few angels:
Adam: Source 43, 55, 59: Kadokawa  N. 44, 51: Cannarsi  N. 45: Porori ?. 46-48, 52: EC  N? 49: NGE  N. 50, 58: Horn  N. 53: Poggio  N. 36, 3: Gainax  N. 54, 56: Fujie & Foster ?. 57: Marc MacWilliams' blog ?.
Lilith: 60, 64: Poggio  N. 61-63, 73, 75: Kadokawa  N. 65: Porori ?. 66, 68: Ogoru?  N? 49: NGE  N. 67: EC  N? 36: Gainax  N. 69: Yoshiyuki Sadamoto interview  N. 70: Sanenari ?. 71: Dynit  N. 72: Khara  N. 74: Cinefacts  Y.
Sachiel: 76, 77, 80, 82, 38, 84, 89, 95, 99, 102: EC  N? 78, 79, 83, 86, 87, 91, 92, 32: Kadokawa  N. 81: Porori ?. 85, 90, 93: Cannarsi  N. 88: Platinum Booklet  N. 94: Davidson (1967)  N. 96, 97: Fujie ?. 98: Poggio  N. 100: ? 101: Oguro?  N. 103: Khara  N.
Shamshel: 104, 106: Porori ?. 105, 109, 111, 114, 119, 124, 126: Kadokawa  N. 107, 110, 115, 116, 120, 121: EC  N? 108, 117: Poggio  N. 3: Gainax  N. 112, 118: Cannarsi  N. 113: PB  N. 122: Davidson (1967)  N. 123: Oguro?  N. 125: Khara  N. 127, 128: Dynit  N.
That is just way too much material cited to people/commercial products with a vested financial interest in promoting NGE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that they're used in basically plot and production sections as for AM guidelines, right? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point out that the notability guidelines do not affect article content (WP:NNC). We need to present content in a neutral way, and we need to ensure that we are not giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint or doing original research, but that does not preclude using non-neutral sources or making reference to minor details. In other words, whether or not particular minor details are important enough for inclusion is an editorial decision, not one we have firm policy about including or excluding. For a GA, we need to show that the article is sufficiently broad and that it does not go into excessive detail, but this is a quality of the writing and not related to whether sources are independent or not. We also need to ensure that the sources are reliable and the content is verifiable. If we have evidence that any of these sources are not reliable, we should not be using them, but not being fully independent doesn't mean they aren't reliable. -- asilvering (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:PROPORTION: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Primary and/or non-independent sources can be used for WP:Verification, but they do not establish WP:Weight of viewpoints or aspects—just as they do not establish WP:Notability of topics. TompaDompa (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROPORTION says, as you quoted, "reliable, published material". It does not demand that this material is fully independent. We certainly don't want to base an entire article on primary sources, because that would be WP:OR. And of course we don't want to use biased sources without correcting for WP:NPOV. If there are WP:OR or WP:NPOV concerns, we should clear those up. Likewise, if it goes into excessive detail or fan pov that is not relevant for a general encyclopedia, we should trim those sections (and move any well-researched content to a fan wiki).
But it is not a problem as such that these sources aren't fully, unimpeachably independent, unless it is causing one of those problems. JoelleJay is absolutely right to raise the concern: there are many non-independent sources, therefore it is much more likely that there are OR/NPOV/UNDUE concerns than if the article was entirely based on secondary, academic/critic sources. But the fact that many sources are not fully independent is not in itself the problem. Saying that we must follow the weight of independent, secondary sources would result in worse and less informative articles in many cases. If you think, for example, of an article on a novel: if we followed only independent sources, it is highly unlikely that we would be able to write a full, even plot summary without error. It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot. In particular, they often don't give the ending! A plot summary is one of the most useful things we can have in an article on a novel, and it would be silly to not have one, or to have one that is biased towards coverage trends in secondary sources. At the same time, I'm sure anyone who has spent any time looking at novel articles on wikipedia has seen one with a plot that is way, way too long, and gets far too into the details, or one that offers the editor's own opinion on the plot. That is the problem. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that for plot summaries it's fine to use primary and/or non-independent sources. However when it comes to any analysis of the plot, such as symbolism, we ought to be weighing the relative importance of particular information based on its coverage in secondary independent sources. This is reflected in NOT: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't know that it is actually true that It is very unusual for academic and critical sources to write out the entire plot. I have written several articles on works of fiction where I have been able to source the entire plot synopsis to independent secondary sources. But even if we grant that, it is still not a particularly good example as plot summaries are basically a carve-out from the general rule that independent secondary sources are preferred. At any rate, we do indeed need to follow the weight of independent secondary (and perhaps tertiary) sources when writing articles; if primary and/or non-independent sources give much more weight to aspect A than aspect B whereas independent secondary sources give much more weight to aspect B than aspect A, we go by the latter in assessing WP:Due weight. These need not necessarily be the sources that are cited—hypothetically, one could cite non-ideal but reliable sources in the article in a way that perfectly reflects the overall literature—but when challenged, one must nevertheless be able to demonstrate that the article's contents accurately and representatively reflect the overall literature on the topic. Which I suppose is kind of the same thing as saying that it's not a problem unless it causes a problem, but in this case the adherence to WP:PROPORTION (among others) has been challenged and it really is up to the ones advocating for keeping this listed as a WP:Good article to show that it reflects the appropriate literature where the article does not cite it. TompaDompa (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I don't think it has been properly challenged here. The possibility of a problem has been raised, but not the problem itself. The editor who brought the article to GA believes this is the appropriate weight and using the appropriate literature, and has said as much. There's nowhere for this discussion to go from here unless someone in favour of de-listing it can give that editor something to refine or dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that I support delisting due to the excessive citation to non-independent and primary sources for the bulk of the background on individual angels. The amount of detail on each angel is simply not BALASP if it hasn't been discussed by secondary sources independent of NGE. and We need commentary by people completely uninvolved in NGE in any way to demonstrate that particular minor details are important enough for inclusion. constitutes a proper challenge to WP:BALASP, but I suppose we could agree to disagree there. The same point was raised months ago on the talk page: Material that has only been discussed by people close to the topic does not reflect the material's real-world importance to the topic as reported in independent publications. It presents an issue with NPOV as it leads to us emphasizing certain aspects of the topic solely because media exists by the creators of those aspects (who are of course going to promote them and provide lots of details) rather than because those aspects have been highlighted as significant by independent publications. The solution, if one believes that this does in fact reflect the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, is straightforward: point to that literature and demonstrate how this is true. If it is indeed the case that this reflects the weight in the appropriate literature accurately, a lot of time and effort could have been saved by simply citing that literature in the first place. As we do not solely use sources for WP:Verification but also for establishing WP:Weight, I would suggest that our best practices include citing sources that demonstrate weight even if they are not necessary for verification (typically because verification is covered by other sources). That's what I do in cases like this—or rather, I do it the other way around: I supplement the sources that establish weight with the ones that provide additional verification. TompaDompa (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem here is that the point seems to be missed. Secondary indipendent-sources are there. And dipendent sources are used in plot sections, like the description of the Angels and their role, and in production: explaining the meaning behing the name of the Angels and their inspiration is production, and it requires interviews from the staff and so on. I don't need Dani Cavallaro to say that Sachiel is named after the angel of the water but the original source - assuming the reliable original source is here, and fortunately that's the case. In Analyisis section, on the other hand, you can easily find how almost all the sources are indipendent: Azuma is indipendent, and so are Ortega, Napier, Cavallaro and so on. The literature is here. I can easily add a source for almost every statement about Angels role and their inspiration, but doing so is not required for GA articles, AM guidelies and common sense. We are still talking about plot and production, guys. It's the accuse that needs to explain where's the problem and show besides any reasonable doubt that this article is not worthy of the GA status - and in this case, we have to start reassessments for almost fictional character, from anime to videogames, from Tolkien to NGE itself. But that's not the case and is clearly a delusion. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to cite interviews directly; it is, in principle, perfectly possible to cite some other source that says "in an interview, person X said Y". More generally, information from primary and/or non-independent sources (even if those might be the most authoritative ones on the facts) can be filtered through non-primary independent sources that exercise editorial judgment about the relative WP:Weight of different WP:Aspects—and in fact, this very article is an example thereof, being non-primary and independent (assuming of course that there is no conflict of interest) even if it is not a WP:Reliable source as WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? It's obviously better to cite the original interview where a person said a thing than a secondary source saying it was said. It is not more helpful to our readers to cite a more distant source, not to mention that doing so runs the risk of ending up in a game of broken-telephone, which is already a significant problem both in academia and on wikipedia.
TeenAngels1234, it might help for you to add citations to the independent sources alongside the closer, non-independent sources you already have. It seems to me that that will satisfy the weighting concerns, and/or point out areas that are less often discussed and could stand to be removed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is more helpful to our readers to cite more distant sources in lieu of citing the material directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, is orthogonal to the question at hand here: is including this material WP:DUE in the first place? That's what we need the non-primary and independent sources to ascertain. As I said above, we can cite both kinds of sources at the same time to satisfy WP:Verification concerns (by using the most authoritative sources on the facts of the matter) as well as WP:Weight concerns (by using the sources that best demonstrate the relative weight afforded to various aspects by the overall literature on the topic). In general, citing interviews directly is neither necessary (it is possible, even if perhaps not ideal, to cite more distant sources—and in some cases we have no other choice if the interviews are not available to us) nor sufficient (because the interviews do not in themselves establish weight). TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then! I'll mention them if it can help to resolve the doubs of the other side. I'm always willing to improve the NGE articles but, please, just wait few days. I will try to do so as soon as possible, but unfortunately I'm extremely busy in these days. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are some secondary independent sources. The problem is that they are not being used for large swathes of the article, and consequently those sections suffer a degree of indiscriminateness in their detail that needs to be reined in. Too much of the symbolism and interpretative background of the angels is cited to primary media directly from people involved in its production, and this falls afoul of policy: Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that these are analyitic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic about "so-and-so said that the angels represented blah blah". This is a guideline about not doing original research and not inserting an editor's own opinion into the article. -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well as one other example, we have a whole section written in-universe, sourced in large part to non-independent and/or primary sources or not at all, that makes patently absurd claims like Angels are organic beings whose atomic structure has both particle and wave nature, and therefore characterized by the wave-particle duality of light. (not sourced) and The Angels' genetic makeup has a 99.89% affinity with that of humans. (not sourced in this section; it is sourced in another section where the claim is limited to one angel The arrangement and coordinates of the fourth Angel signals correspond 99.89% to those in the human gene pool. and is attributed to Ritsuko Akagi, a fictional character) and Their names and attacks have been prophesied in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient documents in the possession of a secret organization called Seele in wikivoice. These are unattributed, likely UNDUE details that egregiously mischaracterize real things. How much of the rest of this 150kb article contains similarly inappropriate and misleading material? JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarify, just because the note is not immediately after the sentence it doesn't mean the sentence it's unsourced. If you read the sources mentioned in the paragraph, every single sentence is sourced. These are not controversial statements about the NGE lore - surprisingly, since in NGE almost everything is controversial - , but at least having the bare minimum knowledge of the sources and reading them before writing here would be helpful and appropriate. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably reacquaint yourself with WP:PSTS; authorized/official books and the like are primary sources, and a) don't count for notability, and b) aren't what the majority of any article text should be based on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly aware of that guide, thanks. The article is not based on primary sources, altgough like in every GA of fictional characters I used them as for guidelines. PS are of course necessary, allowed and used with common sense. In no way we have to mention Mechademia while discussing Anno inspirations, but I mentioned Anno interviews on their creations instead. And, again, the fact is thar this article is not based on PS: Mechademia is mentioned various times, together with Cavallaro, Napier, CBR, Anime News Network, Cannarsi - no one of these people are involved in NGE production - and so on. Since more than a third of this article - a reasonable portion, like almost every GA about fictional character- is about their production, development, inspiration, it's perfectly fine and allowed. This is perfecrly in line with Anime and Manga guidelines.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cannarsi was directly involved in producing the Italian version of NGE, he is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being involved in the Italian dub doesn't mean being involved in the NGE production, but OK, that's not the point and Cannarsi is not the focus of this. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it appears that these authorized/official books are not all primary sources, but are secondary sources (just not independent ones). They don't count for notability, but they are the most authoritative source. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we consider "indipendent" every source which is not directly made by NGE staff and people involved in its production or promotion, like A&M guidelines and If I can add common sense say, Oguro commentary is indipendent too. He edited the RCB, which can be listed as a dipendent source, but his commentary is something he wrote as a fan. Same for Poggio, Cannarsi and most importantly Evangelion Chronicle: they are edited and published by DeAgostini Japan and Sony Magazines, but not Gainax - they just allowed its publication. Porori is not a Gainax member and is not involved in NGE, so even the The Essential issues are indipendent. My suggestion is that the user who proposed this nomination is not so much into the sources and did not check them before starting this reassessment. This was also discussed with other users before, so it seems they didn't even read the TP. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those (or at least most of those) are still "not independent" for the purposes of notability. But you don't need to worry about notability and I'm not sure why Fuchs brought it up. The topic is very evidently notable. -- asilvering (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm genuinely confused too. Thanks. BTW, regarding the secondary sources and materials used: I think almost everything can be found here. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the excessive number of images that are not directly related makes this article arguably fail criteria 6b. Do we really need an image of a double chromosome in this article? I doubt it. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always considered that image fitting because of its link to the sceen depicting Shamshiel analysis in the fifth episode, but if you think it's not relevant/pertinent we can easily remove it. Are there other images that you think are not relevant? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These images are egregious. We do not need two Dirac-related images just because, according to non-independent non-physicist sources, one episode apparently attempts to explain a characteristic of one angel as being maintained using an inverted AT Field, within which extends a number-imaginary space,[284] a parallel dimension named Dirac Sea. Not least because it legitimizes an amateurish misrepresentation of the Dirac sea (since when is this purely theoretical model a "parallel dimension"?). JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dirac sea of the series is a parrallel dimension, not Dirac theoretical original model. It's literally written in the article. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Okay, done, Quicole. I deleted basically all the images not directly depicting the Angels. Not sure about Sachiel's cosplay. They usually are not inserted in articles on en.wiki, but it can be helpful for a reader to actually see the Angel's design without a screenshot under copyright. But as you prefer. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, Asilvering, TompaDompa, David Fuchs, TeenAngels1234, and QuicoleJR: is there any consensus on whether this article meets the GA criteria? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently adding other indipendent sources. I've added more than 100 of them now, so now we have more than 200+ notes to indipendent sources, but it will took me at least other 2-3 days to cover the whole list of Angels. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image use is a lot better, and I believe that the article has been improved enough to meet that criteria. I don't know enough about the other issues brought up here to make a judgement about them, but if and when the consensus is that those are solved, then I support retaining. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article still has an over reliance on primary and non-independent sources, and still suffers from extreme bloat. To take a random example, we get a whole paragraph that's mostly describing who the Biblical Adam is and the etymology of the name:

According to the Old Testament book of Genesis, God created Adam, the first human being, in His image. On the etymological origin of the name Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Modern: 'Adam, Tiberian: ʾĀḏām) have been formulated several theories, for which it would mean "earth", "red" or "created".[45][87] God then creates Eve, the first woman, from Adam. In the twenty-first episode of Neon Genesis Evangelion, it is revealed the Evangelions were similarly created from biological material from Adam.[88][89] In the Jewish Kabbalah, Adam is described as a kind of deity, a being that is capable of giving life and as an entity to which all things are destined to return at the end of time. According to writers Kazuhisa Fujie and Martin Foster, in the series Kaworu Nagisa states those who come from Adam must return to Adam referring to this tradition.[90]

Versus something summarized, directly related to Neon Genesis, and focused. It's also full of weird nonsense like "According to the writers" as if they said something about the subject, but it's actually just quoting a character in the series, not the writers (and thus falsely implies a perspective of the character is fact or what the writers actually believe.) I don't think TeenAngels has understood the main thrust of the issues; simply dumping more citations in isn't solving the systemic problems with the article, which require a much more fundamental rewrite and reappraisal of what's being included. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The etimology is related to NGE as the series speaks of the Red Earth Purification. It needs a rewriting process to make it more explicit/relevant and the article needs to be summarized at the end of the process, which did not end - so, TNX, but I think I got what other users said before. But, again, it will took me at least other 3 days, since I don't live for Wikipedia and nobody pays me for writing here. The page mentioned in the note, anyway, reads, after the Kaworu's quote et cetera: "In the Kabbalah, Adam is described as the beggining of all things, and the being to which all must revert. In other words, God". As I said before to another user, if you want to be helpful in this process, and most importantly if you want to your opinion to be considered valid, you have to read the article and the sources before writing here. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The academic sourcing has improved some matters of DUE, though I agree with David that the article, which remains a staggering 150kb, still contains a lot of details that are justified only by primary/non-independent sources (like According to a guide on the series contained in a manual for the card game Neon Genesis Evangelion RPG (新世紀エヴァンゲリオンRPG, Shinseiki Evangerion RPG), there is a connection between the Angels; each Angel seems to be an evolutionary outgrowth of the previous one, and the fact they attack one at a time suggests they are aware of the status of each of the other specimens and react accordingly.), are presented in-universe (the Dead Sea Scrolls issue, for example), or are just nonsensical (To verify the nature of an Angel, Nerv analyzes a wave diagram of unidentified objects, which is indicated by the expression "Blood Type: Blue".). Not every detail mentioned in passing by even secondary independent sources needs to be reflected in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and as I said we need to do a relatively fast work of cutting. But I will do this at the end; since it's very easy to summarize or cut things, it's better to do the more complicated work before. I normally do these kind of things in one afternoon, but be patient. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a third opinion especially after the sudden inactivity from this reassessment.Tintor2 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lockheed YF-22

edit

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 suggestion that the article doesn't meet the GA criteria; GAR is not peer review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added considerable amount of design history information compiled from several sources to give a summary of how the design came to be. The article has nearly doubled in size, so I would like other editors to review my work to make sure it's still up to standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Steve7c8, marking my spot here, will post comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 11:21, 25 May 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.

Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One

edit

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) 13:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2009 GA that no longer meets the criteria in its current state. Filled with sourcing issues (such as IMDb), poor prose, a section that has had an expansion tag for two years, unreferenced sections (personnel), among others. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks zmbro. I sourced the personnel section, but I cannot see myself working on this article. Anything after Village Green carries no interest for me. Speaking of which, Arthur probably does not deserve to be a FA at this point (it was promoted back in 2010). Tkbrett (✉) 17:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I completely agree. If you wanna post some FA concerns on the talk page to get the process started I'd say go for it. Otherwise I can do it when I get back from vacation next week. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:54, 20 May 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.

Muhammad in Islam

edit

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) 13:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To meet the GA criteria an article needs to 1. Well-written 2. Verifiable with no original research 3. Broad in its coverage 4. Neutral 5. Stable 6. Illustrated. 6: There are a few images, many have no relevance to the topic however. It lacks actual depictions of Muhammad in Islam, except for one. 5: The article seems to be stable, but seems to be in need of a general overhaul. 4: because of the points following now. Similar to the article Ali, the article reads more like a history lesson about Muhammad synthetized from Muslim sources, not to be about Muhammad in Islam. Neutrality cannot be established this way. 3. There is one section to refer to one scripture (Quran), one about the alledged history, then his proclaimed roles, and a section about miracles without any exploration on how they are received, it is simply calimed he did it. This is not much, it only appears so because almost every paragraph is given its own section. 2. Not only is the choice of section without any guidance from a secondary source, many inline citations are referring to primary sources, such as the Ahmadiyya community and not historical sources. Next, there are not even sufficient inline citations at all. Large portions of text stay completely unsourced. 1: Most of the article is actually Original Research. Therefore, I suggest to reassess the GA status and move it to at least C status, since the article has several serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) April 16, 2024 (UTC)

I do see a few sentences missing citations, which is certainly an issue. Could you give some examples of sources you believe are not acceptable for a GA-level article? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VenusFeuerFalle have you seen the above question? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I didn't. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can compare to what a reliable source is here WP:RELY. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and compare them to stuff like "Muhammad Shafi Usmani (1986). Tafsir Maariful Quran. Vol. 8. English Translation by Ahmed Khalil Aziz. "Al-Suyuti, Al-Khasais-ul-Kubra", and various QUran citations. Furthermore, the sources used rather point at WP:SYN. Please do not forget about all the other points and serious issues the article has. Also note, that the improvement sin the Miraj section are recent additions and would need a new review. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements in the article while the GAR is in progress are not only allowed but actively encouraged. The ideal outcome at GAR is that articles are improved to the point delisting is no longer necessary. I do ask that you keep in mind what may be incredibly obvious to you may not be so to me, I have only some basic knowledge of Islam (maybe more than the average American, but nowhere near the point I'd call myself well versed - I can at least tell you why the Sunni-Shia split is a thing). If I understand you correctly, you are saying the article is heavily reliant on the Quran itself for sourcing, which would be an issue due to WP:PRIMARY (especially inappropriate interpretation/synthesis of what's written in the Quran since it's a primary source) and our general expectation that articles rely mostly on secondary sources? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I came off as preassueming, I just thought my list was sufficient, especialyl due to the layout. I feel like the entire structure of the article reads like, Users cherry picked whatever sources they see fit. Furthermore, there is no historical critical analysis of Muslim sources (except for the Miraj section I improved a few days ago) and there is significant lack of hagiographic depictions of Muhammad.
I do try to work on the article while the reassessment is happening though. But yes, I think the lack of incline citations and reliance on primary sources should suffice to put it on a B rating, the lack of verification of structure would put it on a C- Ranking (in my opinion). If I could proof the lack of coverage, I would have made the additions already, but there is also a substantial lack of Muslim depiction of Muhammad as not a historical person but a holy person as well. I will try to update the article as much as possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the lead has been written on its own, without reference to the article it is meant to cover. There is not much relation other than that both have a biography, however the body biography seems to be at least to some extent contextualised in the context of the topic (Muhammad in Islam) whereas the lead is just a plain biography. I suspect the lead should be completely rewritten. The Gallery similarly seems entirely disconnected from the topic at hand. The In the Quran section needs secondary sources, as touched on above. The Biography section is better in this respect, although it does cite a Tafsir to explain what the Tafsir itself says.
I do agree that the article needs restructuring. While some parts of the biography do direclty explain context, in other areas it strays into a plain biography that is slightly off-topic. The biographical organisation may not be the best way to handle this either, as it is overbroad and overlaps with later sections. "Legacy" seems similarly overbroad, with sections like that it is not clear why for example the Muhammad's Night Journey and Ascension section is on its own. I don't have access to the sources, but for example it seems that items such as his example as a role model (Morality and Sunnah) could form a section apart from items such as his various religious religious roles (Final prophet, Muhammad as intercessor, Muhammad and the Quran). CMD (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, since I am currently working on improing the article, I want to consider your suggestions. The main issue I have with the biography is that they are structured around a biography written by someone else, and thus original research. I tried to trim down the biography as much as possible and substitute with secondary sources elaborating on Muhammad's biography whenever possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings: hi all, where does this stand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The GAR has resulted in been significant improvement, especially in the lead, however not enough to overcome some significant sourcing issues as elucidated by VenusFeuerFalle above. CMD (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency)

edit

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: Issues unaddressed, delisting. Hog Farm Talk 01:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back in April, I expressed concerns on the article's talk page about outdated demographics information and significant uncited text. As these issues with the GA criteria have not be resolved, to GAR we go. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 26 May 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.

Winter Olympic Games

edit

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: Issues unaddressed, delisting. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the talk page by Slgrandson and myself, the article contains significant material lacking inline citations (e.g. most information about the last three Games) meaning the article does not meet GA criterion 2b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 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.

SSC Napoli

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No signs of improvement after 1 week. 48JCL TALK 02:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19 CN tags. Whole sections unsourced. How has this not gone noticed? 48JCLTALK 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tranmere Rovers F.C.

edit

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. 48JCL TALK 02:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2011, and hasn't been reviewed since. Currently looks more like a Start-Class article than a GA. There are tags (mostly citation needed) EVERYWHERE, every section needs major work and cleanup. Article needs serious changes to remain a GA. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The tags were added by a single user over the span of about an hour, who has similarly spammed several other football articles. I'm not saying they're all unjustified, but there's certainly way more than needed. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the tags were all added by Untitled740, who also added the tags on the 3 football GAs delisted in the past month (Hull City, Middlesbrough, and Bristol Rovers, the latter two I nominated), as well as SSC Napoli, another GA that may potentially have problems. Agreeing with you, not saying that these tags are wrong, but they seem disruptive. Still saying that the article should be delisted unless work is done, but the tags on all five of these articles should be looked at as well. JpTheNotSoSuperior (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many (most?) of the tags are of little value. Checking a couple, they aren't always true: with that said, some have a point. I'd suggest that a proper review of those tags would be a good (vital?) first step before making any decisions as to delisting, but maybe if nobody is forthcoming to do that review, the default should be to delist. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bill Brown with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

edit

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. CMD (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. CMD (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ian Johnson with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

edit

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. CMD (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. CMD (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

edit

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. CMD (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. CMD (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arthur Morris with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

edit

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. CMD (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. CMD (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

edit

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. CMD (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural GAR following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. CMD (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Awesome Kong

edit

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. 48JCL TALK 21:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2010 promotion has 13 citation needed tags, as well as other untagged statements lacking citations. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is just too much uncited here to retain as a GA. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COBOL

edit

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 improvement Real4jyy (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a bloated lede (as well as other sections), an orange tag outlining missing information from 2021, and many uncited statements. I posted my concerns on the article talk page, but there was no response. Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Forbidden City

edit

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 improvement Real4jyy (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 2007 GA that seems worse for the wear. It has various uncited claims, a general overabundance of images that creates sandwiching issues across much of the article. The history section is written in a summary style when it really doesn't have to be - it has plenty of room to grow. And some of the sourcing is to things such as travel guides or fun facts lists. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Priory of Sion

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No improvement Real4jyy (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the main banner (unclear citation style), but lots of uncited paragraphs and statements; no longer seems to meet the recent-ish standards for citation at GA level. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wisden Trophy

edit

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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited passages, including entire sections. Hog Farm outlined concerns on the talk page in March, but there was no response and the article has not been edited since 2022. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Sims Online

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist for now. Once issues are addressed, a new GAN can happen. 48JCL 14:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination for feedback and review. With all respects to the efforts of the reviewer, the GA process was faulty. The FAC nomination prompted comments that the article had "significant" issues. Therefore it is probably worth checking where along the journey this article is at from experienced editors. Thanks in advance for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lot of sources need to be tagged with BSN or FV. 48JCL TALK 14:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Came back for a sec, shouldn’t some sections be tagged with {{Non-primary source needed}}? Lot of ea-blogs 48JCL TALK 21:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vrxces, based on the large amounts of primary sources, should this not be delisted? xq 20:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See thoughts below. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. From what I can tell there's been three issues raised by people that have seen the article in this process so far:

(1) Inadequate sourcing in the gameplay section due to a reliance on the game guide without page citations. This was the only specific feedback raised in FAC that and definitely something that can be worked on.
(2) Overuse of primary sources. This is understandable and coverage could be supplemented with existing sources. But the sources in the article really are generally the sum of the surviving coverage on the game, in my opinion. It would be good to receive greater feedback on where the use of the primary sources is not appropriate given that I would imagine a primary source would be appropriate to substantiate that the publishers as author and creator of the game undertook a certain action at a certain time.
(3) Verifiability. I would appreciate some advice on specific examples where the citations fail to substantiate the content, as none to date have been given.

I did expect that having nominated the article for review that it would be delisted. I will say that whilst it's nobody's task to review quite a large article, certainly not anyone's here, it's a shame it's been months and there's been very little in-depth feedback on the article on peer review, good article nomination, featured article nomination, and now reassessment. But these things understandably happen with large articles which are difficult and time-consuming to review, so no shade to anyone that's helped in that journey so far. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to give some more feedback here. As you're interested in a FAC, I'll note non-GA things too. I know virtually nothing about VG sourcing, or to go through the article from top to bottom (sorry). I've checked two sources, and tagged them as not verifying content, which makes me believe the article should be delisted for now. Most of my other comments don't relate strongly to the GA criteria:
  • The lead feels a bit intimidating, as the paragraphs are quite long. Can we split it (non-GA)
  • alts are missing for images (non-GA)
  • To commemorate the closure, EA developers held a 'See You Soon' party where players congregated until the shutdown of the game --> in-game or real-life party?
  • I wonder if MMOG is a more well-known word than the non-abbreviated version?
  • The reception section contains too many quotes. You may want to use Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections to improve this section. The large number of quotes make the section difficult to parse; sentences are often too long.
  • I would not dedicate that much time in the legacy section to the people involved. Legacy is often about what other people think. It feels a bit repetitive to the reception section, as they simply reiterate what other people have already stated.
  • In 2011, EA published the online game The Sims Social on Facebook, which featured similar social networking features on the platform --> on which platform? The Sims or Facebook?
  • As part of this process, several features were introduced into the game, including the introduction of the ability for players to upload custom content into the game, --> the second introduction isn't needed (you could say including the ability).
  • Simoleans are the main commodity in The Sims Online, used to purchase lots and objects and design buildings. --> Are they purchasing "design buildings" or designing buildings? If you switch it, you remove the ambiguity (used to design buildigns and buy lots and objects).
  • Two tips on general copyediting: the first one is to read the article out loud. Are there sentences you stumble over, because they're too complex and long? For an article with a generic audience, your average sentence is quite tough (see [[User:Phlsph7/Readability.js for instance). The other one is to ask ChatGPT to simplify (I usually ask it to improve flow and simplify in the same prompt).
  • In terms of verifiability: the best route forward is to go page hunting. Citing a 260-page book (cite 6) without a page number makes it very difficult to verify the content.
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the specific feedback, I appreciate it. I think this is all doable and something to follow-up on after the article is delisted, which I agree is appropriate at this point. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ýdalir

edit

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. Real4jyy (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At 251 words, counting the 44-word lead, this 2009 promotion is far too short to meet the modern standard for broadness. There is little to mine from the sourcing - each source discusses it in no more than a sentence or two.

(Honestly, given the limited information available about it, I am hardly sure it even needs its own article at all - it could very easily be merged into Ullr.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clean, concise, and well-sourced article on a location mentioned in Norse mythology. It can easily be expanded but meets all WP:GA requirements. Merging it into an article is just going to lead to confusion for the reader and reduce the likelihood of further expansion. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance of expansion? I was not able to locate any sources that discussed the topic in any further detail. I have no problem admitting there are sources I may not have found. By any standard, trivial mentions (and I would argue that each of the sources cited is a trivial mention) do not support a claim to notability, regardless of the topic. Norse mythology has no more of a carve-out from GACR or GNG than anything else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From your response, it appears that you are new to this topic. These topics have been written about for hundreds of years now. Anything from a small novel to dozen volume set could be written about the reception and this-or-that analysis of pertty much every single place, person, or thing in Norse mythology. Just from a brief search, one could add a bunch of stuff from, for example, Rydberg or any number of individuals in English or otherwise (try German or Swedish). No doubt Wikipedia has plenty of real problems: there's no need to invent one here. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're the expert here, care to expand the article or identify specific sources? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At risk of stinking up the scholarly sources with an "In popular culture" section, I have added this diff. Feel free to revert if desired, but given that Orchard has all of one sentence on Ýdalir, Simek/Hall has two sentences, and Bevan-Jones has two sentences or so describing a wild guess on the derivation of Udale... I think this might genuinely be one of the most notable aspects of Ýdalir. (Yeah, we don't list every single time Gungir is called out, but when there's so little else to "compete", I think it's fair. Note that Nintendo World Report is listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS as well.) SnowFire (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With this expansion, and given that no sources have been found to make it more broad, I think it now meets the broadness criterion, and can be kept listed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I would have passed this for Good article status if I were the reviewer and the article looked like what it is today. Cos (X + Z) 20:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; still painfully short (IMO) but if there's nothing else there's nothing else. Queen of Hearts talk 09:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ivory (wrestler)

edit

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: No comments or improvement in a week. Hopefully I hit the right button this time... Queen of Hearts talk 11:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 promotion has 6 citation needed tags as well as some unreliable/questionable sources such as IMDB. Spinixster (trout me!) 11:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

edit

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 objections to delisting for 7 days; before that the problems of the article have stood for three months on the talk page without anybody solving the problems or defending the GA status. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails GA criterion no. 2, see Talk:Historical_background_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#Original_research.

Fails criterion no. 3 because important aspects have been omitted, e.g.

  1. 21st century Russian nationalism and its influence on Putin's decisions.
  2. The existence of a Ukrainian national movement starting in the 19th century in both Russian- and Austrian-ruled Ukraine, e.g. Taras Shevchenko and Mykhailo Hrushevsky.
  3. The intentional suppression of Ukrainian language and culture during several periods of Moscow's rule.
  4. The Holodomor as a man-made (i.e. Stalin-made) famine which has shaped Ukrainian relationship with Russia to this day.
  5. The non-ethnic character of Ukrainian national identity according to many Ukrainian intellectuals.
  6. The colonial character of Moscow's rule over Ukraine.
  7. The importance of controlling Ukraine for the imperialist ideas of Russia's elite.

Fails criterion no. 4 because the idea that the conflict was caused by a rift inside Ukraine, is a narrative often told by Russian propaganda, but not supported by serious historians. I put the "neutrality" maintenance tag in March. Since then it has stood uncontested. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Atlantic hurricane

edit

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. Real4jyy (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing includes Update tag in lead,some uncited content and a clarification needed tag Real4jyy (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Civil War token

edit

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. Real4jyy (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 GA with some uncited sections, such as the rarity scale. My biggest concern however is the breadth; this is an entire area of numismatic study with quite a large number of books, and this article is citing none of them (only books cited are a general guide book and a book on civil war cards.) It's mainly cited to grading company websites which are usually tertiary. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist on breadth and sourcing grounds per nominator. Although I will note that since Civil War store cards are a subset of Civil War tokens, the use of a book about store cards is relevant and not unexpected; it isn't referring to "cards" as we would expect the definition to normally be. Hog Farm Talk 16:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Florida State University

edit

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

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

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

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

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

Kindly explain why you removed this material:
In 1819, the Florida Territory was ceded to the United States by Spain as an element of the Adams–Onís Treaty.[1] The Territory was conventionally split by the Appalachicola or later the Suwannee rivers into East and West areas.
Since you appear to be from Canada and perhaps unaware (forgive me if this is incorrect), this material brings out important information about how and why the East and West Florida Seminaries came to be (these became the flagship universities of Florida State University and the University of Florida), and why Florida was divided by early leaders. This sentence accurately, referenced, and concisely illustrates the early view of Florida by both Federal and State leaders. Additionally, this historically relevant information is formative in Florida politics generally since higher education in Florida shows how Florida turned from a rough territory into what is now one of the fastest-growing states in the United States. Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reviewing your changes and am generally fine with your revisions. You are making the article better - thank you! Wikipedia is a time suck, so it will take a while for me to make corrections and continue the review.Sirberus (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rewrote the marine research article. Kindly advise if more is required. I will wait a few days for your response. If I don't hear from you I will remove the tag you placed and replace the sentence of discussion. Thanks again for improving the article!Sirberus (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the approach you're taking (in both cases) is not going to address the problem. The original was copied almost directly from an external source. Your revision creates a derivative work of that external content, which still can't be used. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Rewriting_content has some guidance on how to approach this instead. Note also that these are examples only, not a complete list. I've opened a CCI request concerning an editor who worked extensively on this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, let's hope the other editor can help. What I did was to rewrite the text based on my interpretation of the original. It was not a mere paraphrase, the personality of the original author is gone. I don't see that as derivative, as I relied on my education and experience. However, let's see what results from the skilled editor.
    You seem to have skipped over my first question - can we resolve that small matter? Thank you!Sirberus (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed it because the details of what treaty accomplished this are misplaced in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Florida leaders of that era thought of Florida in east and west terms, resulting from the A-O Treaty. Congressional records show the desire for a "University of Florida" by reserving two townships in east and west Florida in 1836. The 1836 document was signed by Francis Eppes, among others, who later would be the mayor of Tallahassee and the first leader of the West Seminary, which evolved into what is known today as Florida State University, though it was also titled in state law the University of Florida in the post-Civil War period. This link may be a clearer to the origins of West-East Florida. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/florida. I think it makes sense to show why there were two seminaries and how the concept developed. The references to this are already in the history section of the article. Sirberus (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you removed “research university” from the first sentence of the page? This seems inconsistent with the style used on the pages for all other major research universities. TravelsWithCharley (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • The delisting editor (Real4jyy) shows up and says the reason the delisting was made is that no additional edits were made in two weeks...while the two active editors were waiting for a subject matter expert in non-free material to contribute to the review. Pardon me, but I live in the real world, and Wikipedia is a low priority for me and others who want to make Wikipedia better. It may takes months to finish the work. Frankly, the pattern of this individual appears to be to move from one GA review to another and delist whatever falls under their cursor. That is absurd. It takes substantial work to bring an article to GA status. I suggest if any editor want the authority to delist a GA, they should at least bring an article to the GA standard first.Sirberus (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copyright violations in articles are a GAN quickfail criterion, Sirberus. You will note that WP:COPYRIGHT, a policy with legal implications, is just as much a part of "the real world" as whatever you consider not "low priority". Sitting around "waiting for a non-free expert to contribute" is not acceptable (I don't know where you got that—Nikkimaria didn't say anything of the sort would happen), and if you truly want to make Wikipedia better you would let the article be delisted and take the months to finish the work yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • AirshipJungleman29, I suspect that was based on my mention of opening a CCI request - that request has now been opened but given the backlog it might take some time for it to be fully actioned. It covers considerable content in this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I am looking through what SeminoleNation added, but what data specificailly is the problem? If you cannot be more specific, what percentage is of concern? Help me identify and eliminate problem text.Sirberus (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Nikkimaria Just to be clear, I see you are targeting a user's contributions, not this article. Your report to CCI covers many different additions and edits a single user made to perhaps as many as four or more different articles, related in some way to FSU. Let's simplify this to the article at hand - the other edits in other articles are beyond my concern at this time. Help me to identify what is a problem in the main FSU article. Then we can (or I can, your choice) correct the issues and AirshipJungleman29 can weigh in as I appreciate all the work he's done in Wikipedia (sans the snark). Sirberus (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        We should note that Good Article Nomination is not Good Article Reassessment. Once a Good Article, the effort is to preservation. Achieving GA status is not easy as you well know. I will not let it go if I can fix it.Sirberus (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • AirshipJungleman29 I will not sink the GA status of the article for the sake of the two questioned paragraphs. The two paragraphs can be deleted if indeed they are a violation of copyright, which I tend to doubt, absent some verification. And if we refer to GAR process we note that delisting is perhaps the last action to take, with emphasis first on correction and preservation. Out of respect for the process Nikkimaria started I was waiting for input.
        Nikkimaria, how are you determining the two questioned paragraphs are burdened? What process are you using? If I can corroborate that status, I will delete suspect material today. Or, shall we continue to wait? Sirberus (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what you mean by "burdened" here. I provided above sample comparisons showing copying between the article and external sources, and a link to a page that explains how to address that. I do want to emphasis though that these are samples only, not a comprehensive listing. Essentially at this point someone needs to go through the entire article to eliminate copied and closely paraphrased content, and unfortunately that's not a quick or easy process. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Being burdened means having a problem. Let's start with your first concern - the two paragraphs you identified. Who is to judge when it's not a derivative work? Let's then clear the article by section. Once the initial concern is resolved, we can move to the top (lede) and work down. Sirberus (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If rewriting is to occur, that might be a good opportunity to shift lead-exclusive information into the body and handle the unsourced text scattered here and there. I've removed an odd paragraph stating the university was building generic university facilities and trying to make campus look visually appealing. CMD (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I saw your edit and appreciate the culling. The article has accumulated much chaff over time and it is time to clean it up. Sirberus (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FTR I've now requested a CCI for a second editor involved in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up. But that is not this article. I suspect copying and pasting text from other sources is common across Wikipedia especially among young editors, because it is easy. That's why preservation is important here, it took me a lot of work to collect sources and render referenced information for this work.Sirberus (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found an online tool to detect plagiarism and tested it. In the last History section you deleted this text:
    By 1854 the City of Tallahassee had established a school for boys called the Florida Institute, with the hope that the State could be induced to take it over as a seminary. In 1856, Tallahassee Mayor Francis W. Eppes again offered the institute's land and building to the legislature. The bill to locate the Seminary in Tallahassee was signed by the Governor on January 1, 1857. On February 7, 1857, the first meeting of the Board of Education of the State Seminary West of the Suwannee River was held, and the institution began offering post-secondary instruction to male students. Francis Eppes served as the Seminary's Board of Education president for eight years.[2] In 1858 the seminary absorbed the Tallahassee Female Academy, established in 1843, and became coeducational.[3]
    The tool gives a percentage score to other sources. In the tool, it scores this as 43% matches an FSU source. I can seek permission of the university to use this and other material. But what percentage is acceptable? Can we agree to use this method to clean the work? Are you good with FSU giving permission in a fashion acceptable to Wikipedia?
    This as interesting history which I intend to correct and replace, however it evolves. Especially about the battle streamer earned by the cadets during the Civil War. What are your thoughts?Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what percentage is acceptable? Unfortunately, there isn't one. Automated tools can be helpful for catching word-for-word copying of freely accessible English-language web sources. But they will frequently flag correctly marked appropriately sized direct quotes or proper names, and miss close paraphrasing or copying of less-accessible sources. This page has more details (focused on one such tool but generally applicable). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In refreshing myself in this area, Wikipedia has many helpful references. I see straightforward ways to cure suspected non-free material in this article.
    * Delete the material.
    * Reference the material.
    * Rewrite the material.
    * Get permission to use the material.
    * Use a combination of the above, especially in the History section, where the material is so old copyrights have expired. Sirberus (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Referencing the material is a solution only where the material is so old copyrights have expired. If all of the affected sources are willing to freely license the content, that might be another. But failing that, the solution is delete and start again (not rewrite from the existing content). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am rewriting some sections of the history. It may be the easiest to deal with due to the age of the material. Fortunately, I have many of the the references on hand.Sirberus (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately not at this point - while great progress has been made on one CCI, there's at least one more that impacts this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What user?Sirberus (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was thinking of this one, but even that might not be the end of the story - the piece I removed today was not from either of those two CCIs. I should also note that in doing spotchecks, I'm running into a lot of cases where the citations given are not copied but also don't support the material they are claimed to. I'm not sure whether that's because a different source was used originally (as was the case for at least some of the copying), or whether uncited material was interspersed with cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This article has picked up a lot of stuff over the years and was written mostly before Wikipedia copyvios were closely followed (before Wikipedia started trying to monetize things?). It has also been edited over time. The entire work should be checked. Back then, citations were manually entered, and citing material properly took a lot of work (remember Kate Turabian’s book? - lol). Today, there is an automated process that simplifies cites. I want to preserve GA status. It will be cleaned up one way or another. Sirberus (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sirberus, as this article contains significant uncited material, many WP:GACR-relevant tags such as {{failed verification}}, {{clarification needed}} and {{cleanup gallery}}, not to mention the concerns about non-free material usage, it will be delisted as a GA unless significant improvement is made within the near future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I have corrected a number of cites and added cites where tags were located. I think the non-free material has been removed, unless other editors think more culling is required. The gallery was a mess and I removed anyone not elected or fired into space at taxpayer expense. What else? Sirberus (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of additional edits, checks and rewrites. I scanned the article for additional copyvios and found none. Removed the Non-Free tag.Sirberus (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other problems need to be addressed? I'll keep tweaking, but I need objective assistance.Sirberus (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created page for FSU College of Applied Studies - waiting for review. Sirberus (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove a failed verification tag when the paragraph is not verified by the citation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed several FV and CN tags after I have addressed the assorted problems, like a page number problem. If you have a concern with the cite itself, please be more specific. What else needs to be done? Thanks for taking the time.Sirberus (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does any other editor have comments on this reassessment? I'd like to wrap this up.Sirberus (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there still seem to be verifiability issues. Couple of quick examples: "Doak Campbell Stadium is a unique venue for collegiate athletics. It is contained within the brick facade walls of University Center, the largest continuous brick structure in the world" - the given source states "Doak Campbell Stadium is the largest continuous brick structure in the United States"; "In 2008, the lower floor reopened as the graduate- and faculty-focused Scholars Commons. In 2010, the main floor was transformed into an undergraduate-focused Learning Commons. The most recent renovation added smart study rooms, an enlarged computer area, new circulation areas, a tutoring center, and the nation's first double-sided Starbucks" is cited to a source that verifies only "the nation's first double-sided Starbucks"; "The NSF denied the appeal, explaining that the superior enthusiasm for and commitment to the project demonstrated by Florida State led to the decision to relocate the lab" is cited to a source that confirms the appeal was denied but doesn't say anything about the NSF reasoning for why. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great - this is what I need. I will correct those issues. Thanks!Sirberus (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done - do you see anything else? I've been cleaning up a lot of the article as I see problems. Sirberus (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does any other editor see anything which is not GA level? I want to wrap this up. Sirberus (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cites added to things which could reasonably be challenged. Graphics added to improve presentation. Grammar and clarity checked fine. Any reasonably cognizable copyvio material has been removed. Old data and references deleted. Excess alumni graphics trimmed to elected officials and astronauts. Any tags placed by other editors have been addressed. Anything else? In my opinion, unless someone has an issue I don't see, GA status should be affirmed. Sirberus (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still failing verification on spotchecks. For example, "In 1992, Holton patented an improved process with an 80% yield" - don't see any of that at the given source. Also missing citations, particularly in the alumni section which seems to be largely unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out exactly where you find problems. The alumni section is of questionable value...Sirberus (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the Holton reference. That's been updated. The alumni section may have to be mostly offloaded to a non-good article page...do you have any suggestions? Sirberus (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking other Good Article major universities I find a similar situation - some aren't verifying all the vast claims allegedly made by their alumni. At least [one doesn't verify anything]. [| This university] has done a good job with alumni referencing. Note how short the section is. But this pattern is also common: [| BYU], [| MIT], [| Syracuse U.], [| U Miami], [| U No. Dakota]...
So what do you consider a problem in a Good Article university alumni/people section? Which way should I go with this? Sirberus (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a start, poor-quality prose with missing or incorrect punctuation or clearly uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Let me see if I can make things better with organization and some trimming. Frankly, I'd like to delete this section. The other Good Article-rated universites retain it, but I question the value.Sirberus (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went radical and dumped the ever-growing list. Please take a look and see if this will work. The special pages set up for this list are a far better location to document all these people. Sirberus (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will pause work to see how this rework is received. Sirberus (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comments on the "People" section? Any other problems to fix? I think it (People section) looks better, but I am not sure of the final configuration. I'll continue to tweak other aspects of the article, but can we pass this and wrap this up?Sirberus (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comments generally? Do we have a Good Article? Sirberus (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again hitting verifiability issues on spotchecks. Examples: "A Mysterious Clarity. It debuted at the 621 Gallery in 2004 (Tallahassee, Florida), and by popular demand, quickly evolved into a traveling show" is cited to a source that confirms this show was at that gallery in 2004 but not that that was a debut or if/why that later became a traveling show; "the ROTC unit at Florida State University is one of four collegiate military units with permission to display a battle streamer" does not appear in the given source at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the battle streamer and one of four ROTC units here's the corroboration in the listed cite: 1861-65 – During the Civil War, formal military training began at the seminary and it was briefly renamed The Florida Military and Collegiate Institute. Cadets from the institute defeated Union forces at the Battle of Natural Bridge on March 6, 1865, and because of this victory, the FSU Army ROTC is one of four in the United States permitted to display a battle streamer. That is clear enough in my opinion. However, here is a more detailed reference from another school (The Citadel) authorized to display battle streamers: As a result of actions on the battlefield by The Battalion of State Cadets, The Citadel earned the right to post nine “institutional” battle streamers for “significant participation in a battle of historical importance.” Only VMI (one “institutional” streamer), Florida State, William & Mary and Univ. of Hawaii Army ROTC units (each with one) have also been authorized that right. The national service academies post the battle streamers of their respective services, but none for “institutional” participation by the cadet corps. I'll add the cite, but it's overkill.
I'll concede the art claim as being weakly supported by the cite and not worth trying to find a better one. I deleted it. I also found a tag which I fixed, about the MoFA.
Anything else? Sirberus (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue to work through the references and update old material. Your primary assertion was copyvio material, which is now gone. Do you see any big stuff remaining? Sirberus (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged numerous uncited statements. I also notice excessive MOS:OVERSECTION and MOS:SANDWICHing (although I don't believe the latter is part of the GA criteria). There are many unreliable references in the article—I see Wordpress, Blogspot, and five Facebook citations. I also note that dozens of the citations are to non-independent references, which are obviously substandard compared to independent sources and may compromise WP:NPOV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address the references - if needed. Perfect references are not required for a Good Article. I also don't see MOS standards mandated in a Good Article. There are no website standards in the Good Article criteria either, but while desirable, and I'll work towards better presentation and cite quality none of that should stop recertification as a Good Article. Great suggestions, though. Sirberus (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not suggestions... "I also don't see MOS standards mandated" it's literally on the second line! Criterion 1b) states quite clearly that a GA must comply with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT (in which you may find MOS:OVERSECTION), MOS:WTW, MOS:WAF, and MOS:EMBED. Criterion 2b) requires that all information in a GA is cited, and that reliable sources are used. Seriously, did you even bother to read the criteria Sirberus? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. I did skip over the MOS part in the criteria, mea culpa. I'll take a look. Sirberus (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I reworked the lede and checked the style and it was clunky. I reworked it and am open to suggestions about how it may be improved from here. However, this is still a reassessment, which has turned into a major rework. The assorted cites from lesser quality sources are going to have to be selected out carefully. Everything does not rate an article in the WSJ. Show me the ones you consider to be the worst of the lot and I will either delete the statement or replace the cite. Sirberus (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RSP, WP:SPS, and the sources I mentioned above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have the dubious cites removed. Let me know if you catch one I missed. Sirberus (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we done? Sirberus (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article now substantially comports with GA standards and should be re-approved for GA status. No, it's not perfect, mainly because the cites for many salient details covered in the article come from FSU news articles. No one has shown me the FSU factual information in their news blasts is misleading or otherwise incorrect, so I say they are fine until a workaround is found for more independent citations. Sirberus (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with basing entire sections on only non-independent sources is that there is no way to tell if the information is WP:UNDUE—because the balance of the article is not based on reliable sources. As it stands, the entirety of the "Campus" section is sourced only to non-independent sources—the article currently does not justify why it is necessary! The {{third-party}} banner I have placed is unquestionably valid, and it would be eligible for quickfailing at a GAN per criterion 3. No, we are very far from done, as the article is very imperfect; every time I look at it I find something wrong, and it would greatly help if you bothered to go look for things to fix yourself. Otherwise, I'll probably just give up and !vote delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this WP:FIXLOOP is getting quite exhausting, and we're all volunteers here. Ping me when you believe this article meets the GA criteria, and I'll have a read through and !vote on whether it should be kept or deleted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the tags you placed. I am tired of this as well, but I want this article to be GA. So I am not giving up on it. I got it through once...I'll do it again. The third-party banner for a state university...I think is unwarranted. That's like there any other authority you'd believe to produce campus maps more than the university - who has a duty to oversee the properties. However, point taken and I'll see what I can do to improve it. So much crap crept into the article over the years. I have nearly rewritten the entire article to address your reviews. Not to mention the massive changes on campus since I was a student in the 1970s. I have spent hours tracking facts and then writing something people will read, and relearning how to make it work on Wikipedia. It's work. Sirberus (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I'll give you a heads up when I'm finished. Sirberus (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the loop you describe is an iterative improvement process, and I am not afraid of the hard work. It is reality in a complex environment. And we're both volunteers. I think the article is vastly better than it was when we started. I haven't done much on Wikipedia in years and have forgotten much, but I'll keep at it. The automated routines make things like cites a little easier. But the paywalls for good information are a pain and require constant workarounds. Sirberus (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU to all who have corrected my inept edits and errors. I see the work and am grateful for the work! GA or not, this article is better than it was. Sirberus (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is ready for review. Nikkimaria ~~ AirshipJungleman29 TravelsWithCharley StefenTower GreenLipstickLesbian Melchior2006 Beer4me ElKevbo Ira_Leviton Chipmunkdavis Real4jyy Sirberus (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still running into failed-verification issues. For example, "Dix became the first person to hold the individual title in the 100 m, 200 m, and 400 m at the same time" does not appear in the cited source, nor does "Jimbo Fisher succeeded Bowden as head coach in 2010, winning a national championship in 2013 before departing to join Texas A&M after the 2017 season", nor does "normally holds a capacity of 1,600 people" etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. I added more cites and deleted peacock text. Sirberus (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything else which is material? I'll keep updating the small things as I see them. Sirberus (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Dix piece still fails verification: the provided sources confirm he has won titles in 100m and 200m but say nothing about him being the first to do so. (Also not sure why that whole section focuses on 2006/07?) Other examples of failed-verification issues that we're still hitting are the list of intercollegiate sports and the hymn composer. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another look:

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

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

I vote Keep As Good Article. The Section 2b reliability of the sources cited has not been shown to be unreliable, even if they are esoteric to the academic criteria of a particular state university. Every other source outside the university relies on data from the university. I will add cites as necessary to items which would reasonably be challenged, or delete any which cannot be confirmed. In my view the article substantially complies with all GA criteria. Sirberus (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GAR coordinators: this GAR needs closing, please come to a decision. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the proponent of the GAR cited "non-free" material in the article, which has been removed. Then the proponent moved to unreliable citations, which have all been corrected. A second editor wrote of other deficiencies, all of which have been corrected during the GAR. The entire article has been nearly rewritten as a result. The criticism has become nit-picking after the corrections. GAs aren't perfect, they are "good". Thanks again to all editors who have helped with productive criticism make the article better. Sirberus (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirberus: With respect, the lack of independent sources is not nit-picking. They are a very valid reason to delist the article. Unless you think you can largely reduce the reliance on them, and cite the college foundation as mentioned within a reasonable timeline, this article will have to be delisted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly show me the cites of concern. I'll see what I can do. Sirberus (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on what AJ has listed: C/S Funding - add cites; Research - need independent verification; Org & Admin - Need independent verification; Student Life - need independent verification. Agreed? Sirberus (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I appreciate the assistance. The article is far better now. Sirberus (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to noticing breaches the NPOV policy, non-negotiable for all articles as "nit-picking" is laughable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it between the lines, AJ. We all want the article improved. It's far better now thanks to your help. To me, at times, it seems the goal posts keep being moved. However, I want to keep it GA, so I'll keep working. Sirberus (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Maia arson crimew

edit

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: Seems to be the general attitude. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(this is my first time submitting a GAR, please bear with me.)

1. Well-written:

a. the prose may not be clear to a broad audience, as it may not meet WP:TECHNICAL. (although this may be unavoidable due to the article's topics, it could use more explanation of important terms/concepts or rewording, mainly in parts other than the lead section)

b. WP:LEAD: "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I think this particularly applies to the second paragraph, whose final sentence already appears in the article.

2. Verifiable with no original research: fine, I think

3. Broad in its coverage:

a. Prior to my edit, this article contained no mention of crimew's involvement with music, despite her (currently, at least) describing herself as a musician and DJ on social media and on her personal website linked in the article. Although she is majorly known for her hacking activities, she does have a presence/reputation within various online communities as a DJ, and I feel that the article doesn't cover this at all.

b. With WP:SS in mind, the sectioning of this article feels like it could use some improvement, perhaps with some clearer separation between hacking activities / legal history / personal life and activities.

4. Neutral: I don't see much issue with the article here, although I'm unsure whether the article unduly focuses on statements from the subject herself.

5. Stable: fine

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Media in the article fulfils (a.) and (b.), but is majorly lacking. RhymeWrens (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are rather loose criticisms and I'm not seeing an identification of any major problems. This article is not a featured article but a good article, where the standards are considerably lower.
This is not really what GAR is for. Have you brought up these concerns on the talk page? That probably should have been your first step. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to try and clarify any criticisms I made that were loose/vague. I'm well aware this is not a featured article, and I simply thought that this article did not currently meet the "considerably lower" standards of the GA criteria.
I apologize if this is not what GAR is for, but I don't know what would be the correct action to suggest this article's GA status be reconsidered. If you're simply saying that the problems I pointed out are insignificant, I guess that's valid, but are they not relevant to the criteria? Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm still pretty inexperienced with navigating Wikipedia), but this talk page says that this article was self-nominated for GA in 2021 and its GA status hasn't been reviewed since 2021.
I will admit that I never much considered posting something to the talk page before submitting a GAR, and I apologize for not doing so; I now get the impression that it's much more of an assertive/definitive action than a simple request for reconsideration. RhymeWrens (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your last evaluation is spot on; GAR is really for egregious issues that need to be addressed with more immediacy by many of the community. Practically all GAs (and FAs) are self nominated; 2021 is pretty recent for a GA, if you scroll through other GAR nominations, you'll find mostly articles pre-2015, oftentimes from 2006–2008 (those are the really bad ones).
For example, check out Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pipe organ/1 from 2006. Entire uncited paragraphs, bloated messy content, unreliable sources etc. It was even worse when nominated [31] but our standards have increased a lot since then.
This isn't to say that your concerns are not valid, or indeed that you did anything wrong, but I hope it gives some more context to a process like this. From what it sounds like, you seem to have a grasp of the subject matter, so perhaps take a crack at some of the issues yourself. In any case, the original nominator, Vaticidalprophet is an excellent editor, and I'm sure they'd be happy to work with you. Aza24 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Aza24 that GAR is for major issues, issues so large that they would drive a reviewer to quickly fail a nomination rather than recommend improvements. I'm relatively new to the GAR process, having only opened two a few months ago; of these one had major problems with completeness and unreliable sources and the other cited unreliable sources and had even plagiarised from some. Of what you've mentioned here, it seems like these issues could be addressed by either editing the article yourself or at least discussing it with the primary author. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can try addressing these issues myself, though given that I don't exactly have the time and definitely not the skill to confidently bring this article to fully meeting the GAC, I'm indeed probably better off trying to bring these concerns to other authors' attention (and evidently doing so through a GAR was the wrong way to go). Thanks RhymeWrens (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I think this GAR should probably be dismissed/closed. Don't worry too much about it, it's a complicated website haha 222emilia222 (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_77&oldid=1232084387"