| Revision as of 01:24, 29 April 2007 view sourceJohntex (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,715 edits →[]: Reply to IvoShandor← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:11, 24 May 2024 view source AirshipJungleman29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors43,099 edits →Articles needing possible reassessment: clear | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Process of quality control review}} | |||
| <!--{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| {{PP|small=yes}}{{Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations/Tab header}} | |||
| |}<!-- --> | |||
| <div style="padding:0em 0em 1em 0em">'']''</div> | |||
| {| | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/guidelines}}<!--Full text of nearly entire page--> | |||
| | width="100%" style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf; padding:1em 1em 1em 1em; background-color:#ABCDEF"| | |||
| {{shortcut|]<BR>]}} | |||
| The '''Good article review''' page is a place where Wikipedians discuss if ] listed articles still merits their ] status, contesting former GA's that someone may think was improperly delisted, or request feedback on articles that have not yet been promoted. | |||
| Articles on this list are graded against the ] in which an article is checked to be at the GA-Class grade on the ]. It is not necessary to go through this process unless there is a dispute about the article's status. '''<u>This is not a Peer Review Process;</u>''' for that see ]. | |||
| |} | |||
| {| style="clear:both; background:none; color:black;" | |||
| {| | |||
| | width="50%" style="padding:1em 1em 1em 1em; border:1px solid #dfdfdf; background-color:#E0EDFA" valign="top"| | |||
| <span style="font-size:14pt">If you believe an article should be delisted</span> | |||
| ] | |||
| If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the ], then you can '''delist''' it: | |||
| # Check that you have logged in, anons may not delist articles. | |||
| # Check the ''']''' to see which criteria it fails to meet. | |||
| # If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to ] and fix it yourself. | |||
| # If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s). If possible, put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See ]. | |||
| # If you see an article on the GA list which clearly fails the ] , you can delist it and remove it from the list at ] immediately. To do this remove the {{tl|GA}} tag on the article's talk page and put in its place {{]|{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}. <u>'''Do not use'''</u> {{tl|FailedGA}}. | |||
| # Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. | |||
| # Remove the article from the list at ]. | |||
| If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to '''review''' the situation by adding the article to the list below. Please check that you have logged in, notify the editors in the article's talk page that it is under review, and provide a link to the ] before listing the article here. | |||
| | valign="top" style="padding:1em; border:1px solid #dfdfdf; background-color:#E0EDFA" | | |||
| <span style="font-size:14pt">If you believe an article should be listed</span> | |||
| ] | |||
| If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the ] page straight away. | |||
| # Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page. | |||
| # If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the ], you can just ''']''' it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! | |||
| # However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfill all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to '''review''' it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish ] on whether the criteria are met, and whether it should be listed as a Good Article. | |||
| |} | |||
| {{Template:Process header blue | |||
| | title = Good article review | |||
| | section = (archive) | |||
| | previous = | |||
| | next = (]) | |||
| | shortcut = | |||
| | notes = | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ==Articles needing possible reassessment== | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/notices given}} | |||
| {{see also|Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Sweeps 2023}} | |||
| The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{tl|GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page. | |||
| {{User:AnomieBOT/C/Good articles in need of review}} | |||
| *{{#time:H:i:s, d/m/Y}}: Current date for reference | |||
| The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a ], please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. | |||
| ==Articles needing reviewing (add new articles at the top)== | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| :'''Note: Please remember to put a note on the article's talk page informing editors that it has been brought to ] for review and possible delisting of its ] status. Include <nowiki>]</nowiki> in the section heading.''' | |||
| <!-- Add new articles below this line --> | |||
| <!-- But don't even think about adding a new article below his line until you've added a notice on the relevant article's talk page. See text above --> | |||
| <!-- And when a discussion is over, there are archives that reviews should go into.--> | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This article has been listed as a GA candidate for a month. Today, an editor failed the article without a review. Their reason was that more information will become available at some point in the future, so they failed the article. | |||
| The GA criteria states | |||
| <blockquote>5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.</blockquote> | |||
| This article meets that criteria because it '''is''' stable. | |||
| The idea that more information will become available in the future is not a reason to fail it now. If the article makes GA now and then becomes unstable later, it can be delisted later. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and it is improper to fail this article on the basis of something that might happen in the future. | |||
| As of today, the article is informative, and I think it passes all the GA criteria. I ask that the article be given its GA review based upon what the article is today and what is known today about the topic. ]\<sup>]</sup> 16:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment'''. I am the editor who failed this. I hesitated, because as Johntex says the GA criteria do not make it absolutely clear that the reason I gave for failing it was legitimate. I was also influenced by ] of Raul654's, on FAC talk, indicating what the original FA criterion of stability was intended to govern. Of course he's talking about FAC, but the concern seems to arise for GA too. | |||
| :I'm not going to vote to support or reverse my fail; either outcome seems reasonable. However, I'd also like to see discussion of the GA stability criterion and what the boundaries are. Raul654 made it clear that he judges the Virginia Tech massacre article to be unstable. What counts as unstable for GA? ] ] 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Reply''' Hi Mike, thank you very much for your note. As you say, it will be good to talk this out a little and see what the consensus is. | |||
| ::I am of the opinion that if an article is stable today but might change in the future, that we should review it on the basis of what it is today. Otherwise, we may as well delist ] and ] and for that matter we may as well take away FA from ]. We will undoubtably learn more about these topics in the future and in fact we have probes at or on the way to Mars and Pluto right now. I admit this is not a perfect analogy, but I do think it helps to illustrate what an article should be judged for what it is today, and for what is happening to the article today. | |||
| ::I think the "stability" criteria is more about whether the article is changing too fast for the GA reviewer to decide what version to review, and whether (once reviewed) the article will just immediately change to fall out of GA standard. That is not likely to happen here for several months at a minimum. | |||
| ::In the best case, GA standards will be maintained in this article through the whole season. It really only takes one or two well-written updates a week. At worst case, the article could be delisted if/when it no longer makes the criteria. | |||
| ::Anyway, thanks for your note and your opinion. I don't take it personally that you failed it, and I am glad you don't take it personally that I asked for a review. ]\<sup>]</sup> 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment''': Hi John, no hard feelings I hope. I am on the fence about these types of articles. It is hard to say they will be stable when off-season develops are as frequent as they are in football. I think I am going to remain '''neutral''' on this one. I don't think the reviewer was totally wrong, this is kind of a gray area. We had a similar discussion concerning ], an unreleased video game, I believe its failure was endorsed. ] 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, on stability. A science article (or any academic type article) isn't unstable because of new discoveries, mainly because in the academic world, new discoveries don't just flood the publications. They are carefully reviewed as opposed to being released at a rate that someone documenting the topic and reviewing said documentation for certain criteria wouldn't be able to keep up with it. With Spore, above that was the case, it couldn't be kept up with because there was ever changing speculation about the release date. With an article about a future football season, its hard to say. They have a spring game of some sort, certainly, when do they start practice? July? What happens before that? Camps? Something to be sure. Like I say this is hard to judge but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibilities that an article mostly about a topic that hasn't really taken place or come together yet could be considered unstable. ] 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Reply''' - the spring practices and spring scrimmage is done. Nothing happens during the summer unless some unexpected event happens. Practices resume in August. ]\<sup>]</sup> 01:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''endorse fail''' At issue here is the problem that the article is largely incomplete. It's not like 1 or 2 changes are expected in the future, as new information arises. The 2007 season has not even been played yet. This article can ONLY contain speculation and very little else. Give it 9 months. Misplaced Pages is in no rush. Look, the Longhorns have played HOW many seasons? If it is THAT important to the nom to get a Longhorn article to GA status, work on improving one for which the information IS complete. Looking at GA and FA, there are no other Longhorn season articles that have been elevated. Why not work on the 2006 season or any other? Give this one time, and in January, when the season is done, renominate it to GA status.--]|]|] 17:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Respectfully, the article contains NO speculation. The article contains only known, published, verifiable information about the scheduled games and historical information about these teams involved; such as their starting rankigns. ]\<sup>]</sup> 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse fail''' Ordinarily, i'd probably support this kind of article because changes would likely come incrementally as the season progresses, however, in this case, the actual team itself isn't even known, since there's no roster. If the roster was extant, (Even just the names of the players, positions I could understand not being known yet until very close to game time) then I think it would be compleate enough to count as sufficiently broad, but otherwise, well, its not really your fault, but it just doesn't seem to cover everything that an article on a sports team should cover. Get that roster and reference it to the level of the rest of the article, and i'd support this for GA status, even if the season is upcoming. ] 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The roster is an interesting point. It is generally released very near to the start of the season so I do have to wait a bit on that. ]\<sup>]</sup> 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This article was delisted by ] with the accompanying edit summary: ''removed 'The Holocaust' as article does not address Ownership of the Holocaust''. I found this insuffcient, notified the user, reverted the changes and listed the article here. I have invited Alex to explain why this article should be delisted here. ] 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The article fails to address a key issue. Ownership of the Holocaust. The article in its present form does not address this issue at all. This fact means it to be in my opinion B Class with need of a major overhaul. It would be a good article to be featured were it brought up to standard due to the subject matter. | |||
| The article intimates the Holocaust to be a mainly Jewish event. Both the cultural and historical understanding can differ from this position. The article fails to address the two two key positions on the subject, deciding it to be a Jewish tradegy and acknowledging that others died. Motive versus mechanics argument not even addressed. ] 12:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' ] had repeatedly made this claim on the talk page but when asked to provide sources, has failed to give any evidence whatever for a scholarly debate on Ownership (apparently it has to have a capital O). ] has not contributed to this debate, nor has he sought to add anything relevant. We need evidence that "Ownership" is a real issue of debate before adding it. Instant deletion from GA staus on a whim of a single editor is surely not acceptable. ] 13:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''': I don't know what you mean by ownership, that is definitely not the right terminology. Secondly the whole second paragraph of the lead is devoted to what you claim to be absent, Alex's assertions are requiring the citations from what I can see. ] 13:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Ownership is the academic term referring to which mutually exclusive understanding of the term 'The Holocaust' to which one is referring. The motive to kill, or the executions themselves in simple terms. ] 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you. I just finished reading the talk page. I was unfamiliar with the term, what a bizarre choice of word. ] 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Keep''' - Debate over whether or not to include one concept (still somewhat poorly defined in the Talk page) does not negate the fact that the article is stable, neutral, well written, broad based, etc. I don't see how the aforementioned concept keeps this article from meeting ], especially given the content that IvoShandor pointed out. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***The second paragraph is there, but the assertion that 'The Holocaust' is ... the killing of approximately six million European Jews. This is offensive to many. The article not fully addressing that it is understood by many throughout the world both academically and culturally as the murders by the Nazis in the camps. (I don't include the likes of Iranian Presidents and other anti-semites). Following the opening up of Soviet files and British declassification of files, it is believed that the mechanics over the motives is the most prevalently held position in the academic community. ] 13:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::But not by others. Personally, I lean towards a more inclusive definition, but, again, where does the article fall short under ]? ]<sup>]</sup> 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*'''Comment''': This really sounds like a content dispute more than any reason it doesn't meet the ], GAs are not FAs and not subject to the stringent requirements there. The article does indeed consistently talk about other groups who were murdered. That is suffcient for GA, IMO. ] 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] repeats almost word-for-word Londo06's bizarre assertions that this mysterious Ownership debate has emerged "following the opening up of Soviet files and British declassification of files". I fail to see the relevance of these uspecified files, which has never been explained by Londo06. I suspect sockpuppetry. ] 13:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I would think it would be more like the facts being out there in the real world. Themes being discussed by academics and social commentators alike. The ownership theme is perhaps the major debate of the recent past. I would suggest reading works by the likes of Laurence Rees on Auschwitz. Also accept that the Soviet Union is gone and that files allowed much work on the Nazi atrocities to be done and that the British declassify information in line with the law. This is common knowledge.] 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The intricate details of specific 60 year old government documents of the former Soviet Union and the United Kingdom are hardly "common knowledge". Give links to the papers and explanations of why they make the current two paragraph def invalid on the article's talk page, not here. The article does include fairly extensive coverage of non-Jews killed during the Holocaust. That it lacks it in the opening sentence is not grounds for removing it from the Good Article list. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Some of the copyrighted images need fair use rationales or more detailed ones. --] 17:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' This is a small, fringe issue and its lack of inclusion does NOT make this delistable. If the person who is argueing that the information should be included, and they have references, ''they are invited to ] and add it themselves''. However, this small, fringe, accademic issue does not seem to make the article not a Good Article. There is nothing wrong with the article as-is. Keep it. --]|]|] 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Peer Review needed''' The issue of where people were killed is an issue. If you were killed in camp, not being Jewish you are included, but are deemed a 2nd class victim. If you are a Jew killed outside the camps then there are people who say that murder is part of the Holocaust. And a Communist under the same circumstances is not. | |||
| **I thought this was the only argument about the Holocaust. Is it the Final Solution or the Holocaust. The article seems to be confusing the two. Could be me, I am neither Jewish or a Professor, but to me THE Holocaust was the organised killings in the camps. ] 19:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Don't know if I'm allowed to include this on this page. ] 19:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*'''Comment''': Second class victim? Okay this discussion needs to relate to the GA review, not semantics or content disputes, this isn't a peer review process. We are here to decide if this article meets ], no one yet has given any reason that it doesn't, please try to stay on topic. ] 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This was one of my first GAs, it was passed by ] without a review, though he said he reviewed it and would post comments eventually. I wonder if it is up to GA, if you vote delist, please provide a rationale as I will attempt to fix any and all concerns raised during the review. Thanks. ] 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Neutral''': per nom. ] 12:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' I see no problems, and although there's only six refs, all of them are highly reliable and inline cited clearly. Might want to wikilink that weird term in the intro about the main development this observatory helped with, that astronomical photowhatsit thing. ] 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Wikilinked. Whosawhatsit. ] 17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' A fine article, meets all criteria. The refs should probably all have retrieval dates, but that is a small issue, and not worth delisting now. Just fix that. Looks fine to me. --]|]|] 17:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*References now properly formatted. ] 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I believe this article does meet the GA criteria. It lacks many citations, and the Lead has information that is not in the main body of the article. Clarkson's early years are limited to only ''two short sentences'', and many sentences like "Clarkson is most associated with the British motoring programme" without facts is POV. A lot of (short) paragraphs read like ]. The references section should also be looked at for the right formatting style, and if they actually are references, or just filler. ] 11:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Speedy</s> Delist''': End is listy, badly structured (too many short sections). weak lead, one sentence paragraphs. Not very broad, bio section way too short, unless he was really young which he isn't. Numerous citation needed tags, not nearly referenced enough. Fails GA criteria #1, #2 and #3. ] 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''': The article is comprehensively referenced, and even a cursory examination of the citation needed tags indicates that many of them are spurious (in several cases, a "citation needed" tag appears in the same paragraph as a citation for the relevant material). I see only minor issues here (eg, the laundry lists), which should be worked out on the talk page. Interestingly, a number of the short paragraphs were introduced by the nominator, immediately after he inappropriately replaced the article's free image with a fair use image. ] 12:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''':Nandesuka actually works on the article, so his opinion is biased. I did split the Lead into three sections (to show what was needed) moved a couple of references to the end of sentences, and I put a fair use image on the page, which was reverted (no problem at all). This review is supposed to be conducted by neutral editors. ] 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::My rationale is a bit different but I stand by my original vote minus the speedy, it appears to be quite unstable at the moment. ] 13:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sort this out on the talk page and I'll change my vote to keep. ] 13:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am just not sure which version I should be reviewing, which is why I still say delist. ] 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Weak Keep''' The version I see right now looks GA-like. The section on Engineering needs some clean-up, but on the balance this seems a fine article. If there are real stability problems (and not just minor fixes but real content disputes) than maybe a 1-month cool off period to see if it can be stabilized, but other than the non-encyclopedic tone of the Engineering section, it looks fine.--]|]|] 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| First of all as the lead says, this article is a list which is not accepted at GA. This list is also to in-universe and therefore fails ]. ] 19:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Few things from the reviewer to counter those points: | |||
| ** I removed the outdated "list" sentence. It's not a list, and Misplaced Pages editors need to understand that articles with numerous sections aren't lists like "]". | |||
| ** This article is ''not'' completely from an in-universe perspective. I forced the writers to add a section on concept and creation before I'd pass the article. Second, many subsections contain out of universe information, such as voice actors and other related development information. Third, the lead clearly establishes the topic as fiction and introduces the characters and their designer. Fourth, the section often cites the title of each game in regard to summarizing plot points, instead of ingoring where it came from. As someone who has helped promote the concept and craft it, I can say with certainty that out of universe does not mean saying the word "fictional" every sentence; it means finding the most real-life material available for a topic and covering it in addition to the in-universe points. | |||
| ** Although I'd prefer to see ''more'' details about cultural impact, the sources have been reaped enough to comply with the MoS subcriterion. If this were going for FA (which I don't recommend, given the limitations), I'd expect to see (a lot more) real-world information, better prose, and complete merges; however, this is GA level, and there ''is'' a difference. | |||
| — ''']]''' 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The article '''was''' a list, the header just stayed there, now it's a profile pages for secondary characters. Second the article isn't in-universe, it always refers to the characters as such by addin lines such as "In Devil May Cry mythology...". -] 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Well the article looks okay, it has issues though starting with the opening sentence. The title wasn't bolded or wikilinked (fixed), and "set in the modern day" is just awkward. Even though I'm not going to vote as I don't really know the subject and did not read the whole thing, I looked it over enough to pick up a few points: | |||
| *"As the series progresses it is eventualy revealed that" eventually is redundant. | |||
| *I'm not an expert in wrting fictional entries but, when talking about voicing of the characters it might be wise to say "the character is voiced by " instead of "Dante is voiced by " or "she is voiced by" on occasion, this will help with the perspective and it also makes it more formal. | |||
| *A lot of people don't like IMDb as a ref. | |||
| *I don't know anything about Video games so maybe a little background about ''at least'' what years the games range from. Also would be a good way to expand to the lead, "Since 1999, there have been five games in the series..." etc. | |||
| *"Ref 16 is blank." ] 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' I see an anon fixed most of these, thanks whoever you are. ] 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I get a lot of unnecessary white space between character sections, this should be addressed, and the images reformatted. ] 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Many sections have either none or too few inline citations, especially for an article this length with so many assertions of fact, the few citation needed tags do not represent the number of citations needed here. In addition the structure is poor at best and confusing at worst. The Awards section is poorly composed, consisting of many short and once sentence paragraphs, also citation lacking. Three small sections, theft, annuity and forfeit are too stubby to be their own sections and would better be served by a blanket history section. The last part of the article is a list which should either be merged elsewhere, moved to its own page and summed up in the article or deleted. This is at a first look and if its not convincing enough I will delve further] 08:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In addition, the Other section is too ambiguously titled to be useful. Just in case it wasn't obvious, '''Delist'''. ] 08:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Delist''' per nomination concerns. ] 09:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Delist''' per nom ] 10:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment''' These are valid concerns, I'll see if I can do anything to remedy the situation. --]<sup>]</sup></b> 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Excellent, most of us here are willing to change our opinions if conditions merit such an action. ] 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Delist''' per nom. Not enough done in four days. ] 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Delist''', Not enough of the article appears to be referenced, while it could be argued that the awards section might possibly be referenced by one of those broad looking references at the bottom, several other sections besides that don't seem to be referenced either. ] 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Nominated for '''delisting'''. Poor structure, history section really is more than that, the restoration section and much of the history section is really just about architecture. Thus the actual history present is stubby at best and fails the broadness criteria as well. In addition the lead doesn't meet ], several facts find their only mention within the lead. In general the article is far from broad and such a famous example of Chicago architecture surely has more information available than this. ] 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I see multiple other problems, I can note them here if others would like. ] 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' as-is. Looks fine to me. I think you should list the other problems. ] 14:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' I have done some minor rearrangements, which do make the article better (by addressing your concerns), but don't think much more is needed. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 15:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will list them when I get a shot, today or tomorrow or sometime soon. ] 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here are my issues and, for the most part, why I say delist: | |||
| *Several one sentence and short paragraphs/sections. | |||
| *Unencyclopedic exact address in the lead. | |||
| {{done}} moved. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *The lead doesn't really represent a good summary per ], there are still several detailed facts that appear only in the lead. | |||
| {{done}} added some. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *The whole article needs a copy edit. | |||
| *Need citations: | |||
| :*''It is considered an exemplary model of the Chicago School of Architecture'' | |||
| {{done}} ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*''The building features several distinct elements that have earned it honors as a Chicago Landmark, a National Historic Landmark, and a National Register Historic Place.'' | |||
| :: Not necessary IMO. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Can't tie these together without citation, it would represent unpublished synthesis, or ]. | |||
| :*''Around 1950, the terra-cotta cornice was removed from the Marquette Building when an additional story was added.'' | |||
| {{done}} cited. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*''The preservation of this building was championed by the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois.'' | |||
| *Broadness | |||
| :*Surely the history section of a 112 year old building considered an exemplary model of the Chicago School cannot meet the broadness criteria if it is only six sentences long. | |||
| :*The architecture section isn't very thorough or broad either, on the interior it only describes the lobby on the exterior it only describes the sculpture and the windows. | |||
| :*Consider adding a section where you can discuss its landmarks statuses, its awards and why it is such a significant example of the Chicago style of architecture. | |||
| :*''The architect used trademark long horizontal bay "Chicago windows" on the Marquette Building'' | |||
| ::*The one and only ; ), Who is the architect? | |||
| *This part of the architecture section could use a rewrite, it is really choppy: ''The architect used trademark long horizontal bay "Chicago windows" on the Marquette Building. These are large panes of glass flanked by narrow sash windows. The grid-like window frames and spandrels are facilitated by the steel structure which enables non-load-bearing masonry walls. This was one of the first steel-framed skyscrapers. The building is built around a central light court featuring an ornate lobby. The lobby is decorated with mosaic panels made by the Tiffany firm and bronze heads of native Americans, animals, and early explorers. The two-story rotunda lobby contains panels of lustered Tiffany glass, mother-of-pearl and semi-precious stones that depict scenes of the early history of Illinois. The hexagonal railing around the lobby atrium is decorated with a mosaic frieze by the Tiffany studio depicting events in the life of Jacques Marquette.'' | |||
| *The Restoration section seems unfocused. | |||
| *At least one full date unlinked. | |||
| {{done}} linked. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *External links always go last. | |||
| {{done}} moved. ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *The city of Chicago footer template seems like overkill and clutter, it doesn't even link to the article. | |||
| Most ] articles should get this tag. Good navigational aid] <small>(]/]/])</small> 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *All of the images in the gallery ''should'' be moved to commmons and the gallery removed and replaced with a Commons link using {{Tl|Commons}}. If you don't want to move the images to Commons at least remove the gallery, per ]. | |||
| *Much of the sections outside of architecture (as noted above) are also choppy, thorough copy editing by unaffiliated eyes should help to resolve the flow problems. | |||
| This is all I have for now. Hope that helps. ] 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''': Just so everyone here knows, as should be obvious from my comments above, this is a serious, good faith GAR with no ill intent or previously implied retaliation involved. ] 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good work on these things so far, the broadness notes are important in my opinion. We shall see what others think. I am not wedded to delisting this, it just needs to be better is all. ] 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Most of these comments remain unaddressed. ] 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Warned by me on the article's talk page in December 2006 regarding <s>lack of citations etc.</s> '''Delist'''. ] 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I still think it should be delisted as the article is too listy. ] 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Delist''' Also has several "sections" which are just links to main articles on the subjects with no summary of the contents of the main articles.</s> ] 16:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)</s> | |||
| <s>*'''Delist''' ] 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)<s> | |||
| **'''Keep''', nice to see such improvements of a GA/R article. ] 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''<s>Speedy Delist</s>''': per four month warning. The article is also badly structured, listy in places, and the aforementioned stub sections aren't helpful either. ] 06:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I've been working on a complete re-write. I'm not quite done, but I'm replacing the present version with what I have now. {{unsigned|Cranor}} | |||
| * '''Keep''' Following Cranor's work, the argument listed against in the nom is now addressed with 63 footnote numbers, and many of them are cited multiple times (one is even cited more than 30 times). ] <small><font color="black">]</font></small> 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' The massive improvements make it hard for me to see anything that stands out against GA status in this article. ] 18:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''<s>Neutral</s>''': Can't see going from Speedy Delist to Keep, the article is still listy, and not just in the lists, there are so many section breaks and bolded words I lose track of what the article is about. ] 15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Delist''' Yea it's well referenced but let's start with the problems. | |||
| **The article doesn't mention the title of the article - Washington, D.C. streetcars should be de-linked and bolded. | |||
| ::{{done}} ] 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **The lead is way too small for an article this size | |||
| **Table of contents is too big | |||
| **I see refs before punctuation, refs with spaces | |||
| ** Dates are'nt formatted correctly - July 13, 1868 should be ], ] | |||
| ::{{done}} ] 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** Only text in the lead should be bolded, there's text in almost every section bolded | |||
| ** About 20 external jumps | |||
| ** Article contains lots of one sentence paragraphs | |||
| ** External links section should be at the end of the article | |||
| ::{{done}} ] 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** The See Also section comes before notes | |||
| ::{{done}} ] 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *So Yea, this article in no-way should ever become a good article unless something is done. ] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak delist''' Solid article. I struck my above comment and changed to weak, still needs a little work. I just did some significant work on it to help out and checked off some of the above reviewers cocnerns. Metal Head was correct in most of his assessments, although I disagree with some. I would think it's alright to have portions of the title linked sometimes see ], so you don't have to be to repetitive and mention them again in the next sentence, I did fix that though anyway (I know what the MoS says no need to repeat it). Never had a problem with large TOC's, I went through and fixed the dates in the text (not in the references due to time/interest level), I think redirects are often bolded and everything bolded is in fact a redirect, although the redirects should go to the exact section and not to the top of the article, fixed the layout issues (although I was forced to tag the link farm of an EL section), the main problem remaining for me is the external jumps those really need to go. ] 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nice work but i still stand by my decision. This "Paragraph" 'Colorado Avenue Terminal on 14th Street, now a Metrobus stop' has no full-stop, as does 'The Median on Penn, built in 1903 ' And these sentences don't make much sense | |||
| **Public transportation began in Washington, D.C. almost as soon as the city was founded. When was this? | |||
| ** Why is something so simple like 'day' wikilinked | |||
| ** but service ended soon after it began. Why did it end? | |||
| **After the Herdic Company went under, awkward use of "went under" what about bankrupt or disbanded, whatever happened | |||
| ** Much of the article reads like "Went along 10th street and U, but changed to U and 11 street soon after. When the new company came in it went to 13th street etc etc. I'm not sure what you mean by the title, but the example you provided had the title of the game bolded, this didn't. ] 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***The game is in effect the title portion of that article. It still needs work as I said change the external jumps to ref format and I'll support. ] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Weak Delist''' however, rework could bring this to GA. article has good breadth and depth of content, but needs widespread effort. prose is listy and rambling in places, excessive section breaks, bolded words, and general formatting problems occur throughout. top suggestion: you may want to consider creating stub articles for sections of low notability, and then place a see also section header/footer on the section. this would improve readability, particuarly for sections of individual companies or operations. single bullet lines in cars and barnshops needs complete rework, or creation of a stub article, or a list. ] 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delist''': Struck neutral above, delist per Quadzilla, M3tal H3ad and Chicago Pimp. ] 12:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I'm the main contributor to this article; I nominated and it passed two weeks ago. However, I just noticed while browsing around that the ] is a confirmed sockpuppet (see the discussion on GA/R talk page). So I thought it should put it up for review just to be safe. The two notes I'd like to make is that although the article is short it's comprehensive—the player did not have an article until a month ago and the Houston Chronicle's extensive online archives (which I've searched through thoroughly) don't really have much to add to the article (other than brief mentions like Fuller recorded two sacks, Fuller is expected to make the Pro Bowl, Fuller is looking forward to the season etc.). Also there are no pics available for the article on flickr or otherwise, as you can see ], I'm good at finding free pics so if there were some I'd have found them. ] 10:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The review is ]. ] 10:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Note''' I added a stats table to fill the article a little more. ] 10:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Keep''' This is the exact kind of article GA was intended for. It is well written, broad, and well referenced. I see no reason not to keep it. On fix, which I made myself, was to change NFL career to Pro Career. Otherwise, it looks fine. GAs cannot be held up for lack of pics, and it looks NPOV and stable enough. I say keep.--]|]|] 17:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Neutral (for now)''': A few comments follow. | |||
| *I would say it is worth mentioning that he is tied for the 20th spot on the all time sack leaders list. | |||
| ::Done, I put it down by his stats table. | |||
| *Any hall of fame consideration here? What are his chances, surely someone must have written something about that. | |||
| ::No, the Hall of Fame is tough in football. Fuller made four Pro Bowls so he has no chance, ] made nine Pro Bowls and he wasn't elected until his thirteenth or fourteenth try. | |||
| *How did his stats compare with other players? Was he ever amongst league leaders in key statistics for defensive players? | |||
| ::I'll try to find some info. Most of the best sites (databasefootball, pro-football-reference.com, NFL.com etc.) don't keep lists of season sack leaders. | |||
| *Is post '96 the only years with contract info available? Because as is it kind of reads like, "this guy got a big contract and then didn't perform," mostly due to the reast of the sentence. | |||
| :*''After the 1996 season Fuller signed a two year $5.6 million dollar contract with the San Diego Chargers, while there his production steeply declined.'' | |||
| ::*That's the sentence I singled out above, it seems to imply some sort of connection or seems to be trying to make a point of some sort. | |||
| ::::I definitely didn't mean to imply that. I added a note about an earlier contract he signed, so now it will just appear as though I'm just mentioning that contract to be consistent. I'll see if I can find some more info, he was never a highly publicized player for whatever reason. He seems to have played in several players shadows. Like I said he didn't have an article until a month ago. He replaced ] in Philadelphia and followed (the one in the pic) as a pass rusher at UNC so that probably didn't help either. | |||
| *Do we know anything about his other college seasons at all? Any bowl game appearances? | |||
| ::Not really in terms of individual accomplishments. As I mentioned there's not much info on him I can find. I mentioned that the team made three bowl games. | |||
| *A couple things are mentioned in the lead but nowhere else in the main body of the text, as the lead should be a summary of the article they should appear elsewhere as well. | |||
| :*His All American honors | |||
| :*His position (This is in the infobox which I guess is probably ok.) | |||
| ::'''Comment''' His All-America honors are mentioned in the college section, as is the fact that he was a defensive lineman I could be more specific I guess. ] 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I think it's pretty much fine other than that, some of the above should definitely be addressed I think. ] 19:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Has zero citations and is stubby in places. '''Delist'''. ] 01:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delist''' per nom. ] 11:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delist''': per nom. What are all those ridiculous templates in the middle of the article for? ] 16:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **comment - those "ridiculous templates" are the lists of purchasers of this model of locomotive by model subclass. They were originally included in plain tables but the GA nomination was held until they were wrapped in the show/hide blocks that you see there now. ] <small><font color="black">]</font></small> 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh now I see the show/hide link, can you change their color, that was too hard to see, they didn't seem to do anything that's why I called them ridiculous, no offense intended, they're actually kind of neat. ] 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's what I thought might be the problem as it seemed to me to be a bit dark on dark to begin with. As I remember, the background color in those cells used to be a lighter color. I'll see about rectifying at least that much shortly... ] <small><font color="black">]</font></small> 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can see them now btw. ] 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delist''' per nom. ] 12:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This article is US based, almost completely ignoring what a school counselor is outside of the country (except for one run-on sentence section about Korea). The history section only deals with this and also has zero citations. Theoretical framework and services only has one citation, and the citations in the article are not properly formatted. ] 07:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delist''' per nominator's reasoning. ] 12:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delist''' per nom. Obviously fails broadness criteria. ] 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delist''', Most of the article seems dedicated to being advocacy for School councelors, almost like advertisment for an entire job.... ] 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Delist with comment'''. I would've preferred to see the ] notice have its own section w. section heading, so people can see it. :-) --] 12:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Also, the weather forecast sees potential for ]... --] 12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''', this article does cite references in APA format. Misplaced Pages contains many articles that are American. School counseling was invented in the United States.]<sup> ]</sup> 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' and '''Update''', School Counseling was first developed in the United States, and is barely beginning to take root in other countries. It does have a large professional association and the grand majority of school counseling training programs in the world are located in the United States. It is quite ludicrous to consider deleting this article based on it being written from a predominantly American perspective. I would invite people who know more about it from the perspective of other nations to join in and update it to a more international perspective. I, personally, would be quite interested to learn about school counseling training programs in other countries. I believe they are sadly quite rare at the moment. ] <sup> ]</sup> 02:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **This is not an AfD..... ] 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Be that what it is...the rationale that this is only from an American perspective is a tad problematic as, to my knowledge, there are no (or very few, if any)school counseling associations outside the United States to date and that school counseling itself is an American-based profession. Thus, the argument that this article fails the broadness criteria is based on a pretty limited perspective of school counseling. ] <sup> ]</sup> 22:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Be that as it may, i'm sticking with my different argument :/. ] 23:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment''': The article certainly presents the topic as if there were more than just the United States to consider, your argument seems flawed and if it's not the article's structure is. ] 10:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am considering archiving this discussion as '''Delist''', Keep and Update isn't really a position for keeping this as a GA as much as it is an admission that the article fails ] #3a. ] 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Four to two is indeed a majority to delist, but its not an 80 percent majority, the last real new thing was Kukini's keep vote on the 19th from what i'm seeing, that's only five days. ] 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delist''' I would tag this for cleanup if I saw it while browsing. Look at this section of the prose: "This movement emphasized personal, social, moral development." That's actually a sentence, or this one:"Often counselors will coordinate outside groups that wish to help with student needs such as academics, or coordinate a state program that teaches about child abuse or drugs, through on-stage drama (Schmidt, 2003)" where's the period?—and what's with the wikilinking for ] later on? I doubt an article could ever be created for such a topic; it would certainly get nuked at any afd. Also, the see also section is beneath the reference section, the writing is informal ("For example,""Though not ideal,""Additionally, it has to have"). The following statements seriously need sources also: | |||
| **"Elementary professional school counselors also spend 35-40% of their time in classroom guidance." | |||
| **"A fully-implemented district-wide comprehensive school counseling program meets the needs of 100% of the students—just as the district's mathematics program is for 100% of the students." | |||
| **"" ] 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| There seem to be NPOV problems, such as this line: | |||
| This raised concern as some perceived his actions as child endangerment, although Jackson has vehemently denied these tabloid rumours. | |||
| media attention that is negative being stated as "tabloid rumours" seems a bit biased. ] 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Delist''' Lead is far too long, surely some/most of the stuff about his accomplishments can be better said somewhere else in the body of the article? It seems like a bunch of overkill with so much in the lead. ] 02:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Delist''' The lead definitely could be trimmed, you could almost make a whole new section with the information there. There are also many citation needed tags throughout the article, and I'm sure other areas could also use some more inline citations as well. --] 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Comment''' this needs to be re-set, Strong Fox never put a notice on the article's talk page. Editors should be given notice and time to address concerns. ] 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Per my previous reasoning I moved this back to the top, now I'm going to go notify the article's editors on the talk page. ] 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Done. ] 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is the lead the main problem? That can be fixed quite easily. Seems harsh to vote de-list just based on the lead. Some tags are still unaccounted for, but overall the article is teeming with citations.] 14:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If the lead is fixed, we can of course change our votes, i've changed my vote plenty of times based on article improvements. These reviews can last quite awhile. ] 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the lead, the first main paragraph is designed to explain the importance of the subject of the article, ie. to answer the question "Why is Michael Jackson relevant?" after "Who is Michael Jackson?" already being answered in the opening sentence. That's why the accomplishments are listed there. You'll notice a similar pattern for musical acts of equivalent stature, like ] and ]. There's a lot of talk about impact, achievement, sales, and so on. It's virtually impossible not to note down things like that for people like these. So far, I have removed the awards from the lead and placed them in another section. I have also mentioned the albums released after Thriller to give his musical career some sort of chronological perspective. Beyond that, the lead seems to be fairly all-right and of appropriate length.] 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no problems with the first and fourth paragraph, but the second and third go into so many specifics, that it seems less of a summary and more of a compleate list of every important influence Michael Jackson has had on, well, a whole bunch of things. For instance, where the second one lists the artists he's influenced, that kind of thing can easily be generalized into something like "Has influenced a great number of modern singers" or something like that. Then the main part of the article should be where the elaboration on who the people he's influenced are, because then there's plenty of room to explain every influence as much as needed. ] 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment''' Lead is still way too long as far I'm concerned. I don't really care for any rationalizations, it's too long and should be cut. ] 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It is appropriate that long articles should have leads of three to four paragraphs. This one is more like three paragraphs (the first part is two introductory sentences). Whether you care for rationalizations or not is irrelevant; you're getting some, and in this case they are justified. To Home: those two paragraphs highlight the significance of the subject. At their core they are fine, but we can discuss how much information needs to be modified so it's of acceptable length to you guys. Beyond that, there are precedents that I used in writing those parts of the lead, especially ], whose influences in the lead are explained as follows: | |||
| ''One of the first multi-media stars, from 1934 to 1954 Bing Crosby held a nearly unrivaled command of record sales, radio ratings and motion picture grosses. He is usually considered to be among the most popular musical acts in history and is currently the most electronically recorded human voice in history. Crosby is also credited as being the major inspiration for most of the male singers that followed him, including the likes of Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, and Dean Martin. Yank magazine recognized Crosby as the person who had done the most for American GI morale during World War II and, during his peak years, around 1948, polls declared him the "most admired man alive" ahead of Jackie Robinson and the Pope Also during 1948, the Music Digest estimated that Crosby recordings filled more than half of the 80,000 weekly hours allocated to recorded radio music.'' | |||
| The tone of the lead for that article is similar to the one for Michael Jackson, as are the details. This aside, however, I actually disagree with the assertion that the lead goes into specifics. It really doesn't, merely highlighting the major influences and aspects of Michael Jackson's career. The one part where it ''may'' is the third paragraph, although, again, there are tons of precedents with biographies of musicians that include sales figures and other chart accomplishments in the lead. If they are notable, ''they should be there''. And with Michael Jackson, clearly that information is notable.] 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Comment''' I'm the main contributor on the ] article which was recently promoted to FA, so I don't need any instructions on how to write an article on a well known iconic figure. Quotes in the lead (specifically about the subject rather than from the subject) are a bad idea unless the quotes are tremendously famous. So for starters I would cut the lengthy quote. ] 08:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This whole thing can go:"heralding and displaying complicated physical techniques, like the robot and the moonwalk, that have redefined mainstream dance and entertainment. At his height, he was characterized as "an unstoppable juggernaut, possessed of all the tools to dominate the charts seemingly at will: an instantly identifiable voice, eye-popping dance moves, stunning musical versatility, and loads of sheer star power."" The first half sentence is unencyclopedic hyperbole and can be lopped off, the previous sentence will be fine without it. The second sentence is a quote which is in general a bad idea for a lead, also contains hyperbole. ] 08:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Although I didn't think it necessary, I've removed the quotation from the lead.] 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Not questioning your credentials, but it does not seem fair to refuse "rationalizations," as you put it. Quotations can sometimes do a good job of encapsulating a whole lot of information into one or two sentences. That's why this one was found and placed in the lead. It did an effective job at conveying the importance of the subject. The Michael Jordan lead is really not all that different from the Michael Jackson lead. You even talk about awards he's won, which is actually something I removed from the Michael Jackson lead as a response to this review. The Jordan lead, like the Michael Jackson lead with Vanity Fair, also mentions critical perceptions, like ESPN and the Associated Press. The language is somewhat comparable...."widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers of all time"......"widely considered one of the greatest basketball players of all time"....."instrumental in popularizing the NBA around the world"....."redefined mainstread dance and entertainment"...and so on. Now I am beginning to challenge your implicit assertion that the leads of these two articles are notably different. Apart from the quotation, which is not a big deal at all, they are not. Both leads do a good job at highlighting the status and "magnitude," if you will, of the subject. And if you include just career achievements, then the two leads are actually of similar length. The only reason why the Michael Jackson lead is slightly longer is because it has to document his controversial personal life.] 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' for me on this one.] 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep:''' All raised concerns appear to have been addressed and fixed, the lead gives me a good summary of the article. '''--]<sup> ] / ]</sup>''' 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delist''' Lead is currently as long as it ever was (568 words), quotations were re-introduced, there's needless hyperbole and extra wording. Also the list of everybody he's ever influenced does not belong in the lead, it belongs in ]. ] 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **"'''Comment''' As regards what MPD has said length of the lead has not been addressed. ] 13:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The quotation was removed at one point, but I was reverted by another (far more persistent) user with whom I did not want to get into a big discussion or an edit war, especially over something so relatively insignificant. I am still officially supporting the removal of that quotation, but I can tell you right now it will not be an easy process getting it past some other users. There are plenty of precedents on articles about musical acts discussing specific and future artists that they have influenced. If the artists in question are notable, and clearly they are here, there's nothing wrong with mentioning them in the lead. The insinuation that the list represenets "everybody he's ever influenced" is ridiculous; that list really would deserve its own section. The people mentioned are meant to be representative of the various genres in which Jackson has had an impact....and, again, they are famous.] 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Ok the quotation has been removed once more from the lead and placed in another section. Beyond that, I truly believe the lead is fine. Again, take away Jackson's personal life and his career gets the same coverage length-wise as Michael Jordan does in his lead.] 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>'''Delist''' From an outside view I find this article to be quite biased and in general badly written. It will never progress if the persistent fanboy gushing is not addressed promptly.--] 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::I ask the community to disregard the above "vote." The user has less than 50 edits and is clearly not well-positioned to make a call that requires some quasi-extensive experience with the articles and policies of Misplaced Pages.] 03:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not sure if I agre with that. I guess if the user cares they can respond, but it's rather drastic to strike out a user's comments. ] 04:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As the user is not one that can participate in a consensus-building exercise on Misplaced Pages, then there is nothing wrong with just completely removing their statements (and votes), much less crossing them out. In fact, I've had personal experiences with this during my FA reviews. The votes cast by recent editors were promptly removed and discarded. Basically, their votes should be ignored, and I wanted to make it firmly clear to whoever is adjudicating whether there is consensus that the above person can be disregarded.] 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And this actually gets funnier....I just checked the user's history again and I notice that this person has actually made "extensive," if I can use that word for someone with less than 50 edits, contributions in wikispace, particularly for FA reviews. I have no idea what this user had in mind, but obviously these actions on his or her part are inappropriate. I just hope they found out who it was during those reviews.....] 15:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) I don't feel like arguing but usually newly created accounts get crossed out on FACs. Althought the edit count is low, the editor has been signed up for a while. Most voters crossed off on FACs are newly created accounts that are suspected duplicate voters, not low count voters who supposedly don't know the criteria, which is not that complicated especially now incidentally. ] 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Just so we're clear, do you believe that the user's vote should not count? If so, then I do not really care which part you cross out. If you want, you can go ahead and cross the username only. Makes no real difference to me. If you do believe that the user's vote should count, then we are going to have somewhat of a discussion on our hands, to put it mildly.] 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In fact, I have gone ahead and arbitrarily crossed out the "vote" as it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.] 03:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Comment''' I do think the user's vote should count, I've notified him/her and I'll let you two discuss it if he wishes to come here and comment. Usually users who appear to have registered just to vote on an FAC are discounted, that user registered 8 months ago. Hopefully he/she will come comment and I won't have to carry this on any further. ] 18:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| How long they have been registered for is irrelevant. I've seen people who've been registered longer than this and they have like 20 or 30 edits. I believe the informal requirement for participating in these activities is something like registration for a month and at least 100 edits in mainspace, not wikispace. The edits that this person does have are all in areas that he or she should not have been involved in to begin with.] 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Furthermore, I don't see what notifying the user will accomplish. Obviously that person will claim that his or her vote is legitimate. But the whole point is that when it comes to matters like this, opinions from these users are trivial.] 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' There is a major problem with this article, and I'm now gonna tell you why. There is a lot of CRAP on that article. It's a breeding ground for people to dump trash about Michael, and then the SAME hypocrits go back and claim that there are ''fan boys gushing out''. I must say it's a convenient way to keep the article in its overly bias state. It's actually an extremely clever method. Of course, most people here are tabloid junkies who hate Michael so it makes it easy to just pile up hateful posts and ''dump 'em'' in the article. That's why this article is bias. Don't try flipping this around. This article still paints Michael as a molester and ''then'' an musician. It should be the other way around, but unfortunately it ain't, and it's sad to see these haters then try to accuse unknown ''fans'' of coming on and dumping out crud. Sad... really really sad. --] 02:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''keep''' since this delisting consensus was started because someone said that the article is full of ''fan gush'', which is totally ridiculous and acutally the REVERSE situation is occuring, I have decided to cast my vote to keep the article as a good article. I will not believe these ridiculous rants by haters claiming that the article is full of ''fan gush'', it is acutally full of ''haters gush'' which is disgusting and bias, and should be removed. --] 07:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Too few references, other issues such as solo linked years.] 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' Solo-linked years is actually permissible, and recommended in most cases, per ]. ] 07:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Comment''' Solo linked years is generally not recommendable, see ]; specifically ] there is considerable dispute though. In my experience in FAC's they're not well liked. Although that's an easy fix. ] 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Does this review need any more attention, I see a 1 to 0, and although there's no rule against it, I don't really think its a good idea to act on a 1 to 0, its just one vote so to speak..... ] 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree, 1 to 0 is no consensus, default keep. I will look at the article if I have a chance. ] 11:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Too few references in article, and source of references is narrowed primarily to APO references. Expanding references to a broader variety of sources would likely increase content and improve verifiability. Background of formation is sufficient, but article needs a section of significant contributions, expansion of charity events and/or community service. For having 300k members, a mention of notable alumni also would help. ] 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| The objection I have to this article is that most of the information contained therin more properly belongs in a different article, that of ]. The wine region article should be delisted, split and merged into the province article, and renamed something like "Wine making in Champagne", then each article could be renominated for GA as appropriate. --]|]|] 06:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Well ] would not be an appropriate title since the ''wine history'' of the region is a vital component to ] of the region. I'm not sure how familiar Jayron is with wine but there is much more to the creation of wine then just "wine making" with the people, places and history each adding profound elements that make wine like Champagne truly different from any other sparkling wine. For reference, similar articles along this line would be ] and ].To that extent I do think ] is the most appropriate title and place for this information. After looking over Dr. Cash's comment, I agreed with him that an article titled ] should include more details on "the government and politics, demographics of the population, transportation, economy, sports team" etc like an article on a US state like ] or another French province like ]. As the majority contributor to the wine related history and info, I agreed with him that the wine related history and info overwhelmed the provincial article so I went ahead and split the two and renominated the wine region to be evaluated on its own merit. I hope this clarifies things for you. ]]/] 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, as an FYI, if sections such as the "Military history" are what caught your eye as maybe belonging better in ], I will direct your attention to the citation references at the bottom. They are all from wine books since those elements of Champagne history has had a profound affect on the wine industry in that region. Every item in the ] article is tied back into its influence on the wine. ]]/] 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I tried to bring these concerns to light in my initial GA review, because the article was initially nominated as ], and dealt solely with the wine-making aspects and nothing about the political, geographical, and cultural aspects of the province. The article was then split and renominated, as ], and I still have some doubts about GA status, but the article was passed by ] before I could do anything, and I decided not to challenge at the time. ] 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As I noted, everything in the article is specific and relevant to the wine region and wine. Is there another area that I should look at or improve to take care of these doubts? ]]/] 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Neutral for now''': Weak lead, doesn't conform to ] and includes one sentence paragraph. Some of the information in the History section is probably a bit too detailed for an article about the wine region. Is there a difference between the wine region and the whole of the province, that should be made explicitly clear. ] 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you for your comments IvoShandor. I worked on the lead to address some of your concerns. As for the history section, if you can point me in the right direction I'll see what I can do. The largest sub section is the "Rivalry with Burgundy" which is only relevant to an article about the wine region and wouldn't have a place in any other article. The "Military Conflict" is by far the smallest sub-section and gives context to the history of the area and the blood that is in soil. The only references in the "Military conflict" section come from wine books because they are pertinent to understanding the terroir. Is there something that you would recommend? ]]/] 07:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Articles listed for reassessment== | |||
| ::The blood that is in the soil? Anyway, is there a difference between the wine region and the province? I will take another look at the article and come back with specifics. ] 07:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- This page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add articles here. To list articles here, add {{subst:GAR}} to a new section on the article talk page and follow the link this generates to create an article reassessment page. Discussions are archived once consensus, or lack thereof, has been reached.--> | |||
| :::heh, pardon the literary device. :p But that is one aspect of the terroir that is often talked about in regard to the Champagne region. The wine from the area is so different from wines from other areas no matter how finely detailed that a wine producer would try to imitate the condition of the area and the wine making techniques. That innate difference is attributed to the "sense of place" that the Champagne region has and Champenois do talk about the blood that in their soil due to all the battles and conflicts that the area has saw. Terroir is fascinating in that regard. If you are an avid reader (or just the curious sort) a book you may want to consider is James Wilson ''Terroir''. Even if you're not into wine, it's a pretty good read. ]]/] 08:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{User:AnomieBOT/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment}} | |||
| :One sentence in this article catches my eye, "From the key market of Paris to the palace of Louis XIV of France at Versailles, proponents of Champagne and Burgundy would spar to get the upper hand.". This wasn't literally fighting, was it? Seems a bit unusual way to word it, its not very direct unless they're literally fighting. ] 17:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <small>]{{*}}]{{*}}</small> | |||
| ::Reworded. ]]/] 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 18:11, 24 May 2024
Process of quality control review| Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | FAQ | January backlog drive | Mentorship | Review circles | Discussion | Reassessment | Report |
| Semi-Automated Tools User scripts for GAR:
|
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used to review and improve good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. All users are welcome to contribute to the process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. The GAR Coordinators — Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings — work to organize these efforts, as well as to resolve contentious reviews. To quickly bring issues to their notice, or make a query, use the {{@GAR}} notification template, or make a comment on the talk page.
Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.
Before opening a reassessment
- Consider whether the article meets the good article criteria.
- Check that the article is stable. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate.
- Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors.
- If there are many similar articles already nominated at GAR, consider delaying the reassessment request. If an editor notices that many similar GARs are open and requests a hold, such requests should generally be granted.
Opening a reassessment
- To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and submit. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
- The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. Notify these manually. You may use
{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~to do so, replacing ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the number of the reassessment page (1 if this is the first reassessment). - Consider commenting on another reassessment (or several) to help with any backlog.
- Paste
{{subst:GAR}}to the top of the article talk page. Do not place it inside another template. Save the page. - Follow the bold link in the template to create a reassessment page.
- Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed.
- The page will automatically be transcluded to this page via a bot, so there is no need to add it here manually.
- Transclude the assessment on the article talk page as follows: Edit the article talk page and paste
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/''ArticleName''/''n''}}at the bottom of the page. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. This will display a new section named "GA Reassessment" followed by the individual reassessment discussion. - Notify major contributing editors, including the nominator and the reviewer. Also consider notifying relevant active WikiProjects related to the article. The {{GARMessage}} template may be used for notifications by placing
{{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} ~~~~on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
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 Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.
Closing a reassessment
To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
- GARs typically remain open for at least one week.
- Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators.
- If a clear consensus develops among participants that the issues have been resolved and the article meets GACR, the reassessment may be closed as keep at any time.
- If there is no consensus, the reassessment may also be closed as keep.
- After at least one week, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.
- If there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article, the editor who opened the reassessment may presume a silent consensus and close as delist.
- Locate {{GAR/current}} at the the reassessment page of the article. Replace it with
{{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Replace outcome with the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. A bot will remove the assessment from the GA reassessment page. - The article either meets or does not meet the good article criteria:
- If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
- remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
- remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
- add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page (example)
- If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this,
- remove the {{GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
- remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page, if present
- add or update the {{Article history}} template on the article talk page, setting currentstatus to DGA (delisted good article). (example)
- blank the class parameter of the WikiProject templates on talk, or replace it with a new assessment
- remove the {{good article}} template from the article page (example)
- remove the article from the relevant list at good articles (example)
- If the article now meets the criteria, you can keep the article listed as GA. To do this:
- Add the GAR to the most recent GAR archive page. (example)
Disputing a reassessment
- A GAR closure should only be contested if the closure was obviously against consensus or otherwise procedurally incorrect. A closure should only be disputed within the first seven days following the close.
- Before disputing a GAR closure, first discuss your concerns with the closing editor on their talk page.
- If discussing does not resolve concerns, editors should post at Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations and ask for review from uninvolved editors and the coordinators.
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 |
Articles needing possible reassessment
|
Talk notices given |
|---|
| Find more: 2023 GA Sweeps Project |
The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open a community reassessment and remove the {{GAR request}} template from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, remove the template from the article talk page.
- 22:53:26, 23/12/2024: Hurricane Charley
- 17:52:23, 25/12/2024: Current date for reference
The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed.
Articles listed for reassessment
Mikhail Gorbachev
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
The article is excessively long, about 17000 words. It also has some slight WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Explain, what are those WP:NPOV and WP:MOS issues?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Fizeau experiment
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
The "Controversy" section is mostly uncited: there are mentions of the works where others disagreed (with a year placed in parenthesis) but these will need to be converted into citations and the prose afterwards also cited to their works. The section also has several, long block quotes. Even though many of these quotes are from the 1800s, and probably do not fall under copyright anymore, I think the information can be better explained and more easily understood by the reader as summarised prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Teleological argument
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is uncited prose in the article, and another editor on the talk page mentioned that the article is missing key information because of underdeveloped sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I guess I am the other editor? I don't see any posts using the words you've used. I would encourage other editors to read my real remarks. But in a nutshell, in terms of what I understand to be important for GA status I think this article has never yet reached a stable structure. It is still in a phase where people add new "stub" sections, and are likely to send the article in new directions, which might become stable. I'd encourage any editors who are interested in the topic to see what they can do, but I doubt that the article was ever really at GA quality, and I don't think that getting that label too early is necessarily a good thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Per @Andrew Lancaster's posts to the talk page. Even if citations could be produced where needed, the article lacks a cohesive structure. In particular it would benefit from an introductory "Definition" section describing the topic in general terms and distinguishing it from other major arguments for the existence of god. An "Overview" section might also be helpful—depending upon how much can make it into the lead.Patrick (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment – I have interest in this article, but no promises in getting dug in before it gets delisted. Remsense ‥ 论 08:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
UConn Huskies women's basketball
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is a lot of uncited text throughout the article. I also think the article can be summarised more effectively to make it more concise. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Portland Monthly
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article does not contain any post-2008 information, and thus does not cover all aspects of the topic. Z1720 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
- Result pending
There are several uncited statements throughout the article. Also, I think this song, its lyrics, and the album it is part of has been the subject of academic analysis, but other than the structure there is very little analysis. Z1720 (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delist – no surprise here. The article is incredibly dated and as you said is no longer broad in its coverage (literally zero reception). And the way the references are laid out... woof. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
In 2012 and 2016, significant amounts of the article's content , mainly by Buckshot06. There is a discussion supporting the removal of this content at Talk:1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division (United States)#Lot of content removed after GAN review, but the article's honors section (which is unsourced) is a series of tables that still assumes that the removed content is relevant to the article subject. This relevance of this content needs sorted out and finalized whether or not this belongs. Much of what remains in the article is sourced to Global Security, which is no longer considered to be reliable. In fact, as almost all of the remaining content is more about the division as a whole than this subunit, I'm not even convinced that this warrants a separate article - even with the content removed since promotion included, as that is focused on the HQ unit of the 7th Division. Hog Farm Talk 20:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to 7th Infantry Division (United States). No prejudice to recreation if substantial details of the actions of the 1st Brigade are added and reliably sourced. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Temper (film)
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article contains many uncited sentences, included entire paragraphs, failing GA criterion 2b). Some of the sources may also not be reliable. @We are the Great, Rotideypoc41352, and CNMall41: pinging those who previously commented on the talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for inviting me. I initially started the reassessment because a large chunk of sources cited such as IndiaGlitz, 123Telugu, Oneindia.com, and International Business Times, were unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES. The Times of India’s reliability is under question, but that’s for another day. RangersRus, after taking my suggestions, removed all the citations that were unreliable. Benison did opine that the article’s GA status could survive if we found more reliable sources, but this has not happened yet. Additionally, many Tollywood movie articles on Misplaced Pages rated GA have sources that are unreliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES, which I have removed in some of them such as Srimanthudu, 1: Nenokkadine, and Attarintiki Daredi. These articles mostly use International Business Times as citations for Box Office sections, which is deemed unreliable per WP:IBTIMES. I believe most of them were rated GA at the time when the reliability of these sources I mentioned were not challenged. We are the Great (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the {{cn}} situations are handled either by being deleted or replaced with better refs, this article can retain GA status. Does Veera Narayana have time or interest? I have neither. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t think anyone would have the time to do this since I have not seen much activity on this article ever since RangersRus removed the unreliable sources. We are the Great (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Let's wait and see whether others join in the discussion. Otherwise, if nobody does, then the article could be delisted. We are the Great (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t think anyone would have the time to do this since I have not seen much activity on this article ever since RangersRus removed the unreliable sources. We are the Great (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the {{cn}} situations are handled either by being deleted or replaced with better refs, this article can retain GA status. Does Veera Narayana have time or interest? I have neither. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello all, i was the contributor for this and many other Telugu film GA articles in the past. We are the Great here was right in assuming that i worked on these GAs when the abovementioned sites' reliability was not challenged. And i am thankful that Kailash took the time to respond to this when i was away, and i must admit he echoes my sentiments too. If you think this article, or any other GA/FA/FL i have ever contributed towards, does not meet up the criteria anymore, please delist them. You dont have to reach out to me for this, and i assume this message here would stand valid for all of those. After all, despite all the hours i passionately put into these articles, i own nothing and i am mature enough to understand the gravity of the situation. Thanks for intimating me. Hope you all have a happy holiday season. Cheers! Veera Narayana 06:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Anuel AA
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
Lots of uncited prose, including almost everything in the "Career" section post-2019. Some "citation needed" tags have been in the article since March 2023. Z1720 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Tristan da Cunha
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is a large amount of uncited text, including entire sections such as "Religion" Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
2017 World Series
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
Uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed three of them. The others can be addressed and I will soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
1997–98 Manchester United F.C. season
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
The entire "Transfers" section is uncited. While some players in the chart are cited, most are not. There are also some uncited statements elsewhere in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Mitch Daniels
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
There are uncited statements and paragraphs, including some tagged with "citation needed" since July 2022. The article is also very long, showing that the language is not concise. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Noctilucent cloud
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
Uncited text throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Citation needed tags in the article since 2021. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Protein
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
Several unsourced statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've added {{citation needed}} to the statements that seemed to be most obviously needing references, to aid in the process of cleaning up the article. I never got too far in molecular biology so forgive me if I can't completely fix this up to GA standards. I also noticed (as Smokefoot did specifically with the use of "key") that the tone of this article is unusual. Reconrabbit 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a basic biochemistry article. We do not need to add citations for facts that can be found in any textbook. Genome42 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Genome42: No, WP:V says that information needs to be cited. Textbooks can be used as the citation if it is a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Basic facts about proteins fall into a "sky is blue" situation; you would either be laughed at or shown very concerned looks for your well-being for challenging them. Still though, this article does cite textbooks and other round-ups for most of these things anyways as it is still specialized knowledge at the end of the day.
- I was wondering though, is there some policy or guidance on how to select a textbook for referencing out of the hundreds (thousands?) that exist with the same information? I ask as a high-traffic article like this might unfairly elevate one textbook over others, inadvertently. Should textbooks be prioritized for referencing by ease of access? Are there even open-access textbooks kicking around for biochemistry/science topics generally? Is this something that Misplaced Pages is even concerned about? ― Synpath 17:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Synpath: SKYBLUE is an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors." WP:V is a policy, and "describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow." To select which sources to use, the WP:MEDCITE essay will give some advice. More recent sources are more favourable than older sources as it will have the most up-to-date information. For articles with a lot of literature like this, sometimes Misplaced Pages has to pick some of the highest quality sources and exclude others. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:MEDCITE is only an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors." and is not really relevant to a basic biochemistry article. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}19:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC) - I think I should have piped the phrase "still specialized knowledge" to WP:NOTBLUE to balance the emphasis of my comment. Regardless, MEDCITE doesn't give advice on how to select one reliable source from a sea of reliable sources saying the same thing. Just opting for the most recent textbook is not an ideal solution if no one can read it without dropping a hundred dollars or more (being generous there). ― Synpath 19:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:MEDCITE is only an essay, which says at the top "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors." and is not really relevant to a basic biochemistry article. --
- Synpath is correct. We do not need to add citations for obvious facts. Overcitation is a problem on Misplaced Pages because it makes articles difficult to read. Perhaps Z1720 could show us what bits of information he thinks should require citations by inserting tags after every bit of information in the introduction?
- The issue about which textbooks to use is also a problem. I'm a biochemistry textbook author so, as you might imagine, I have definite opinions about which textbooks are the best ones to cite. :-) Surely we don't want citations to four or five different textbooks after every sentence in the introduction?
- I marked the article with citation needed tags where I thought they were needed. Information only needs to be verified by one source, so that will solve the overcitation concern. The lead of the article doesn't need citations, per WP:LEADCITE, as the information is supposed to be the body of the article (and cited in the body). Z1720 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720 Thank-you for inserting those citation requests. I disagree with all of them but it helps focus the discussion. I don't think we need a citation when there's a link to another article that explains the topic. Genome42 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Genome42: Per WP:CIRC, Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a source and the reader should be able to verify the information in the protein article without going to another Misplaced Pages article to find the source the verifies it. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720 Gimme a break! The citation you want inserted is a textbook reference. How many readers have that particular textbook at hand in order to verify that "The field of bioinformatics is now indispensable for the analysis of genes and proteins" or that isopycnic centrifugation is a useful technique? There are times when Misplaced Pages's picayune rules get in the way of common sense. Genome42 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Genome42: Editors do not have to ensure that every reader has access to a source. Rather, the source has to verify the information if someone looks it up. If Misplaced Pages policies are against common sense, editors can propose changes at Misplaced Pages:Village pump. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Genome42: Editors do not have to ensure that every reader has access to a source. Rather, the source has to verify the information if someone looks it up. If Misplaced Pages policies are against common sense, editors can propose changes at Misplaced Pages:Village pump. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720 Gimme a break! The citation you want inserted is a textbook reference. How many readers have that particular textbook at hand in order to verify that "The field of bioinformatics is now indispensable for the analysis of genes and proteins" or that isopycnic centrifugation is a useful technique? There are times when Misplaced Pages's picayune rules get in the way of common sense. Genome42 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Genome42: Per WP:CIRC, Misplaced Pages cannot be used as a source and the reader should be able to verify the information in the protein article without going to another Misplaced Pages article to find the source the verifies it. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720 Thank-you for inserting those citation requests. I disagree with all of them but it helps focus the discussion. I don't think we need a citation when there's a link to another article that explains the topic. Genome42 (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I marked the article with citation needed tags where I thought they were needed. Information only needs to be verified by one source, so that will solve the overcitation concern. The lead of the article doesn't need citations, per WP:LEADCITE, as the information is supposed to be the body of the article (and cited in the body). Z1720 (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- The issue about which textbooks to use is also a problem. I'm a biochemistry textbook author so, as you might imagine, I have definite opinions about which textbooks are the best ones to cite. :-) Surely we don't want citations to four or five different textbooks after every sentence in the introduction?
Fantastic Four in film
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
- Result pending
This article contains numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. I am also concerned that this article might be mostly Misplaced Pages:Fancruft, with real-world information about its development or various studio rights underdeveloped. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd support this only for the reason that a new film and possibly film series about the Fantastic Four is coming out and this page will very fast become a magnet for multiple edits. Criteria #5 requires the article to be stable, which it will fail. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: It might be good to reevaluate when that happens but for now I think we should evaluate the article as it is today. Z1720 (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the edit history? 50 edits since September 26, maybe 4 have an edit summary. The article is in no way stable, again a criteria for GA. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Have you looked at the edit history? 50 edits since September 26, maybe 4 have an edit summary. The article is in no way stable, again a criteria for GA. Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: It might be good to reevaluate when that happens but for now I think we should evaluate the article as it is today. Z1720 (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
National Register of Historic Places
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
- Result pending
There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. The "History" section doesn't seem to have any information post-1996. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Wilsonville, Oregon
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
The "History" section ends in 2007, and I think more recent information should be included. The "Demographics" section is largely uncited and contains a lot of information about the 2000 and 2010 censuses. I think this section can be reduced and should be cited more effectively. The lead needs to be updated with the latest demographic information. There are some uncited statements in other areas of the article not indicated above. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as all of the issues have now been addressed due to the hardwork of various editors. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I added cn tags to a couple places in the article that still need citations. I suggest that the "History" section be broken up with Level 3 headings for readability. Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I added cn tags to a couple places in the article that still need citations. I suggest that the "History" section be broken up with Level 3 headings for readability. Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Melbourne Airport
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
This article has several uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. The "History" section does not give much information after 2006, which is surprising considering that many airports were affected by COVID-19 lockdowns. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Buenos Aires Underground
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
The article has some uncited passages throughout the article. The "Current fleet" has an "update needed" orange banner from October 2022 and its prose might be counter to MOS:CURRENCY. Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- On uncited passages: It doesn't look that bad at the moment. Can you tag stuff you think is problematic with citation needed?
- On "update needed": This issue is unimportant and not a reason to remove GA status. A top-level Misplaced Pages article on a topic like this is WP:NOT a railfan current fleet update, but rather a historical overview of the 100+ year history. Detailed information on the past few years would not be required even at the featured level. New_York_City_Subway#Rolling_stock stops in 2019 too and is a GA. (I suppose the update banner is a mild warning sign, but only in that it implies there weren't maintainers to simply remove such a banner.) SnowFire (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
United States constitutional criminal procedure
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
First of all, the content seems like a good contribution to free & shareable media. It seems competently written and is probably a great start for developing a GA-class article. Unfortunately there is a gigantic blocking issue here that means it really can't be a Misplaced Pages GA article as is: WP:PRIMARY, massive overdependence on primary sources, failing GA2b, referenced to reliable sources. Maybe this is the style for an article in a legal review journal, but it's not Misplaced Pages GA-class referencing style. Of the 179 references, 3 of them are to secondary sources, and 176 are to case law or the Constitution directly. Now, having case law citations "on the side" is fine and useful (whether integrated into citations like "Secondary source p. X, citing Devouard v Wales", or in a separate references group), but there needs to be sources to, say, the kind of textbooks law students in the US read. Citing case law directly is even worse than articles that are heavily reliant on, say, Herodotus; at least with classical-era writers, what they wrote is all we have to work with at times and clearly relevant even when wrong. But there are tens of thousands of modern case law decisions handed down, many of which are ignored as far as precedent, and others that are outright overturned. And others where the dissent is considered more controlling and cited! Citing these can potentially be very misleading. We need a secondary source to mediate which cases are considered relevant. If we're lucky, maybe the article doesn't have to change that much, but someone really does need to go check it against modern high-quality secondary sources and add in references to the secondary sources.
As a secondary concern... and this one is less pressing.. GA3A, broad in coverage. The references mostly peter out after 2012 or so. My understanding is that there has been some changes since due to the Roberts Court (e.g. weakening the exclusionary rule, which seems not to be discussed at all currently). Further, this article appears to be heavily set in the contemporary of ~2012. Maybe a new spinoff article needs to be created on "Evolution of United States constitutional criminal procedure" or the like, but the history of US law is relevant, too. What was procedure like in 1783-1955? That seems completely unexplored currently. So we need both updates on 2012-2024, and possibly some more acknowledgement of historical criminal procedure (even if this might be spun out into a new article). SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Bleeding Through
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
I have been aware of this article for some time, but have been reluctant to bring it forward to GAR. It is the last surviving music-related A-Class article, is a band I enjoy listening to, and for a while I believed I could save it. Alas, it has caught the attention of the community, and I believe that the time has come to restore it or delist.
When I was new to Misplaced Pages 10 years ago, this article was in good shape, and the band broke up only months into my time as a Wikipedian. Time has not treated the band's article kindly; they faded into obscurity while inactive, then regrouped and never really regained the spotlight, and consequently, proper care on Misplaced Pages. The GA nominator has been retired some 15 years.
The main concerns initially brought forward were lack of sourcing (2c), unreliable sourcing (2b), and a lead that's too short (1b). I personally that the article's breadth of coverage is suspect in its current state (3a), but the previous issues I would agree are the primary issues.
I believe this can be saved with some work, but I am probably too busy to do it alone in a reasonable amount of time, and would welcome any who are interested in assisting me. Also @Z1720: here we go. Sorry, been a very very very busy week. mftp dan 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Update: the prose in this article is, at times, less than satisfactory, but I am up to the task. mftp dan 22:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have made a significant improvement to the lead. It is not quite what I'd consider ideal, as I need to read the rest of the article, but I took some notes from the original GA version (yes, believe it or not that old piece of 2007 junk helped) and it's certainly not as bad before. mftp dan 00:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Delist. Not a fan of the overlong and confusing prose, and that line in lead about being a "band to watch" in 2004 really makes them look like a former hype band. I think it has the groundworks to become a good article (you could try speedrunning??) and has plenty of citations to work with, but as it is now, it's pretty bad. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was supposed to comment but accidently delisted it
Facepalm sorry // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- All good, I think (?) I reverted all the script edits that were made in light of the accident. Give me a week and let me see what I can do. I know it needs work, but I think I can handle it if I adjust my editing focus. If I can't get it by then, we can proceed to delist. mftp dan 15:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Chchcheckit: Do you remember when we worked together on Until the End (Kittie album) and there was a really old reference I couldn't make display anything, and then you did something to fix it? How did you do that? There's a very very old reference from the band's original label in here, and it's a longshot but I'd like to ask if you remember what you did. Worth a shot. mftp dan 01:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which one Chchcheckit (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Remember when you changed Metal Exiles to make it appear different? I never really figured out how you did what you did, and on the offchance of a miracle I hoped I could do whatever that was here. mftp dan 02:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, do you think we could extend this if I keep up my efforts? Progress is going steady this week, but I have to be realistic about my work schedule. I think I'd probably only need until midweek next week at the absolute worst. mftp dan 03:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- No I mean link the source Chchcheckit (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh the one in this article? I was wondering if there was any way we could make this show anything of value. Evidently it did some 17 years ago. mftp dan 16:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that can be fixed. The difference was a separate URL copy/print version with Metal Exiles, whereas this is just borked in general. // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh the one in this article? I was wondering if there was any way we could make this show anything of value. Evidently it did some 17 years ago. mftp dan 16:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- No I mean link the source Chchcheckit (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, do you think we could extend this if I keep up my efforts? Progress is going steady this week, but I have to be realistic about my work schedule. I think I'd probably only need until midweek next week at the absolute worst. mftp dan 03:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Remember when you changed Metal Exiles to make it appear different? I never really figured out how you did what you did, and on the offchance of a miracle I hoped I could do whatever that was here. mftp dan 02:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Which one Chchcheckit (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Chchcheckit: Do you remember when we worked together on Until the End (Kittie album) and there was a really old reference I couldn't make display anything, and then you did something to fix it? How did you do that? There's a very very old reference from the band's original label in here, and it's a longshot but I'd like to ask if you remember what you did. Worth a shot. mftp dan 01:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- All good, I think (?) I reverted all the script edits that were made in light of the accident. Give me a week and let me see what I can do. I know it needs work, but I think I can handle it if I adjust my editing focus. If I can't get it by then, we can proceed to delist. mftp dan 15:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will finish copyediting this today and start looking for sourcing fixes; if I am unable to turn anything over for the early section we might have no choice but to delist, but I'm not giving up hope. mftp dan 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Update: let it be known I was working on this last night when my PC decided to give me the ol' "fuck you" and I lost all my work. I gave up for the night at that point. I'm rather busy today but hope to address it in the evening. I know this is dragging on a bit, but I still think this is salvageable. mftp dan 15:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Update: let it be known I was working on this last night when my PC decided to give me the ol' "fuck you" and I lost all my work. I gave up for the night at that point. I'm rather busy today but hope to address it in the evening. I know this is dragging on a bit, but I still think this is salvageable. mftp dan 15:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Boron
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
Uncited text, including an entire section. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. When I checked I found two sections, #Boranes and #Organoboron chemistry without sources. However, both have "Main" or "See also" which is a place where there are probably a few sources. I think a post to WT:Chemistry is appropriate, plus perhaps a little tagging to make it clearer what the concerns are. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ldm1954, an article with GA status is required to have all the sources in the article. Otherwise, you could have an entirely unsourced article with lots of "Main" or "see also" links and none of the article's content actually verified. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I posted to WT:Chemistry (the right Project, it seems they were not notified on the talk page), and it looks like @Plantsurfer, Preimage, and Smokefoot: are making edits. I will defer to them to respond to any concerns @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29 have. I have only done a few GA (both sides), they are not as bad as applying for tenure, but there are similarities. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ldm1954: Thanks for doing that. Feel free to ping me when this is ready for another review, or if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I posted to WT:Chemistry (the right Project, it seems they were not notified on the talk page), and it looks like @Plantsurfer, Preimage, and Smokefoot: are making edits. I will defer to them to respond to any concerns @Z1720 and @AirshipJungleman29 have. I have only done a few GA (both sides), they are not as bad as applying for tenure, but there are similarities. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ldm1954, an article with GA status is required to have all the sources in the article. Otherwise, you could have an entirely unsourced article with lots of "Main" or "see also" links and none of the article's content actually verified. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Smokefoot, thanks for your excellent work improving this article. Some uncited material remains; do you intend to take care of that? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Khandoba
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:" section is a list without context. What is this, and why is it important? The lead is quite short, and doesn't address all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Z1720 for pointing it out. Over time, various users have added uncited text in the article. Will cleanup Have removed the uncited section "Khandoba's actual visit and temples:", which seemed as a random list of temples. However, most of the article is still cited.
- Will rewrite the lead. Redtigerxyz 12:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Z1720, have cleaned up the uncited text. About the lead, IMHO it covers major aspects. However, welcome to hear suggestions about which sections need to be covered in more detail. Redtigerxyz 17:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Redtigerxyz: The lead looks a lot better with the expanded text. I added two "citation needed" tags: these need to be resolved. There's also a lot of sources listed in "Further reading": does the article address the main aspects of the subject, or can these sources be used to add information on a major aspect? Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redtigerxyz do you intend to continue improving the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redtigerxyz do you intend to continue improving the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Redtigerxyz: The lead looks a lot better with the expanded text. I added two "citation needed" tags: these need to be resolved. There's also a lot of sources listed in "Further reading": does the article address the main aspects of the subject, or can these sources be used to add information on a major aspect? Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Subpages • Category:Good article reassessment nominees • Good article cleanup listing
Category: