Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 85

ArchiveThis is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← (Page 84)Good article reassessment (archive)(Page 86) →

Astrology

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure

Extended content
Wound theology: I don't see any advance notice of this GAR on Talk:Astrology? The normal procedure is to state one's concerns on the talk page, and if there's no (satisfactory) response, to proceed to GAR. I suggest this GAR should be withdrawn now, so we can discuss the matter on the talk page first. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the archives; I previously brought up certain issues (the theological viewpoints, in particular) and even flagged it with a disclaimer as being unbalanced. It was ignored and the template was eventually removed because no one else seemed to care. wound theology◈ 09:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was well done, and I see you've made some helpful additions to the article recently as well. But neither of those things constitute putting a notice on the talk page that you're considering a GAR, in the week before you do so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: The edit in which I added the Template:POV is here and the previous "discussion" is at Talk:Astrology/Archive 36#Theological viewpoints. Note that the edit in which VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) removed the template has an inaccurate summary, stating there has been consensus for "over a year" -- I did explain to her here that a lack of discussion is an example of WP:NOCON rather than the opposite. wound theology◈ 09:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find "GAR" anywhere in that archive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest: I was just following Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines, which is the first search result for me. That page only says to[c]onsider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors. Unless there is some hard-and-fast policy like the WP:3RR about talk page discussion about a GAR specifically, I think the problems on this page are serious enough to warrant a reassessment. The page is largely the accretion of several slow-burn edit wars and POV-pushing from both sides in the ten years (!) since it was elevated to GA status, and from my own personal experience editing the page -- not many are willing to give the proper historical context needed here. The fact that a cleanup template could stay up for over a year and then be quietly removed for a lack of discussion is evidence enough of that. wound theology◈ 09:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, GAR it is then. Let's proceed to technical discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Much has been changed and argued about since this page was promoted a decade ago. In general it is unbalanced and skewed -- not in the WP:FRINGE sense but in that it tends to ignore how widespread astrology was in ancient and medieval times, and seems to misrepresent the work of ancient philosophical skeptics (who rejected all philosophical and scientific inquiry.) The "Theological viewpoints" section, likewise, implies that astrology was historically rejected in both Islam and Christianity, despite the fact that the exact opposite is true. wound theology◈ 08:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a comment about content; reviewing the six GA criteria, the only one near it is Neutrality, but the page is studiously neutral, despite much added-and-reverted partisan editing. Instead, your remarks about "ancient philosophical skeptics (who rejected all philosophical and scientific inquiry.)" and "Theological viewpoints" (Islam and Christianity) are both matters of historical detail, which can be fixed simply by adding a bit more detail in both cases. I suspect you have historical texts to hand which could fix both matters quite easily? I'll be happy to support you in getting such materials into the article, but I see that as normal development, nothing to do with neutrality (basically, just fine adjustment).
As for your remark about "how widespread astrology was in ancient and medieval times", I'd say (looking at the article after a long interval), that it does quite a good job of indicating the topic's importance in those eras, giving substantial weight in a detailed 'History' chapter to this aspect. That does not mean we can't add more detail, and I suggest we do, to satisfy your concerns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is eitherNeutral nor sufficientlyBroad in its coverage. The single largest section in this page is dedicated to the reception of astrology in the hard sciences, which dwarfs the comparatively tiny section on the principles and practice of astrology -- which covers three entire civilizations in less space than it takes to debunk the particular claims of modern horoscopic astrology. Elsewhere, significant weight is given to skeptical opinions in historical contexts, and even those viewpoints are presented in a very skewed manner -- the description of Plotinus as a critic of astrology without discussion of his very complex astrological views is heinous, in my view (see Adamson, "Plotinus on Astrology" in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35 for context on that issue.) Giving even broad coverage to theTheological viewpoints section is, to put it simply, a Herculean task -- it is a massively complex topic spanning centuries and dozens of particular schools and opinions, practically none of which can be given a single "pro" or "contra" summary; exactly why I find the lack of interest in expanding that section particularly telling. wound theology◈ 10:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't find anything "particularly telling": my view is that our job on Wikipedia in a top-level overview-of-a-major-topic article is to give a very brief summary of many large and complex issues in a small space. I'm happy to help you extend the history, as long as it doesn't overwhelm the article; any further detail would go into subsidiary articles on Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology (substantial articles, which we certainly can't and shouldn't try to duplicate here), etc.
With respect, we are very far from falling foul of either GACR Neutrality or Breadth criteria here: the article gives what many readers will find a surprising amount of detail on ancient matters. However, I'm very happy to accept your steer towards additional materials (possibly by asking you to email me a photocopy). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a brief statement about the ancient skeptics challenging everything: it's a bit of an iffy thing to do in an article as philosophers and others leap gleefully on anything with a "forall" in it, and it's close to being off-topic too, but it may help to answer your first concern (which I really don't see as misrepresentation at all: the article just says "A says x", which does not imply "A does not say y", specially as "y" is outside the article's scope). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence on Plotinus from Adamson, mentioning his interest and two key concerns identified by Adamson. If there are further points on other ancient figures you'd like added, please identify them and I'll add them to the article (unless you feel like doing so yourself). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for keeping

  • Keep: 1) the article is studiously neutral, covering multiple points of view and giving equal weight to history, principles and practice, theology, science, and culture, and has been edited and debated by many editors; and 2) the article offers detailed and balanced coverage of a very large subject in the space of a single overview article (in "summary style" with "main" links to subsidiary articles). In particular, this one article cannot and must not attempt to cover every detail of everything that the more than 60 astrology articles on Wikipedia cover already: as sketched in the tree diagram below, this article is at the top of a substantial hierarchy of articles, and its job is to give new readers a compact overview of the field: which it does. Accordingly, it is a valid Good Article and should be kept as such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Astrology
over 60 subtopics
covered in subsidiary articles
and 3) the sources have been tidied up (moved inline) for simplicity and ease of maintenance, given the many new editors who visit here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: how shall I retract the reassessment? I don't think my original critique holds anymore. wound theology◈ 08:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just say so boldly here. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mathematical economics

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. While some prose is used to explain the mathematical formulas, and thus citations might not be required, other uncited prose is not used for that purpose, and thus needs to be cited. Some sections have an overreliance on quotes, which cause copyright concerns and are not summaries of the information. This includes the "Adequacy of mathematics for qualitative and complicated economics" and "Mathematical economics as a form of pure mathematics" sections. Ref 128 and 129 seem to be blogs. Are these reliable sources, or should they be replaced? Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Przemysł II

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the relevant criteria is "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged.... must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". IMO concerns should be expressed in that context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Content in good articles need to be cited. I am happy to add citation needed templates if requested, but there are some citation needed tags from 2018 that are unresolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not arguing either way, just for a clearly expressed-concern that uses the criteria as a guide. And so an uncited statement per se is not a violation. On another note, an unresolved CN tag is a whole different different thing than the general thoughts expressed here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do in terms of sourcing, but no promises. Regards, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found one source that partially supports the statement but I don't know about the rest. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Piotrus and @HełmPolski: Can either of you help? I'm sorry, I'm kind of grasping at straws here. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping folks more familiar with that history period active on en wiki: @Merangs @Volunteer Marek @Orczar Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: &@Grumpylawnchair: – I can try to fill the sections where the 'citations needed' notes are present in the text. Is there anything else that requires addressing? On a personal note, I think the footnotes/citations in the lead section make it very untidy and any referenced information there should already be in the body of the article. Merangs (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uncited statements are the entire basis of this GAR. I could help you tidy up the lead if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: On that note, the notes should probably be put in their own notelist instead of the reflist since it is unwieldy. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notes and refs should not be mixed, good point. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: & @Grumpylawnchair: – Just wanted to let you know that I was able to locate and place sources for the uncited passages in the article. Merangs (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs: Thank you very much! I'll take care of separating the notes from the refs. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: The article probably needs a good copyedit (maybe someone should place a request to the Guild of Copyeditors), especially the footnotes, and a lot of the info in the footnotes can be moved into the prose. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: @Merangs: @HełmPolski: Honestly, some of the sources need replacing. Polskie Radio, while usually reliable, is not a good source for a history article. The sources to news articles should ideally be replaced. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a copyedit, I would ping @Nihil novi, although I am not sure if they'd be interested in this topic. My skills are not a good match for this particular problem. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to take a look, but it seems you've resolved the issue :) HełmPolski (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Merangs, Piotrus, Grumpylawnchair, and HełmPolski: there is still uncited material throughout the article, if any of you are up for referencing it inline? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Concerns addressed and resolved. No other concerns with the article noted. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review Section

(Taken from my points on the main talk page of the article)

This article hasn't been assessed for GA article status since 2008. Having expanded and the standards for GA having risen since then, I feel that the time is right for this article to be assessed to see if this article still meets the criteria. In the meantime, here are some things that I have noted so far.

  • The lead has no information on the game's development despite there being ample enough info to include.
  • The lead doesn't do a good job at illustrating the gameplay and plot.
  • Gameplay section is seemingly very messy -
    • It goes into seemingly too much detail about the game's enemies.
    • On top of that, it mentions the games endings in too much detail for something that should probably be reserved for the plot section.
    • The "Alternate Modes" and "Nintendo Wi-Fi" subsections aren't necessary as their contents can seemingly be shortened and added to the main section with no real issue.
    • Alternate Modes subsection has a majority of it in bullet points. Need I say more.
  • The plot section is too long and somewhat messy in writing in places.
  • The development section is decently well written, but there is a citation needed symbol and the Audio subsection feels sort of iffy to me.
  • Reception section might need to be rewritten. Definitely work in or remove the final line of the section though as it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the text in the section.
  • Some References, such as the Brady Games strategy guide, seem unfit for this article. Also, one of the sources isn't formatted properly.

Any additional points to be addressed are very much appreciated COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More points can be added here once a week of no commentary occurs on the main talk page.
@CooperCool23: I agree with most of your review. Here are some points that I have a different opinion about or questions for clarification:
  • The existence of the subsections seem appropriate based on what I remember of the coverage. Though I do conceded that if they are condensed, a smaller amount of prose wouldn't warrant a subsection. I guess wait and see until after changes are made.
  • Why is the Brady Game strategy guide unfit? It's an official guide made in collaboration with Konami, the developer, and is being used to source gameplay. Also, any other sources you feel are unfit?
  • I fixed the Nintendo Power source with the missing information.
I'll see how much I can help out with and start making edits as time allows. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@Guyinblack25 in regards to your comment about sources, I didn't know that official strategy guides could be used when citing gameplay so that is my fault. That, and I think I was just skimming through the list of references in the article and thought that I saw ones that were out of place (I think I also mistook that the "official" in the Brady Games source wasn't there...some how (don't ask)). I have now also done and double checked all the sources together with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and the article and can now say for certain that none of the sources seem to be unfit or unreliable for the article. Hope that clears some things up. COOPER COOL 23 user page 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👍 (Guyinblack25 talk 22:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Starting a discussion about the cover art caption to avoid back and forth reverts. I've seen that trend before and always change it because it is outside Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, image captions do not have to be short and should not be so short that they omit useful information to the reader. The term the MoS uses is "succinct", which means don't use ten words when five or six will do.

  • "Succinctness is using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as brevity, which is using a relatively small number of words. Succinct captions have more power than verbose ones."

Other points in the MoS that apply here are

  • "The caption should lead the reader into the article."
  • "While a short caption is often appropriate, if it might be seen as trivial (People playing Monopoly), consider extending it so that it adds value to the image and is related more logically to the surrounding text (A product of the Great Depression, Monopoly continues to be played today.)."
  • The special situation section of that MoS (MOS:CAPLENGTH) includes a video game cover as an example of a full-sentence caption in the infobox, citing Bioshock Infinite: "BioShock Infinite gives an example of an informative yet brief full-sentence caption describing the key element (the singular protagonist) depicted and its relationship to the article's subject."

While I agree the caption itself does not need to mention that the characters are new to the series, this is the only visual information in the article that depicts what the two characters (who are mentioned prominently) look like as the screenshot uses only tiny pixel sprites. Identifying them by name and connecting that to visual information helps most readers process and retain information. Basically, treating the caption as only a label is a missed opportunity to enrich the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Update - there are some places that could use some polish and there are probably a few more rabbit holes I could dive into for content, but I'm basically done with my improvements. If someone could review/copy edit the whole article, that would be helpful. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@CooperCool23: checking in to see if the improvements are sufficient to close the GAR. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]
@Guyinblack25: Most of what I majorly disliked about the article has been fixed and all the sources seem to be formatted properly. I'm willing to say that the GAR can be closed now. COOPER COOL 23 user page 02:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brian's Got a Brand New Bag

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. charlotte 👸♥ 03:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an "Original research" banner at the top of the uncited "Cultural references" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed them as they were added in 2017 when the article was already a GA. @Kaliforniyka: Since you added them, would you like to add it back but with sources? Otherwise, I think it is best just keeping it out. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Archuleta

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been at GA status for over 16 years and hasn't been reassessed since. There are a some issues that should be looked at if this article is to remain at GA status.

I brought these up at the talk page a week ago but I don't think anyone is watching.

Some issues I noticed:

  • The latter section of the Career section is very poor. Most of the more recent stuff (last 10 years) reads as a WP:PROSELINE list of chronological events that has been assembled piecemeal instead of written as proper prose. (WP:GACR6 #1)
  • Some of the paragraphs are very short - some only two short sentences long. These should probably be restructured to be more substantial. (WP:GACR6 #1)
  • There are a few citation needed tags (and other tags) interspersed throughout the article, once again mostly in the latter part of the article. (WP:GACR6 #2)
  • Not particularly a GA issue, but in general the citations in the lead & in the infobox should be moved into the body of the article (MOS:INFOBOXCITE, MOS:LEADCITE)
  • It doesn't look like there are any citations at all for the Performances table (WP:GACR6 #2)
  • The Filmography section is also missing many citations. (WP:GACR6 #2)

RachelTensions (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Honiara

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. The "Administrative divisions" table should be updated with the latest population figures. Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was only thinking that yesterday! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chrysler 180

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Concerns resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple uncited statements, some tagged as such since March 2023. While some work has been done to rectify this, the work seems to have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I think I have resolved your concerns. Cos (X + Z) 21:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christine Hakim

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Awards" and "Filmography" sections have "unsourced" banners from 2022. The "Biography" section has numerous paragraphs, and should probably be broken up with level 3 headings. The lead does not have post-2011 information and events in it. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak interaction

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page had concerns about the article's quality posted 3 months ago, mainly about numerous uncited statements. This is still an issue three months later so I'm nominating it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Onegreatjoke I must strongly disagree with the statement "concerns about the article's quality posted 3 months ago" used here. What is in the talk page comment is mention of some paragraphs without sources, and the lead being an incomplete description. Similar to an AfD discussion, that is not the strongest argument. A topic such as Weak interaction is almost impossible to summarize in a simple lead, it is too large and complex. Also, looking quickly, many of the unsourced paragraphs are connective or introductory. Maybe someone will add some sources, I am not qualified to even though I have a physics background. I suspect that many potential editors will be put of by the abrupt nature of this nomination and a lack of detailed physics-based analysis of the issues. While it is easy to count sources/paragraph, I don't think that is high level analysis, sorry. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still some statements that seem to be uncited regardless of whether they're connective or introductory. Plus, the GA guidelines state "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)", so these will need to be cited regardless. I'm not sure if the lead is an issue but i feel that the citation of the article still requires work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I agree with Onegreatjoke that there are citation issues. I also think the lead needs to be expanded to cover all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ontario Highway 33

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blackdown Hills

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jodrell Bank Observatory

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steve Irwin

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is an orange "expansion needed" banner from December 2024 Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I updated the citations in the early life section and reworked it a bit.

I will do more soon as the article needs some work. Idiosincrático (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alfred Hitchcock

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some uncited statements and verification needed tags. The article is not concise and is considered WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that some information be moved to other articles or removed if unencyclopedic. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Darian Durant

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's uncited parargaphs throughout the article. There is a lot of MOS:OVERSECTION, and I think some of these sections can be considered to be merged together. The lead is too short and does not mention all aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, this is better sourced than it was when it was originally promoted. There are a few non-controversial paragraphs near the start that have never had citations; if that’s the issue, we can work on it. Lastly, there are about a half dozen tags that have crept in over the last 3-4 years when someone has added something that’s either uncited, poorly cited, miscited, etc. I’ve been hesitant to strike those totally though because I don’t want to WP:OWN the article, but if those are the issue then I can certainly strike them, no big deal. Trevdna (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trevdna: If an editor couldn't find a reliable source to support a claim, I would removing the information. If you are still unsure, you can always remove the information and open a discussion on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ll go through and either remove or find citations for statements that are currently uncited or that have tags on them. Give me a couple of days. Trevdna (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I actually got some time to go through and handle these right now. (Decided to just do it and keep it off my to-do list.) How does the article look to you as it currently stands?
Note that per my understanding of MOS:LEADCITE, few if any citations are required in the lead section, as it summarizes content that is properly cited elsewhere in the article. But let me know what your thoughts on it are. Some citations are present for items that, in the original editor's judgement, may have been controversial or challenged, or I guess where they thought that having a citation specific to that statement was just a good idea. Trevdna (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations only need to be in the lead under specific circumstances (like quoting someone) but usually they are not needed and should be removed. The information in the lead should also be in the article body. I have added "citation needed" tags to various locations that need citations. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think that should do it. All the items you tagged have now been addressed. And all citations have been removed from the article lead, one way or another. Let me know what you think. Trevdna (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Freemasonry

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements in the article. There is an "unreliable sources" orange banner at the top of "Islam and Freemasonry" section. Is this still valid? Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s tricky… The sources cited in that section are reliable as primary sources for verifying what Islamic critics of Freemasonry claim about the fraternity… they are not reliable as secondary sources for saying that these claims are in any way accurate. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of secondary sources relaying what they say, they shouldn't be included at all, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

29th Infantry Division (United States)

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot uncited statements, including several large paragraphs, in the article. There are unreliable sources in the article, such as GlobalSecurity, IMDB, and "Hobie" (a blogspot). Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

24: The Game

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are "citation needed" tags since 2016, as well as uncited statements that are not tagged. There is a yellow "encyclopedic tone" banner at the top of the review section. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mes courants électriques

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Speedily delisted as an inadequate review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly evaluated article where there are multiple CS1 citation errors present, and several sources used—including Discogs—do not meet the reliability standards outlined at WP:RS. Additionally, there are formatting and MOS issues that suggest the article was not thoroughly reviewed during its GA nomination. The original review mostly describes the article as "good" or "well-written" without providing in-depth feedback or demonstrating engagement with the full GA criteria. I suspect that both accounts involved in the GA review are socking. Other GAs related to this include Gourmandises and "J'en ai marre!" for reassessment. Cattos💭 23:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

J'en ai marre!

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Inadequate review, speedily delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same issues as Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mes courants électriques/1. Cattos💭 23:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist: To start, I share your suspicions regarding sockpuppeting in this case given that the review given by 7n3 here seems eerily similar in format to the one given by Ieslie here, but I digress. In general, I like to check whether or not the song's genres are sourced as a baseline check, and in this case they are both attributed to Discogs, which both is not a reliable source and does not even reflect the genres presently listed in the article. In addition, the lyrical meaning in the lead is uncited, a variety of the references have errors, and the 'Live performances' section is entirely made up of YouTube links which violates both WP:RSPYT and WP:OR. The synopsis of the music video is also copied almost word-to-word from the IMDB page, though I am not sure whether or not this is a copyright violation since it is possible that someone copied it from Wikipedia to IMDB; in any case, such a citation violates WP:IMDB. In short: lots of issues, based decision to bring this to GAR. Leafy46 (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stan Marsh

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could have violated WP:NPOV and has a lack of cites on some sentences. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 23:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give examples of how it violates NPOV as from a quick glance I have not noticed it? Also, can you please give examples of sentences needing cites to help people wanting to improve the article? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedoxm: saying "could have violated" makes you seem unsure of there actually being NPOV violations, and every single paragraph is sourced (not every sentence needs to be sourced), so i'm leaning towards a keep until there are actually problems pointed out. 750h+ 08:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All links fixed! LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vampire folklore by region

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire sections. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article came about after being excised from the (large) parent article. Been ages since I looked at it - will do so at some point this week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Casliber do you still intend to work on this article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A few bits and pieces (citing or removing the Cambodia section, also pondering about what to do with the Folktales section at bottom) and rejigging the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, follow up poke, just checking you're still interested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Will do over weekend. I have commented out unreferenced section as I suspect it will require more snooping than I am prepared to do currently - I'll make a note on the talk page for later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't seen any activity since December apart from one section being commented out, I'm inclined to close as delist unless someone intends to make improvements soon or there's a consensus to keep. Potentially this could be kept by excising the remaining unsourced material. @Casliber and AirshipJungleman29:, any thoughts? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had commented out the main chunk of material (I thought all of it...??? Oh, found and removed some more). The outstanding issue was rejigging the lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not too sure what to do about the lead. Is a little small but as much of the article is quite listy in its content, it'd be making a mini-list in lead, which I don't think is that helpful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure how to evaluate the broadness of this article. The article states that "the entity known today as the vampire originates almost exclusively from early 18th-century Central Europe", but the article body seems to extend the article to... anything that drinks blood? If the focus is the 18th-century mythology, then the continental division doesn't feel like it makes much sense. If the focus is anything drinking blood, or similar, then the balance between the sections seems very off (even then continental division seems unlikely to be related to vampires, but taking it as a rough category is probably fine). CMD (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific - I see one overtly problematic paragraph (second paragraph of Sovietization), what other ones are of concern? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I have added citation needed tags where they are needed. Z1720 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making some progress with the uncited sections, will keep working on it, I'll need four or five days. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned with the broadness of this page. This is a polity of 70 years, but little is covered outside of History. I don't think a Geography section is needed given it would likely replicate current Armenia, but there should be coverage of the population and culture. Perhaps the article could have more on the raions and cities, and more on the economy and infrastructure. This was surely a time of huge change. Lastly, should there be an extended paragraph on the flag based only on the Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev? CMD (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is this is a page that will predominantly need to reflect a specific historical period and politics, population and culture will to a large extent be subsumed into that (for example, note the religious aspects discussed during the Thaw section). However, will try to address some of these issues. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Other aspects should not be subsumed under History on this article, that would only be the case for a dedicated History article (currently there is not one). As a comparison, consider East Germany. A much broader coverage of politics, administration, economics, demographics, and culture, as well as a Legacy section, possibly relevant here too. CMD (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW WP:SIZERULE; the DDR article is somewhat bloated. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we may need to quick fail/delist this. I'm seeing some sections which appear to be close paraphrasing of "A concise history of the Armenian people: (from ancient times to the present)" by George A Bournoutian. The text previously referenced was the 5th edition, however I accessed the 2nd edition at the archive.org library, and this shows sections which have been simply reordered. I'll need to do a full check. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The DDR article is long because of its 4,000 word History section, this has little bearing on the rest of the sections. That's also more GACR3b, not GACR3a, which is the issue here. Thanks for the copyvio note, that's a rough find. I don't seem to have access at archive.org. Looking at early revisions, the 2006 version was initially cited[1]. CMD (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, RL has delayed me on this, will be able to review the close paraphrasing within 48 hours. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Goldsztajn, did you ever get a chance to review the potential WP:CLOP? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29 Apologies, March turned out to be busier than expected both here and in RL. Give me another day, please. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any updates Goldsztajn? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @AirshipJungleman29 - apologies (again) for the delay. I've finally managed to go through the text more fully. As far as I can see, the first two paragraphs in the section "Khrushchev Thaw in Armenia" more or less paraphrase p.322 of George Bournoutian's A concise history of the Armenian people (2003). However, the I think the text in the body is sufficiently different. For example:
    • Bournoutian: "Stalin's death in 1953 opened a new era for Armenia and the rest of the Soviet Union. The first step towards this was to remove the pervasive control of the secret police."
    • Article: "Armenia underwent significant social and cultural changed in the aftermath of Stalin's death in 1953 ... During the subsequent Khrushchev Thaw Soviet leadership loosened the grip of the pervasive NKVD."
    • Bournoutian: "and rehabilitated dead communists executed during the Great Purge, such as Khanjian and Charents, as well as the releasing thousands political prisoners from the Siberian gulag. The works of Raffi and Raphael Patkanian were returned to print. In 1962, the massive statue of Stalin that towered over Yerevan was pulled down from its pedestal by troops and replaced in 1967 with that of Mother Armenia."
    • Article: "...enabled the rehabilitation of dead communists such as Khanjian and Charents, the release of thousands from the Siberian gulag, and the republication of Raffi and Patkanian. Stalin’s body was removed from Lenin’s tomb on Red Square; his large statue in Armenia was toppled and eventually replaced by one of Mother Armenia."
    • Bournoutian: "Khrushchev's changes in the economic sector were significant for Armenia as well. Large collective farms were divided into smaller ones. Armenia was permitted to plant other crops besides grain. Tobacco, vegetables, grapes and other fruits, more suitable to Armenia's soil and climate were planted."
    • Article: "Moreover, the Union-wide economic reforms affected Armenia, diversifying its grain production, farmers were permitted to cultivate small plots for their own personal use, and the newly-integrated production of livestock and various irrigation projects increased Armenia's agricultural output." (This is cited to Bournoutian).
    Goldsztajn (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a pass wielding the "Armenian concise history" book—added citation, expanded, shuffled info, etc. Only one citation-less paragraph remains, a list of Armenian people from 20th century who defined certain period of Soviet Armenia, but I have a feeling it's just a list of successful people from 20th century Armenia who have a wiki pages, and a wiki editor loosely connected them. Since they are popular and sucessful figures, it can be assumed that they are a part of Soviet Armenia zeitgeist, but the concise history and google didn't produce anything remotely useful to prove it. I would delete it. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Feminism

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. When the article was first promoted to GA status, it was about 6200 words. It is now over 10,000 words, and WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out articles of that size. Is there any information in the article that can be spun out or stated with less words, to make this article more concise? The "Demographics" section seems to end at 2016. Are there more up-to-date statistics? Z1720 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article already makes abundant use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and I am impressed that such a general article comes in at only 10,425 words, which is perfectly in accord with WP:TOOBIG. I have reviewed the article and tagged every instance of a missing citation. Since none of the statements are controversial, I expect editors will fill them in now that they have been flagged. Demotion seems unwarranted and nonproductive. Patrick (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Patrick Welsh: I have added additional citation needed tags. The GA criteria states "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph". The numerous citation needed tags (including for entire paragraphs and quotes) and the "additional citations needed" orange banners will need to be resolved before I can recommend that this article keeps its GA status. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you would add those redundant tags, which make the article look messier that it is.
    As long as the unsupported content is uncontroversial, which it is, I will remain opposed.
    Placing an artificial deadline on editors to make these improvements seems counter-productive. Patrick (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TOOBIG isn't a hard rule; note that it says "> 9,000 words – Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." (emphasis mine) I think a general article about feminism should be on the larger side, and 10,000ish words isn't an exhausting length. The citation issues aren't major and can be remedied easily, eventually. Yue🌙 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earth, one of the biggest scopes on Wikipedia, is under 9,000 words, so spinning off prose can be done. In my opinion, an article should be concise and spin out material into daughter articles instead of long, hard to load on slow internet connections, and have too much detail that distracts from the most important information. None of this negates the citation concerns which still exist in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
80% of the feminist theory content of the page could be removed, and the page would lose nothing in terms of detailing what exactly feminism is. After a talk page discussion, I once removed an entire subsection on "architectural feminism" that was based on a single article from a feminist journal. If you Googled the subject, all that it returned was the Wikipedia page and the article itself. This is what I'm talking about: this article has chronic issues with detailed descriptions of incredibly minor topics, in this case one so minor it couldn't even warrant its own article. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article has had serious length and POV problems for years now. The article received GA status in 2011, just before the advent of "4th wave" feminism, when feminism itself was significantly narrower in scope. The anachronistic issues that once plagued this article have mostly been addressed, but length issues are still present.
Feminism today has become something personal for many people, which I think is the source of the POV and length issues. I honestly believe the only reason this article has maintained GA status for so long despite its glaring issues is that feminist editors see delisting it as an attack on feminism itself. Because of that, I doubt it will ever be delisted, even though it hasn't deserved GA status for nearly ten years. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the POV issues? Patrick (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it stands for Point Of View issues. Basically using too many pronouns like "I," or "you," or including opinions. 66.110.254.14 (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. Thanks! The policy is WP:NPOV.
My inquiry was intended to be about specific violations in this article, which should be addressed if they are based on high-quality sources, but disregarded if they are one editor's problem with the topic. Patrick (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, we generally use "keep" or "delist" at GAR. It can be confusing to say "support" or "oppose" because it isn't clear if that means you're supporting or opposing the delisting or the keeping of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, especially in the "Gameplay" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Zxcvbnm: It's sometimes not as simple as reverting the text: if an editor has added cited text to the article, reverting to an older edit might erase that additional information, so all of the text has to be checked to see if it should be in the article. There's still some uncited text: any interest in fixing this concern in the article? Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added most of the remaining cites (two are left). One for the health and shield bars, which can be cited to an guide, but heard somewhere that it's not the best source; couldn't find anything better. Regarding the online I only found articles that said the publisher (that re-released the game in 2019) hoped the online would increase, but no reporting on the results of the hopes. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alan Dale

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. The article doesn't have much post-2011 information in the prose. There is a "more sources needed" orange banner on top of the "Filmography" section. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the lead, which it appears someone deleted for some reason. Will try and have a look at the career section soon. Gran2 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still need to find a few more sources for the filmography, but I think overall the article is in much better shape now. Gran2 18:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing concerns seem to be resolved. Concerned that "What's Alan Watching?", "WhatCulture" and "BroadwayWorld.com" are used as sources: are these reliable source or should they be replaced? @Gran2: for their opinion. Z1720 (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced all three. Gran2 19:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gran2: Thanks Gran2. I found two more unreliable sources: Internet Movie Database (ref 64) and filmreference.com (ref 65). These should also be replaced. Once this is complete I think I can declare "keep" Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both replaced/removed. Gran2 18:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Klamath River

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Are you thinking of the lede? Or the "Indigenous people" section? Overall, the article seems very well-sourced to me. It would help if you could sprinkle {{cn}} where you think the article is lacking. — hike395 (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hike395: I have added the cn tags. It was mostly in the "Indigenous people" section, although there was other prose that also needed citations. This is to fulfil the GA criteria requirement that "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)". The lead usually does not require citations. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look and fix the missing citations. I agree that the "indigenous people" section isn't up to snuff. — hike395 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have fixed all of the missing citations, mostly by removing off-topic uncited material. I also tidied up the article by moving material into the "indigenous people" section, and also using {{harvnb}}. — hike395 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mario Kart Wii

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

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly reviewed article + Zero spot checks + The prose doesn't read good, especially the reception section. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_85&oldid=1289248379"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 85, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.